Sitting of 3 February 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BOURNEMOUTH-SWANAGE MOTOR ROAD AND FERRY BILL
      SHEFFIELD ASSAY OFFICE BILL
        FEDERATION OF STREET TRADERS UNION (LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1990) (AMENDMENT) BILL

          UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL
          Orders for Second Reading read.
          To be read a Second time upon Thursday 10 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Marginal Tax Rates
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the changes in marginal tax rates since 1979 on incentives.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Cutting tax rates has improved incentives at all levels and has contributed to the improved economic performance of the country since 1979.
    Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in 1979 the top 10 per cent. of income tax payers contributed 34 per cent. of the total income tax take, but by 1992 that had risen to 45 per cent? Is not that the most graphic demonstration that the policies of successive Conservative Governments, in cutting direct tax levels, have dramatically improved the incentive to work and at the same time dramatically reduced incentives to avoid paying taxes?
    Mr. Clarke: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. In 1979, the top rate on so-called unearned income was 98 per cent. and the top rate on earned income was 83 per cent. Those penal rates drove people into tax evasion and drove them abroad. We now ensure, by rates that give greater incentive, that the better-off contribute more to the total tax revenues.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell the real truth about what has happened since 1979? We have finished up with a £50 billion public sector borrowing requirement, we have a balance of payments deficit of well over £10 billion and likely to rise next year, we have 4 million people on the dole and now the Government have the gall to call upon working-class
    1010
    people to bail them out. Instead of doing that, they should tax the rich, whose percentage share of national income has increased from 35 to 43 per cent. while poor people's share has dropped from 10 to 6 per cent. Get the priorities right or get out of the road.
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) has just shown the total folly of the Labour party in taking the advice of the hon. Gentleman in the 1970s and imposing penal rates on the so-called rich, which had the effect of driving people into tax evasion. Bringing things up to date, in the 1980s we had the strongest run of growth in the British economy that we have had in modern times. We are now the only major economy in Europe that is growing again. Manufacturing production is up, unemployment is coming down and business confidence has never been higher. Their fear of people such as the hon. Gentleman will keep people supporting the Government in their efforts to get British recovery under way again.
    Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. and learned Friend also remind the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that in 1979, in addition to all the other taxes that Labour had imposed, there was an unearned income surcharge which meant that the small earnings of poor people who had worked hard all their lives were then taxed because the money was regarded as unearned? Is that the tax on the rich that the hon. Gentleman has in mind?
    Mr. Clarke: I am sure that it is, and the Labour party's attitude to taxation in 1970 became disastrous, punitive and counter-productive in terms of revenue. They are now trying to abandon that attitude, but I heard the shadow Health Secretary say on the radio this morning that although he had no spending promises to make at the moment, he would have by the time of the election. No doubt, by the time of election we shall have some fresh tax proposals from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Chancellor confirm that, despite everything that he says, after 15 years of Conservative Government, the only people directly benefiting from the Tory tax regime are those earning £64,000 a year or more, while the burden of direct and general taxation on everybody else has increased? Is that not the £64,000 question that the Chancellor must answer? Is not his party not merely the party of broken tax promises, but the party of unfair taxation?
    Mr. Clarke: The actual position, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is that the real income of the average earner in the country is now 40 per cent. higher than it was in 1979. Real earnings went up by 40 per cent. above inflation, whereas during the Labour party's time in office, they had completely stagnated and hardly risen at all. More than 1 million more people would be paying tax now if we still had Labour's tax regime from 1979. We have created more prosperity, we have a better tax system with higher incentives and we are on the way to strong economic growth—something which Labour could never deliver.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: You and I, Madam Speaker, are simple people.—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order!
    Mr. Bruce: We have a simple approach to such matters, Madam Speaker. Having given us all those statistics about

    1011
    tax rates, can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the average earner what extra money he will have in his pocket today, as opposed to 1979?
    Mr. Clarke: If he is an average earner, he will be 40 per cent. better off—almost half as well off again, over and above inflation—than he was in 1979. He will also be living in one of the most successful and prosperous economies in Europe, where he can feel more secure about his job and see more jobs being created. That is something which Labour could never achieve consistently; we achieved it in the 1980s and we are achieving it again now.

    Family Tax Burden
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the tax burden for a married couple on average earnings, and with two children, in 1978–79; and what is the most recent figure.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): A single-earner couple with two children on average earnings will pay 20·3 per cent. of their gross earnings in income tax and national insurance contributions in the current year, compared with 20·9 per cent. in 1978–79. Over the same period, the real take-home pay of the same couple will have risen by £83 per week in today's values.
    Mr. Hutton: Do not those figures confirm the scale of the deception perpetrated by the Conservatives at the last general election, when they promised the British public year-on-year tax cuts? Instead, they have delivered year-on-year tax rises. Is not it clear that the current record level of taxation is not being used to lay the foundations for future growth and prosperity, but is simply the price that we are all paying for 15 years of Tory failure?
    Mr. Dorrell: I find it utterly impossible to link that question with my previous answer. What we have done is to introduce a tax system that has made growth possible, while delivering £83 a week in extra purchasing power to the average man. That is the result of our policies, and it is not something for which any of us need apologise.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Has my hon. Friend been able to calculate what would have happened to the taxes of a married couple on average earnings if the Government had decided not to control public spending—if, indeed, they had increased it by £38 billion?
    Mr. Dorrell: The straight answer is that £38 billion represents about 19p on the basic rate of income tax. My hon. Friend has illustrated the dishonesty of the claim of Opposition Front Benchers to be interested in controlling the tax burden: in fact, they lose no opportunity to commit themselves to future spending that must be translated into a future tax burden.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Financial Secretary now answer the question that the Chancellor evidently lacked the mastery of detail to answer? Is not the hard truth that the only people who have benefited from the Tories' tax policies are those earning more than £64,000 a year? Let us have an answer.
    Mr. Dorrell: The question to which the country wants an answer is this: when will Labour start to take an interest in the creation of wealth? The question that we have just
    1012
    heard demonstrated, yet again, Labour's myopic obsession with redistribution, and their utter lack of interest in the generation of wealth. It is because the British economy became more successful during the 1980s that we have been able to deliver the £83 a week to which I referred, which translates directly into the 40 per cent. mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. That is the pay-off from the success of the Government's economic policies.
    Mr. Brazier: Following that answer, does my hon. Friend agree that further improvements in living standards can be delivered only through growth? According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, our projected growth level is more than double the EC average, while our inflation rate is approximately half the EC average. That means that living standards will continue to improve.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the only way to improve living standards is to create circumstances favourable to economic growth. That is why, as a result of our policies throughout the 1980s, this country moved from the bottom to the top of the developed countries' growth league. Our policies delivered improved living standards in the 1980s and they will continue to do that throughout the 1990s.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Byers: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people will begin paying income tax in the next financial year as a result of the freezing of personal allowances.
    Ms Coffey: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of how many more people will have to pay income tax by December 1994 as a result of the decision to freeze income tax allowances.
    Mr. Dorrell: None.
    Mr. Byers: Does the Financial Secretary remember the written reply that he gave to one of my hon. Friends in which he said that some 400,000 individuals would be brought into the tax net as a result of the freezing of personal allowances? How will those 400,000 mainly low-paid workers manage to pay that tax without being led into even greater poverty? Does he accept that the freezing of personal allowances will mean that about £1·1 billion will be taken from taxpayers' pockets? Given the Government's broken promises, will the Financial Secretary tell the House why the country should ever again trust the Tories on tax?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about an important point. If someone pays tax next year because his income exceeds the personal allowance whereas it does not do so this year, the reason is not that the Government have cut the allowance—we have not—but that his income has increased.
    Ms Coffey: Does the Financial Secretary accept that the tax increases that he has introduced, which include the extension of VAT to fuel, mean that the tax burden is being borne disproportionately by the least wealthy? Does not he think that that is unjust and unfair and a betrayal of the fundamental principle of taxation, which is that it is based on the ability to pay?
    Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady has very wisely moved off the subject of her main question, but the ground on which she has chosen to question me is no better. If she examines the distribution effect of the Budgets introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) last March and by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Chancellor in November she will find that, broadly speaking, the burden is distributed evenly across the income scale. That is not a coincidence but the result of the deliberate plans of both those people.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend recall the dark days of the previous Labour Government and their tax regime, which drove overseas all our inventors, scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, risk-takers and job-providers? Was not that the result of socialism and should not we be fighting back? Why should we take lectures from the Opposition? Let us go for them.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend asked if I remembered the dark days of the previous. Labour Government. The answer is only just. If one examines that Government's record on the specific subject about which the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) questioned me, one finds that during their five years in office the single person's allowance fell in real terms by 21 per cent. whereas under this Government it has risen by 25 per cent. I do not think that we need to take lectures from the Opposition about the merits or demerits of indexing personal allowances.
    Mr. Congdon: Is not the marginal rate of tax as important as the numbers eligible for taxation? Do not the Government deserve great credit for having a basic rate of 20p in the pound, unlike the Opposition's rate of 33p in the pound? Does not that prove that people are better off under this Government?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is as a result of the introduction of the 20p band that 4·8 million people are this year paying income tax at a marginal rate of 20p whereas, as my hon. Friend rightly says, when Labour left office the basic rate of income tax was 33p in the £1.

    Low-income Households
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to provide financial relief for low-income households; and if he will make a statement.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Portillo): The Government have recently taken measures by introducing a child care disregard in family credit and making a substantial package of help with fuel bills available to pensioners and those on income-related benefits.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Has the Chief Secretary had a chance yet to study the report that was recently issued by NCH Action for Children? Will he understand that NCH Action for Children believes that its report has been substantially misrepresented in the press? It never said that children were worse off now than they were in Victorian times. It argued that, although the standard of living has increased dramatically all round, the gap between the rich and the poor is as wide now as it was then. What further steps will
    1014
    the Treasury take, together with the Department of Social Security, to meet the urgent needs of low-income households with children?
    Mr. Portillo: Our concern is to increase the prosperity of the country generally by following the economic policies that we have, and to provide protection for people on low incomes. The figures of people on low incomes show how well they have done in recent times. Disposable income increased, on average, by 35 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1990–91, and pensioners' real incomes increased by 54 per cent. during that period. The real take-home pay for a household, even on half average earnings—that affects the children about whom the lion. Gentleman is talking—has increased by 34 per cent. during the period of the Conservative Government.
    If the hon. Gentleman cares to measure not what people earn but what they have, he will find that 69 per cent. of households in the bottom fifth have central heating—it was only 39 per cent. when the Conservatives came to power —and that 50 per cent. of those in the bottom fifth have cars, compared with 39 per cent. in 1979. There has been an enormous change in living standards in the country and the hon. Gentleman should recognise it.
    Mr. Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the attention that he drew to benefits such as family credit was appropriate because they greatly help low-income households, and especially those who are on low incomes in work? Does he also recognise that the greatest benefit of all for low-income households would be to achieve price stability during this Parliament, and will he redouble his efforts to that end?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes a good point—low inflation is extremely good for people on low incomes. It is of special benefit to the elderly. Even while we have low inflation, income-related benefits will rise, at the next increase, by about 3·9 per cent. That is obviously well above the rate of inflation, and it is a great deal better than the increase that will be experienced by most of the people who are in work.
    I am sure that my hon. Friend will also think that the rates of withdrawal for people who are on benefit are an important factor, and I would remind him that now only per cent. of households face a withdrawal rate of more than 90 per cent., whereas before 1988 there were 70,000 households that had a withdrawal rate of more than 100 per cent.
    Ms Harman: Can the Chief Secretary explain a bit further the answer that the Financial Secretary gave to an earlier question—that it is the Government's economic success that has caused them to break their promise to cut taxes? Can he also explain why low-income families will pay more tax after April than they would have done in 1979, whereas families on incomes of more than £64,000 will pay less tax than they would have done in 1979?
    Mr. Portillo: I thought that the point that my hon. Friend made, very effectively, was that if the Labour Government were in power today—if we had continued the allowances that the Labour Government had—there would be 1 million more tax-paying households. That burden would fall on the lowest paid, those who are least able to pay. The hon. Lady needs to consider her party's record closely before she starts to criticise us.
    Mr. John Greenway: Was not it this Government who introduced very low rates of national insurance for low-paid workers? Has not that greatly helped to get many people back into work?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is correct. He will also remember that we have taken steps to help the most disadvantaged groups. He will remember that, in October 1992, we increased the income support premiums for pensioners by £3 a week for couples and £2 a week for singles. He will also remember that the £700 million worth of additional assistance given to help people pay 20 per cent. of the community charge was not withdrawn when the community charge was abolished.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the present state of the private finance initiative.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Government are committed to a substantial increase in the level of private investment in the infrastructure of public services that were previously totally dependent on public funds. A number of major private finance projects, including the channel tunnel rail link and the Heathrow express, are already going ahead. The high-level working group that I set up under the chairmanship of Sir Alastair Morton is examining how private finance can be developed in many sectors of Government activity.
    Mr. Mudie: Is the Chancellor aware that the fear in the country is that there are more announcements than activity? The right hon. and learned Gentleman announced three new schemes in the Budget—the extension of the docklands railway to Lewisham, new air traffic control for Scotland and the refurbishment of the west coast main line. Can he tell the House which of those proudly announced projects has a private sponsor or a construction start date?
    Mr. Clarke: Well, they are all being progressed—[Laughter.] The Labour party has the glorious record of cutting capital investment in the public services of this country by one third at a stroke, when the International Monetary Fund instructed it to do so, and it still betrays a total absence of knowledge about the management of major projects. We are now defining the projects described, and identifying private sector partners. For example, following my announcement, we shall progress to modernise and upgrade the west coast main line in a way that the economic policies of the Labour party would plainly never succeed in doing.
    Mr. Dykes: As my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the channel tunnel scheme, may I ask him whether he is aware that Customs and Excise and other bodies are planning to have 400 officials at the tunnel entrance on the British side? Will he look into that, to see whether it squares with the single market?
    Mr. Clarke: I certainly think that the Government should ensure that the costs that they incur in necessary controls and security protection on the trains should be kept to the barest minimum. I am sure that the Departments responsible will be kept up to that by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. Clearly, we have particular regard to our obligations under the single market, one result of
    1016
    which has been the removal of all routine Customs and Excise frontier checks on imported goods, and a substantial lifting of the bureaucratic burden that previously bore on importers and exporters.
    Mr. Beith: If all those projects are "progressing", will they take as long as the Jubilee line did to progress through the process of working out a private sector initiative? Is not the truth that while other countries get ahead with, for example, the link to the channel tunnel, only in this country do the Government wait for private finance before undertaking essential infrastructure projects?
    Mr. Clarke: The Committee that will consider the Bill on the channel tunnel rail link will have to take into account the hundreds of objections and detailed points that individual members of the public want to make about the route. The Government have just announced the latest batch of decisions about the route, the terminus and the terminals. The Opposition are naive in believing that in this country, or in any other, one can announce a great new project and start construction the following day. The method that we use employs a more rigorous planning system than that enjoyed by any of the populations on the continent. We are using private finance to advance such projects, just as other countries are doing. The attitude of the Labour and Liberal parties towards progressing public infrastructure projects is childish, naive and extremely old fashioned.
    Mr. Evennett: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, under the Government, public expenditure has increased in the priority sectors of health, education and law and order, and that Conservatives believe in both public and private finance being used to improve our public services?
    Mr. Clarke: Capital investment in the health service has increased enormously under the Government, and capital investment in the railways and roads is roughly double what it was when we took over. We seek to increase both the amount and the quality of investment in the infrastructure of our public services by bringing in the private sector. Our firms and banks are good at enabling countries overseas to do that, and we shall do it here, too. As a result, we shall have the infrastructure that we need, the taxpayer will not have to finance it entirely, and we shall have well-judged, well-managed projects which prove efficient to run thereafter. That is the way in which the world is going—a way which the Labour party is plainly completely incapable of understanding, despite its history of failure on the capital investment front.
    Mr. Darling: The Chancellor will recall that, on a wet night in Glasgow last September, he announced 78 new projects to be financed jointly by the private and the public sectors. Given his mastery of detail, will he tell us how many of those projects have a firm start date? Does he accept that, although tarmacking the car park of Eastbourne hospital is no doubt desirable, it is hardly the stuff of economic regeneration, whereas building the channel tunnel is? Last month, he said that the channel tunnel rail link had not even been designed yet. Will he tell us this month whether it will be completed this century or the next?
    Mr. Clarke: Heathrow express is under construction. It is financed by the public sector, is being built by the private

    1017
    sector and will provide London with a high-speed main line link between the centre of London and Europe's busiest hub airport.
    The next stage in developing the channel tunnel rail link, as I have already described, involves the decisions that my right hon. Friends will announce on the routes, terminals and intermediate stations. Those decisions matter to the people of Kent and east London. The next stage is to have a competition for the private sector—the managers and financiers of the project. A Bill also has to go through the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] No Minister in any Government who were controlled by a sensible party would announce the construction date on the day that the project was announced. We are progressing it quickly and efficiently and will produce a high-speed channel tunnel rail link of a kind that is well managed and matches anything produced elsewhere in the world.

    EC Growth Rates
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what growth rates the European Commission predicts for each EC country next year, in increasing order.
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what growth rates the European Commission predicts for each EC country next year; and if he will list them in reverse order.
    The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): The European Commission has forecast that the United Kingdom will have the fastest growth of major European Community countries in 1994–95.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, during my formative years in the 1960s and 1970s, Britain lagged well behind France and Germany in economic growth? Does he not think that the fact that our growth now exceeds that of both those countries has a great deal to do with our competitive tax system, our competitive labour market and our constant war on red tape? Does he not also think that our European partners have much to learn from that example and that Opposition Members have a great deal to learn from their own mistakes?
    Sir John Cope: Yes, all the factors that my hon. Friend has mentioned were important in that matter. The fact is that the 1980s was the first decade since the war in which the British economy grew faster than the economies of Germany and France. We are beating them again now.
    Mrs. Gillan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with that excellent news of Britain's prospects, it is hardly surprising that the Germans want to invest in Rover and in Britain? Does he further agree that the Opposition parties are completely irresponsible in their attitudes towards business and jobs in this country, as shown by the downbeat and distorted message about our economy that they send out to inward investors? Will he please put the Opposition right and say that we want inward investors in the United Kingdom? We have low corporation tax rates, a skilled and willing work force and the best prospects of any economy in the European Community.
    Sir John Cope: I entirely agree. We want investment —inward investment and all types of investment. In the latest quarter for which we have figures, manufacturing investment was up by 2 per cent.
    Mr. Hoon: Every other European Government believe that sustainable growth can occur only in the context of a system of managed exchange rates. Does the Minister agree?
    Sir John Cope: The exchange rate is important, but I do not agree with the way in which the hon. Gentleman expressed the point.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that the favourable comparison of the United Kingdom with other European Community countries in terms of economic growth is almost solely due to the low interest rates that have applied in the United Kingdom, which became possible only following our departure from the exchange rate mechanism? Why, then, do the Government give the impression that they want to return to the ERM?
    Sir John Cope: Interest rates were falling before we left the exchange rate mechanism. I agree that interest rates are important. Certainly, our present low interest rates are important in sustaining growth.

    Mortgages
    Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the marketing of low-interest mortgages.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): The form and content of advertisements for credit, including mortgage credit, are governed by regulations made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Those regulations are intended to ensure that advertisements convey a fair and reasonably comprehensive indication of the nature and true cost of loans to prospective borrowers.
    Mr. Ottaway: Is my hon. Friend aware that building societies offering low-interest mortgages—I have an example here of one of 3·6 per cent.—are also insisting that it is compulsory to take out captive insurance for the building and contents? Is he aware that the premiums for such captive policies are way above the market rate, which explains how the mortgages can be offered at such a low cost? Does he agree that that is misleading for the financially unaware? Will he please investigate the matter?
    Mr. Nelson: I am aware of the advertisement to which my hon. Friend draws my attention. I assure him that the Government are, and would be, concerned about any instances of unfairness and disadvantage in the selling of tied-in products. The Director General of Fair Trading and the Department of Trade and Industry are looking at the tying-in provisions of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. A balance must be struck between increased consumer protection and increased costs to businesses. I assure my hon. Friend that the authorities and I will look carefully at any particular examples that he and others draw to our attention.
    Mr. Betts: The Minister will no doubt argue that mortgage rates have come down since Black Wednesday; the Government can point to that fact. However, many of my constituents are currently paying virtually the same rate for their personal loans as they were paying in September 1992. The banks have simply profiteered from falling interest rates during the period. What action have the Minister and his colleagues taken in the intervening period

    1019
    to raise the issue with the banks and to encourage them to bring personal loan rates down, which would benefit many of my constituents?
    Mr. Nelson: The hon. Gentleman should know that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer raised the matter on a series of occasions with the leaders of the commercial banks. They, in turn, responded with codes of practice about announcing reductions in the rate of interest and sought to explain that they had adjusted downwards their rates of interest. However, it is undoubtedly true to say that they have taken the opportunity somewhat to widen their margins from their previous levels.

    Panel of Independent Forecasters
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the work of the panel of independent forecasters.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have read the panel's reports with interest, and I look forward to receiving the next one later this month.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm, yet again, that he has absolutely no intention of disbanding the panel?
    Mr. Clarke: Yes.
    Mr. Radice: Has the Chancellor noted that the majority of the independent panel advised against tax increases in his Budget? Does he agree that the total of the two Budgets' tax increases, which amounts, as he told the Treasury Select Committee, to 7p on the standard rate of tax, is in danger of choking off the recovery?
    Mr. Clarke: Different forecasters have had different views at different times. On this occasion, the members of the panel of forecasters are rather nearer to agreeing with each other than usual. Most of them are very supportive of the Budget. They are all revising their forecasts in the light of the fact that our determined action to ensure that we got control of public borrowing has restored business confidence to an all-time high. They now share our forecast that we can expect gross domestic product to grow by about 2½ per cent. in the coming year. It is realistic to look for about 3 per cent. growth to be sustained thereafter. That growth can be combined with low levels of inflation. Inflation is now at its lowest level for about 20 years.
    I am also glad to see that forecasts for business investment are up. Business investment is forecast to rise by 3¼ per cent. in 1994. Total fixed investment is forecast to grow by 3 per cent. That means that sustained growth, with low inflation, based on investment and exports as well as consumption, lies ahead of us if we continue with the prudent economic policies that we are pursuing at the moment.
    Mr. Garnier: When my right hon. and learned Friend next discusses matters, especially investment, with the panel of independent forecasters, will he seek to persuade its members that it would be a good idea to lower capital gains tax rates and that, eventually, capital gains tax should be abolished altogether?
    Mr. Clarke: If someone could persuade them of that, no doubt they would add their voices to the advice of that kind that comes to me occasionally from various quarters, not least from my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: I understand the Chancellor's difficulties in answering questions about tax burden forecasts, so in an effort to be helpful, may I ask him about public expenditure forecasts instead? Will he share his well-known mastery of the details with the House and say what is the size of the civil service and what he intends the size of it to be in three years' time?
    Mr. Clarke: The share of gross domestic product taken by the state is forecast to fall from 45 per cent., its peak during the present recession, to 41 per cent. on the plans that I have announced—that compares with 46 per cent. under Labour. The Budget demonstrated a strong control over spending. Total Government spending is forecast to rise by 1 per cent. in real terms next year—far below the level of growth of the economy. The new control total, thanks to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, will rise by an average of only about ¼ per cent. in real terms over the next three years. That is why we are forecasting that spending will be on a downward trend and that the total tax burden on the public and on the economy will also be on a downward trend.

    Insurance Tax
    Sir Peter Fry: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend exemptions proposed for the new tax on insurance and assurance contracts.
    Sir John Cope: None, beyond those in the Finance Bill.
    Sir Peter Fry: I understand the need for few exemptions, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the difficulties that some health care bodies will experience, such as the Hospitals Guild in Northampton, which covers my constituency? That is a non-profit-making body, which passes on most of its surplus to the national health service and to charity. The effect of the tax will be to reduce that help considerably. Most of all, it will cause great difficulties in accounting for the tax on low premiums, some of which are as low as 20p a week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a case for exempting those low premiums?
    Sir John Cope: Of course I have received representations on that matter, but, as I made clear in the debate on Tuesday, we believe that it is best to apply the tax at a low rate over a wide area, rather than to pick and choose between different types of general insurance.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Minister admit that the new tax is incredibly regressive and that it hits those who live in high-crime areas, who have much higher premiums as a result of suffering more crime? What can be more unfair than a tax on premiums, which taxes people's security? The Government are making money from people's fears.
    Sir John Cope: As I explained in some detail on Tuesday, the tax is mildly progressive.
    Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend give careful consideration to continuing the exemption of tax on premiums for private health insurance for higher rate

    1021
    taxpayers who are pensioners? Is he aware that those pensioners relieve the national health service of a substantial burden of expenditure each year?
    Sir John Cope: What my hon. Friend says is quite right. However, I do not think that it affects the insurance premium tax.

    Family Tax Burden
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he estimates families on 75 per cent. or less of average earnings can expect to pay in income tax and national insurance from this April; and what the figure was for 1978–79.
    Mr. Dorrell: A single earner family on 75 per cent. of average earnings will pay about £68 a week in income tax and national insurance contributions next year. That compares with about £79 a week if the 1978–79 tax regime had still been in force arid indexed for inflation.
    Mr. Eastham: Several times this afternoon the Minister has mentioned the direct purchasing power of the average family. May I remind him that average purchasing power, with VAT at the 1979 level, was £2·49 and that the same purchasing power for the average family with VAT in 1994–95 will be £21·92?
    Mr. Dorrell: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could have heard the answer that I gave him. He asked me how much the tax burden had gone up, by implication, as a result of the changes that my right hon. and learned Friend announced, compared with what the position would have been in 1978–79. The answer that I gave him, which he very understandably did not follow up, was that our tax burden, the direct tax burden—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] That was the question which I was asked and to which I gave an answer. The direct tax burden next year, on a 1978–79 basis, would have been £79. It will, in fact, be £68.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): 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.
    Sir John Hannam: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the visit by Gerry Adams to America has done nothing to advance peace in Northern Ireland? Will he assure the House that the lies and evasions of Sinn Fein will not be allowed to hold up progress towards a settlement in Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, and that will be the overwhelming view of right hon. and hon. Members. The way to advance peace in Northern Ireland is for the IRA to end violence now. That is in its hands, and it is in Mr. Adams's hands and I believe that he could and should do it. However, progress in Northern Ireland cannot and will not wait for Sinn Fein. The Government propose
    1022
    to carry forward actively the political talks with the constitutional parties and with the Irish Government, In further meetings, my right hon. and learned Friend will be floating ideas to give further focus and direction to all three strands of the talks process. This is a democratic process. If Sinn Fein and the provisionals want to be part of it, they must renounce violence for good. The way is open to them, but it is for them to take it.
    Mr. John Smith: Is it correct that the Government intend to raise prescription charges from £4·25 to £4·75 —an increase of 11·6 per cent., which is more than six times the rate of inflation?
    The Prime Minister: When we are in a position to make an announcement to the House about that, we will make an announcement in the normal fashion.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister not appreciate that his likely increase, and indeed any increase, in prescription charges comes on top of massive tax increases already being imposed by the Government on the ordinary people of this country? Given all that, for once could not the Prime Minister spare the sick?
    The Prime Minister: I think that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall, only those who can afford to pay prescription charges are asked to pay them. From memory, around 80 per cent. of prescribed items are now free of charge. In 1979, it was, I believe, around 55 to 60 per cent.—a significant change. There is no firm evidence in any information that we have that prescription charges deter patients from obtaining necessary medication. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that. He makes no ackowledgement of the fact that most people do not pay prescription charges. He should get his facts right before he pursues these matters in this fashion.
    Mr. John Smith: It is quite clear from that that prescription charges are going to go up. Given that the Public Accounts Committee has identified millions of pounds that have been wasted by the Government's health service quangos, would it not make much more sense to tackle that rather than to seek to tax the sick?
    The Prime Minister: The revenue from prescription charges this year is sufficient to fund around 70,000 hip replacements or 45,000 coronary artery bypass grafts. What I should like to hear from the Opposition, for all their complaints about prescription charges, is whether they would abolish prescription charges. If they would, who woud pick up the bill of over £260 million? Would it be the national health service, with fewer people treated? Would it be the taxpayer? Or would they borrow more? That is another example of the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that he would control expenditure, yet every opportunity he gets, he asks for more expenditure to make cheap political points.
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will close any genuine tax loopholes, but will not close what the CBI has shown are not genuine loopholes, as, by so doing, they would fail to raise revenue and would merely damage the economy in general and the

    1023
    economic recovery in particular? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that blows away the smokescreen of the tax-and-spend policies of the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: On the last point, my hon. Friend is generous to assume that the Opposition have tax and spending policies. In successive Budgets, we have closed tax loopholes and tackled abuse. My right hon. and learned Friend will continue to do so wherever he finds abuse. The Labour party, with its hare-brained schemes, is not genuinely concerned about closing loopholes. It would close not loopholes but businesses. That would be the result of its policies. As the CBI says today, Labour supports higher taxes on business. That is why Labour will always be the enemy of enterprise, of employment and of British business.
    Mr. Foulkes: Has the Prime Minister had a report of yesterday's debate on the Child Support Agency, during which hon. Members on both sides of the House related tales of heartbreak and hardship caused by the operation of the agency and asked the Prime Minister and the Government to undertake another review of its working? Will the right hon. Gentleman now announce such a review so that people may look forward to an end to the hardship and the heartbreak?
    The Prime Minister: I read with some care yesterday's debate on the Child Support Agency, and I am glad to say that the principles behind it received a warm welcome from every part of the House. The reforms will have a significant effect once the maintenance bills of those who qualify are reduced. When the legislation was being introduced, we stated that it would be kept under review. We are still true to that pledge—it still applies.
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the £26 million investment by Nestle Rowntree, at its York factory, in the new production line for Kit Kat, which is one of Europe's leading confectionery brands? Does not that illustrate very clearly the advantage, in terms of new investment, of multinational companies having a significant presence in Britain?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that it most certainly does. I had hoped to visit that factory in Yorkshire last week, but, unfortunately, was unable to do so. I was looking forward to seeing the new investment and to congratulating the management and the work force on their success. What that inward investment shows is that Britain is increasingly competitive and increasingly attractive to overseas investors. That is good news for exports, good news for orders and good news for jobs. Conservative Members welcome inward investment—we do not carp at it whenever it is received.
    Mr. Mallon: The Prime Minister no doubt has noticed that during his visit to the United States Mr. Adams provided some clarification by indicating that he does not accept the principle of self-determination based on consent. Indeed, Mr. Adams said that it would be nonsense to argue for such a thing. Does the Prime Minister agree
    1024
    that that runs counter to article 1A of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, counter to paragraph 4 of the joint declaration and counter to the view of every political party in Ireland, excluding the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Fein, and that it is not the view of the vast majority of the people of Ireland who support the joint declaration? Can he assure the House that the two Governments will jointly pursue the objectives of the joint declaration and there will be no unilateral deviation from it in the interests of short-term expediency?
    The Prime Minister: We will certainly continue to pursue the objectives of the joint declaration—there should be no doubt about that. In America, Mr. Adams avoided the central issue on every occasion he could. Sinn Fein has been challenged to give up violence—it has not done so. I do not believe that I can put it any better than today's edition of the Irish Independent. I quote:
    "It is a disgrace that he"
    that is, Adams—
    "should go on mouthing platitudes while the Provisional IRA continues its violence."
    Mr. Skinner: The Prime Minister is jealous—Adams was a hit and he was ignored.
    The Prime Minister: I do not believe that people in Britain or in Ireland have been deceived by Adams's performance, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
    The Irish Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Spring, yesterday posed the critical question: Has Adams got the leadership and the courage to take his people with him in carrying out his own stated commitment to peace and to going the extra mile? That is the question to which everyone awaits an answer.

    Ash-cum-Ridley (Visit)
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Ash-cum-Ridley.
    The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so but I will keep it in mind for the future.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the range and variety of schools available to parents in my constituency and across Kent exist solely and wholly because of the Government's policies and that choice and variety in education would be eliminated if the nightmare policies of the Labour party were endured?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. His county of Kent has self-governing schools, selective schools, maintained schools, comprehensive schools and schools that specialise in technology. That is the sort of choice that we believe it is right to offer to parents and will continue to seek to offer to parents. Most of that would be swept away by a Labour Government. They would abolish self-governing schools, abolish city technology colleges, abolish performance tables and abolish the right of parents to know precisely what is happening in the schools that their children go to. As ever, the Labour party would put dogma before common sense.
    Mr. Barnes: Could I persuade the Prime Minister to go to Ash-cum-Ridley, wherever that might be, instead of to Renishaw, Holmewood, Clay Cross and areas in my constituency that have high unemployment and have been

    1025
    devastated by the Government's policies, because we think that the Government are a waste of time? There are other places that the Prime Minister should go—he could take a break and go to Ash-cum-Ridley.
    The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) cannot persuade me to go to Ash-cum-Ridley, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will have much luck. As for employment, I share with the hon. Gentleman the wish to increase employment and reduce unemployment in this country. He will have noticed that it has been falling steadily for the past year in this country, unlike any other country in western Europe, and I expect it to continue to fall throughout this year.

    Engagements
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was not the sale of Rover to BMW that lost Britain the chance of having a genuine global player on world car markets? Rather, that chance was lost during the era of misguided Government direction, industrial practices and unfettered union power when British Leyland became the butt of international music-hall jokes. Can my right hon.
    1026
    Friend imagine at that time anyone wanting British Leyland as a gift, let alone paying £800 million for the company?
    The Prime Minister: Rover certainly has been transformed, and I congratulate the work force and the management on their efforts to bring that about, as well as the investment that has been put into the company by British Aerospace. Rover now produces a world-quality product, and it is winning market shares in extremely competitive markets.
    As my hon. Friend said, the contrast with the 1970s could be scarcely sharper. Mass meetings at that time were addressed by Red Robbo, and taxpayers' money was being poured into a bottomless pit. Rover is now a world beater and it will become better.
    Mr. Caborn: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he can give assurances to individuals, companies or organisations about the disbursement of the millennium fund and the lottery fund for the construction of sporting facilities?
    The Prime Minister: No, we have given no commitments on that yet. We are looking at the establishment of a committee to determine how the millennium fund will be disbursed, and it will be a considerable period before we are in a position to say what money will be disbursed and where. Consideration of the matter is still in its infancy and it will be some time before we are able to make an announcement.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Will the Leader of the House state the business for the forthcoming week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Until about Seven o'clock, Private Members' Motions.
There will be a debate entitled "Taking Rio Forward" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill.
WEDNESDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Sunday Trading Bill (Second Day).
Supplemental timetable on and consideration of Lords Amendments which may be received to the Statutory Sick Pay Bill.
Motion on Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act.
THURSDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (Third Allotted Day).
There will be a debate on the Child Support Agency on an Opposition Motion.
FRIDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Motion on the European Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order.
Motion on the European Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order.
Motion on the European Parliamentary Elections (Changes to the Franchise and Qualifications of Representatives) regulations.
Motion on the Airports (Northern Ireland) Order.
Motion on the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order.
Mrs. Beckett: May I tell the Lord President that we appreciate the opportunity to use Opposition time for a full debate on the future of the Child Support Act? The Government shirked that this week, although we regret that it has been left to the Opposition to do what we think should be the Government's job.
Will the Lord President not shirk the pressing need for a debate in Government time on the devastating report published by the Public Accounts Committee on today's unprecedented waste, mismanagement and fraud? That is especially important as the huge tax hikes, on which debate was guillotined this week, are a direct result of the Government's failure and incompetence in that respect.
Will he ensure that the Home Secretary makes a statement to the House about any change in policy—a welcome, even if insufficient change—on plans to take political control of the police and the courts? The Home Secretary's predesessor did so when the policy was changed during proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill 1992.
Finally, has the Lord President seen the report in The Sun in which the Home Secretary's predecessor—the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—claims that he is the Government's fireman, and that he is always being brought in to clear up the mess which has been left by others? Will the Lord President give those "others" the right of reply?
1028
Will he extend that particularly to those, such as the present Home Secretary, who are having to follow the present Chancellor?
Mr. Newton: First, I ought to apologise to the House, because I failed to turn over the page and announce the European Standing Committees for next week. I will rectify that omission.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee "A" will meet on Wednesday 9 February at 10·30 am to consider European Community documents Nos. 8757/93 and 10761/93 relating to bovine somatotrophin.
[Wednesday 9 February:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: 8757/93 and 10761/93, bovine somatotrophin (BST); relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 48-ii ( 1993–94) and HC 48-vi ( 1993–94.]
The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) asked several questions. First, I see no question of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary seeking at any stage to take political control of the police. Yesterday, he announced some changes in the proposals previously made. Those changes responded to representations made in another place and elsewhere. That is entirely sensible, responsible and right.
As for the right hon. Lady's comments on the Public Accounts Committee, it should be made clear once again, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has several times made it clear, that the report did not suggest that there had been any decline in standards. It rightly criticised breaches, and the Government have made it clear that, in respect of any such breach, they will be determined to see that the proper action is taken.
Lastly, as it happens, I have not seen the story in The Sun to which the right hon. Lady referred, but I shall make sure that I look at it, and I shall read it with care and interest.
Sir Anthony Grant: Would it be possible some time next week, or soon after, for us as gentlemen to consider the problem of lady Members of Parliament, and in particular the difficulties of attracting ladies to take part in our proceedings? One of the inhibiting factors is the lunatic way in which we conduct our affairs, which is a subject of contempt in the country outside, irritation to ladies and derision in other countries? Will my right hon. Friend tell us what is happening and who is responsible for blocking the all-party Jopling report?
Mr. Newton: As I understand it, many Opposition Members, both ladies and gentlemen, strongly support the proposals in the Jopling report. As for who is blocking the prospect of progress on the proposals, there was a perceptive article in today's The Times by Peter Riddell, which I commend to the attention of both my hon. Friend and others in the House. Beyond that, I do not wish to speculate.
To what extent we always gain from the attendance of lady Members in the House was called into question during the guillotine proceedings earlier this week, in which both a right hon. lady and an hon. Lady—the right hon. Member for Derby, South and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)—who spoke from the Opposition Front

1029
Bench ended up denouncing the Government at one and the same time for providing too much time and too little time for discussion of the Finance Bill.
Mr. David Rendel: Following the embarrassing decision in the High Court last Friday that the guidelines given by the Secretary of State to the local government review were illegal, can we have a statement from the Secretary of State on the future of the local government review, in particular in relation to the timetable, which must surely be put back, given that much of the work that has been carried out up to now has proved wasted and illegal?
Mr. Newton: As will soon become clear to the hon. Gentleman, he is rather overstating the effects of the decision. The effect of the judgment is to delete a single sentence from the guidance to the Local Government Commission. The rest of it still stands, and the reviews that are under way continue. The Government are not appealing against the court ruling.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend has probably read recently about the imperfections of car boot sales. The Customs and Excise men go there and recover a tremendous amount of smuggled wines and beers. Petty criminals use the sales to get rid of their stocks. At the same time, there is a health and safety factor, with electrical equipment in particular. Is it not time that someone should be the licensee of sites, and that supervision should be more profound?
Mr. Newton: I am certainly well aware of concerns expressed in many places similar to those which my hon. Friend has expressed. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and others are aware of those concerns. I shall bring my hon. Friend's remarks to their attention.
Mr. Martin Redmond: Will the Leader of the House join me and others in condemning the high price of children's footwear? If so, will he make parliamentary time available to debate the issue?
Mr. Newton: I certainly cannot undertake to provide parliamentary time specifically to debate that issue. The appropriate course is to rely on consumer pressure, of which no doubt the hon. Gentleman is part, to exert appropriate influence on those selling children's shoes.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Has the Leader of the House noticed early-day motion 320 in my name, which has been supported by more than 200 hon. Members on both sides of the House?
[That this House expresses its deep concern at continuing reports that citizens of developed nations travelling abroad may be encouraging the use of children in prostitution and pornography; reaffirms its commitment to the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which seeks to protect children from sexual exploitation; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to seek to play an active role in bringing about concerted international action to tackle this problem and in particular to examine ways of ensuring that individuals involved in such exploitation are brought to justice within the United Kingdom.]
It deals with the exploitation of children, through pornography and prostitution, by tourists from developed nations visiting, predominantly, third-world countries.
1030
Could time be made available to discuss that important matter and its implications? We hope that the Government could lead other member states in the EC to negotiate with the Governments of, for example, the Philippines, Thailand and, in particular, Sri Lanka, which is a member of the Commonwealth and with which we have a close relationship?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will answer questions next Thursday, and she may wish to draw the matter to his attention. All hon. Members share concern about such matters and my right hon. Friends will be anxious to find appropriate ways to tackle those concerns as and when they can.
Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Leader of the House consider providing time for a debate on mad cow disease and whether it may enter the human food chain? Will he persuade Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and to tell the House what research they have commissioned and what the latest advice they have received on whether mad cow disease could enter the human food chain? May I tell him about a distressing case in my constituency—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I must intervene. We are not here to hear about cases or evidence, but simply to ask the Leader of the House for a debate on the subject.
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise time for a debate on the Floor of the House, but of course I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Such matters may be relevant to the debate in Standing Committee A about bovine somatotrophin to which I adverted earlier.
Mrs. Angela Knight: Will my right hon. Friend consider an early debate on the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 on councillor convictions and disqualification from office? Is he aware that the Derbyshire county councillor who was recently gaoled for fiddling his expenses retained his committee chairmanship while in gaol and until he lost his appeal this week? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that councillor should pay back that money, and that gaol on the rates must he stopped?
Mr. Newton: It is an astonishing story, and I am sure that those concerned locally will wish to draw it to the attention of the district auditor.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Since the Leader of the House has shown his attachment to the importance of the Jopling report, which perhaps applies only to hon. Members living in Greater London and has little significance to those of us who represent far-flung places, will he address the issue of "taking stock", which was defined by both the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Scotland in the wake of the general election?
Given that the official Opposition have now comfortably voted with the Government to appoint Conservative Members from English constituencies to serve on a Committee that deals specifically with Scottish legislation, does he not feel that now is an appropriate time to debate the issue of "taking stock", which seems to be on the back burner?
Mr. Newton: This is the United Kingdom Parliament, and it is appropriate that it should operate as such. On the hon. Lady's last point, we are genuinely anxious to make progress, but I am afraid it is another of those issues on which progress is not as fast as we would like, because of the absence of the usual channels.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether we could debate the events surrounding the investigations into Westminster council? I am particularly concerned about a recent newspaper report which alleged that the investigations were tough, but most were conducted without those under investigation being told that they had rights to solicitors? By invoking the criminal sanction—which has been broken by almost every member of the press, and I gather many of the public—many of those who wished to clear their names were unable to do so.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been a great travesty of justice because of the failure to allow individuals to clear their names so that they now stand guilty before they have had the opportunity to clear their names?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend probably understands that I would not wish to comment on his suggestions off the cuff. We are concerned—as everyone will be—to ensure that serious allegations are properly investigated. I am equally confident that those people who undertake such investigations will want to ensure that they are conducted in a proper manner, and will examine my hon. Friend's remarks.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: May I remind hon. Members that this question time relates to next week's business and is not an open question time to the Leader of the House? Hon. Members should be asking him to change the business next week so that they can discuss other matters. This question time is not just a free-for-all.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the Leader of the House recall that I have mentioned several times the serious situation facing the engineering steel industry in the Wentworth and Rotherham constituencies? Does he accept that such a debate is especially important now that the Government have decided to withdraw the iron and steel industries redundancy payments scheme for steel workers? Can we have a debate about that, if we cannot have one about the survival of the industry itself?
Mr. Newton: I well appreciate the hon. Gentleman's very appropriate constituency interest in those matters, but I cannot undertake to provide time for a debate.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend make time for an early debate on management of the South Wales police authority? He may be aware that there is widespread concern in south Wales over suggestions that 40 police stations may be closed. Many officers in the force, who are being approached with a view to repaying overtime, are concerned to make the contrast with my constituency, where the Dyfed-Powys police have recorded the lowest crime rate and the highest clear-up rate, and recorded a 13 per cent. fall in crime. Perhaps that contrast needs to be made in this Chamber.
Mr. Newton: One of my hon. Friends has just whispered to me that it must be the influence that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) has on his constituency. In business terms, it seems possible that my hon. Friend might be able to advert to those matters when we discuss the Welsh local government finance orders.
Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the Leader of the House make time on Monday for the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement on the Swan report on the conditions in which seriously ill women are being kept in at Ashworth special hospital on Merseyside? That report follows the public inquiry undertaken by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC into the conditions at that hospital and the scandalous behaviour of staff employed there.
The chair of the special hospital has refused right hon. and hon. Members access to details of that report. As a result we cannot represent our constituents [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Will the Secretary of State make a full statement in the House on Monday about the contents of the Swan report?
Mr. Newton: I was not aware of the serious matters that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I will make quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is made aware of them.
Mr. David Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an early statement or debate on the progress of the Banham commission would enable the Liberal Democrat party to make clear its preference for the bureaucratic nightmare of regional government? it would also enable the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) to make clear what he has hitherto only whispered—that he supports the break-up of Somerset into three, a proposal opposed by the majority of people in Somerset, by numbers of Liberal Democrat councillors at county, district, town and parish levels, and by myself and three Conservative parliamentary colleagues who represent the county?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend will find that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be making those matters clear shortly and that they will be very much along the lines of what I said in response to an earlier questioner. I must express some doubt as to whether any such statement will draw clarity on this matter, or on any other, from the leader of the Liberal Democrat party.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Could we have a debate next week on the right to buy, especially in light of the concerns being expressed in Rutland and Melton by council tenants, who want to know whether under British law it is now possible for companies—or whatever—to buy council houses as intermediaries at a £50,000 discount? They want to know, so can we have a debate on those matters next week?
Mr. Newton: I will simply say that, in my judgment, the hon. Gentleman is doing himself no good by this campaign.
Mr. Keith Mans: Bearing in mind the five implied spending commitments that the Labour party has made this week alone, including one this afternoon by the leader of the Labour party, will my right hon. Friend ensure next week and every week that we have a statement from

1033
the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the effects of those spending commitments on the taxation of everyone in the country?
Mr. Newton: What a very good idea.
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate next week on London, please, and in particular on the state of London's roads? I do not know whether the Leader of the House has a chance to understand the chaos on London's streets when he is driving around in his ministerial limo being pampered by minions, but hardly a street in London is not being dug up at the moment. The Rotherhithe tunnel and the Albert bridge is closed; it is chaos out there. We need a debate to pin the blame on those responsible. If the Minister for Transport in London spent a little more time in this House rather than other people's houses, we could ask him some questions.
Mr. Newton rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Before the Leader of the House responds, may I say that long questions prevent other hon. Members from asking questions. I am watching the clock, and I am always anxious to call all hon. Members, but if the questions are too long, I shall not be able to do so.
Mr. Newton: I might respond rather more sympathetically were I not conscious that the next public spending demand from the Opposition may well be more expenditure on the maintenance and improvement of roads.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come for a debate next week to consider early-day motions 341, 459 and 467, which have support from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and about which requests have been made for a number of weeks.
[That this House calls upon the Right honourable Member for Yeovil to disassociate himself from the description by Tom Dommett, a Liberal Democrat County Councillor, of his constituents in Somerset, as 'Yids, Nig-nogs, !ties and Pakis … no better than New Age scum and vermin'; believes that the use of such grossly offensive language about people of other nationalities and races is wholly unacceptable in public life; notes that this is yet the latest example of blatant racism within the Liberal Democrat Party; and calls upon the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party, the Right honourable Member for Yeovil, to expel Councillor Dommett from the party forthwith.]
Will that not give us the opportunity to discover why the Liberal Democrat party can lecture us in a high moral tone and then use racist literature? Would it not also give us an opportunity to have a look at its latest handbook—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the point. I am always anxious to call as many Members as possible. This is an important time for Back Benchers, but if hon. Members abuse it, I shall have to curtail it.
Mr. Nicholls: —which would denigrate people for having regional accents?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend was in danger of putting some strain on my support system by linking quite so many widely spaced early-day motions, but I understand that they all refer to the leader of the Liberal Democrat party,
1034
to whom I have already made some reference. All the persistent and understandable efforts from my hon. Friends to extract things from the leader of the Liberal party appear to be meeting little success, but we shall continue trying together.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Can we have a debate next week on the millennium fund? It seems that every day projects are claiming that they have already keyed into the millennium fund, when the committee has not yet been appointed. It may well be that the Prime Minister himself gives tips and winks to certain projects.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on that matter only a few moments ago, and I certainly do not intend to add to it.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Now that there seems to be increased interest on all sides of the House in local government corruption, will my right hon. Friend organise a debate on that topic, and invite comment and condemnation of nepotism and corruption on Labour-controlled Monklands council from the local Labour Member of Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition, who has been strangely silent on the matter?
Mr. Newton: As it happens, I can claim that we are providing some fairly substantial opportunities. There is, of course, a local government debate to follow business questions this afternoon, and helpfully, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has "the future of Scotland's democracy" as the private Member's motion on Monday. I have not been informed whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition intends to speak about Monklands, but that possibility should be considered.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: When are the Government likely to make a statement about the apology that they should be extending to the Council of Europe, the Western European Union, NATO, foreign visits by CPA and IPU delegations—[Interruption.]—let me finish, If you would—[Interruption.]—I have a much more attractive voice than you silly beggars—because of the non-attendance of British delegations, a Luddite policy that has been adopted by certain honourable dunderheads in the House?
Mr. Newton: I do not know that I would have cared to apply such a description to those at whom I understand it to have been aimed—particularly the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who appears to have other preoccupations, and apparently did not even hear what was said by her hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). Perhaps I should tell her that her hon. Friend was extremely unflattering about her.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Later this afternoon, the House will have an opportunity to discuss certain aspects of local government finance; presumably, in the fulness of time, we shall be given an opportunity to discuss local government structure, following the report of the Local Government Commission. Will my right hon. Friend consider providing us with an early opportunity to debate the functions of local government, and, in particular, to investigate whether the principle of subsidiarity is being fully applied in that context?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friend's ingenuity, combined with his persistence in raising the matters that he clearly has in mind, will enable him to find some way of speaking on the occasions that I have already provided.
Mr. David Hanson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate early next week about quangos —especially their membership—with particular reference to Wales? Or is he happy with the present position, in which many members are still Tories, are unaccountable, and are often unelectable?
Mr. Newton: There is no question of appointees' being unaccountable, whatever their political provenance. We shall ensure that the bodies concerned are conducted properly, using every means at our command.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Will my right hon. Friend please make time next week for an urgent debate on public expenditure? I feel that the House needs to analyse Labour's new policy of increasing spending on health, housing and overseas aid by £16 billion without raising taxes or increasing borrowing. Has Labour discovered a magic formula, or is it just an illusion?
Mr. Newton: I think that it is an attempt—probably the world's largest ever attempt—to have your cake and eat it. We see it every day. I am a bit confused about whether pledges not made in the House count in these calculations; that appears to be another variant of the Opposition's habit of making promises that they can later disown.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On Tuesday, we are to debate the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. Will a motion be tabled authorising the Procedure Committee to embark on the process of setting up another Committee to scrutinise the power that the Bill gives a Minister to repeal whole Acts of Parliament? Alternatively, before any such move is made, will the House have to wait until the Bill has been passsed before such a motion is tabled? If the Procedure Committee is embarking on the introduction of such a structure without the authority of the House, why is it doing so?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, is visibly present; no doubt he will respond to what the hon. Gentleman has said, although I acknowledge that he cannot do so now. I have sent both the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend copies of a paper outlining some of the Government's ideas, and suggesting that we would welcome the thoughts of the Procedure Committee. I consider that an entirely appropriate and sensible way in which to proceed. We shall then be able to consider what matters should be put before the House.
Dr. Liam Fox: Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the potential abolition of Avon county council, whose spending priorities are becoming ever more bizarre? Its decision this week to spend £100,000 on traveller liaison officers was greeted with outrage in my constituency, where these people are regarded as an absolute nuisance. Our only possible salvation will lie in the abolition of this dreadful, unwanted and unloved county council.
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I might urge my hon. Friend—should he catch your eye, Madam Speaker—to repeat and elaborate on those remarks in the debate that will shortly take place.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: The Leader of the House referred to BST in his statement, but I apologise for not understanding exactly what he said. Will there be a debate on BST before the Government take a final decision on its use?
Mr. Newton: I announced that European Standing Committee A would be considering documents relating to bovine somatotrophin. The purpose of its deliberations is to inform the Government's approach.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Could we have a debate next week on the new decisions relating to aircraft noise and night flights over west London and elsewhere, in view of their great importance to my constituents, and the people of west London in general, who want no night flights at all?
Mr. Newton: I well understand my hon. Friend's concerns. I am not in a position to promise a debate on that matter, but I am sure that my colleagues will examine his remarks.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Before Friday will the Leader of the House reconsider the subject of tobacco advertising, which is covered in early-day motion 1, signed by 165 hon. Members?
[That this House calls for a ban on tobacco advertising.]
The tobacco industry has told me that it has given inducements to the Conservative party to ensure that such a ban is not introduced. Will the Leader of the House confirm that Conservative Members will have a free vote next week and be able to support what the evidence cries out for—a total ban on tobacco advertising, not the half-hearted half-ban that his party intends to introduce?
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, following earlier documents the Government will shortly be publishing an action plan describing in detail the measures that they propose in order to reduce even further the prevalence of smoking. That document will describe the Government's plans for the control of tobacco advertising. I think that the hon. Gentleman had better await that document.
Mr. Michael Bates: Has my right hon. Friend had any representations or requests from the Opposition to change the subject of next week's Opposition day to debate early-day motion 457, which deals with taxation and social renewal, and which has been signed by 36 members of the Labour party?
[That this House, noting the grossly unfair distribution of wealth in Britain under capitalism and the widening gap between rich and poor that has taken place over the last 15 years and recalling that the present Budget deficit is entirely attributable to tax reductions given to the richest taxpayers, and the cost of unemployment that was deliberately created, is convinced that the burden of military expenditure is far higher than can be justified and that other Government policies have been wasteful and inefficient; believes that the imposition of higher levels of VAT and its extension to fuel imposes a heavy burden on those least able to pay, as do other increases in taxation imposed in the recent Budget; rejects arguments that all reductions in taxation are

1037
necessarily desirable regardless of the purpose for which the tax is raised and the social consequences that would follow; affirms that the recovery of full employment, planned defence diversification, the rebuilding of our infrastructure, the extension of essential public services and the regeneration of British industry will require massive public investment, the harnessing of the nation's savings and taxation fairly shared and assessed on the ability to pay; and calls for a clear socialist commitment to be made now, about future economic, fiscal, industrial and social policies to secure these objectives.]
It calls for massive public investment and for a clear socialist commitment to be made now on future economic, fiscal and industrial policies. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a debate would prove enlightening and terrifying for the House, and especially for the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has made some telling points, which I shall certainly bear in mind when looking ahead to the business of the House.
Dr. Tony Wright: Will the Leader of the House reconsider what he said earlier about the Public Accounts Committee's report? Does he understand that it was a special report and said some damaging and worrying things about the conduct of public business? He seemed to say just now that the Government had some proposals to clean up public bodies. If so, will he arrange for a debate next week so that he can tell us about them?
Mr. Newton: I made it clear that the Government would take appropriate action in the individual cases. The action varies; for example, in the case of the Wessex and West Midlands health authorities, it has already been set in hand. In other cases, reports are still awaiting Treasury minutes or other responses, but the Government will take appropriate action in every instance.
Mr. John Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on a matter in which I know he has a close interest—the politically motivated campaign being waged by the Labour and Liberal administration of Essex county council against grant-maintained schools?
Mr. Newton: As a fellow member of Parliament for Essex, I am of course well aware of the concern about this matter. My hon. Friend might perhaps be one of those who find an opportunity to raise the issue in the forthcoming debate on local government.
Dr. Kim Howells: The Leader of the House will know that hardly a week passes without a fresh scandal involving a quango in Wales. Is he aware that my colleagues are fearful that corruption is starting to take a grip on some of these public bodies, and that it may be a result of the Welsh Office's incompetence in monitoring them, a role which it is supposed to undertake on a day-to-day basis? Will the Leader of the House set aside time for a debate on this critical issue, and on the future of the Welsh Office and quangos in Wales?
Mr. Newton: I do not accept for a moment the hon. Gentleman's suggestions, but I draw his attention to the fact that the Secretary of State for Wales will be answering questions in the House on 14 February.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Bearing in mind the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for municipal gutters, could we have a debate next week on the Labour-controlled borough of Tameside and the manner in which it contracts out its homes that care for the elderly, a matter recently described so well on Radio 4?
Mr. Newton: It seems to me that that is yet another matter that could be in order in the forthcoming debate.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Bearing in mind the fact that the interim report from the Health and Safety Executive about the Associated Octel disaster, or potential disaster, may be published in the next few days, if it is, will the Leader of the House make arrangements for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to make a statement on that, and on its broader implications for emergency and emergency planning services?
Mr. Newton: I will bring that request to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Simon Burns: In backing up my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider whether there is any possibility, in the business next week or the following week, of having a specific debate about education policy, geared towards the vicious, nasty and vindictive policies that are being adopted by Essex education authority and other county council education authorities? Those policies penalise parents with children who attend grant-maintained schools, or who may want to hold a ballot for grant-maintained status.
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), but, as my constituency is the space between the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon, my hon. Friends can perhaps understand that I recognise their concern.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement about the situation at the Royal Alexandra trust hospital? Constituents of mine are still waiting for months—five months approximately—to see a urologist there, and months and months to have operations there. The trust system in Scotland is falling so sadly down that there is a crisis in my constituency. The morale of our people waiting for health treatment is so bad that it is an indictment of the Government.
Mr. Newton: I know of no basis for the general description of the trust system that the hon. Gentleman gives, but obviously I am not informed about the special problems to which he adverts, and I will bring them to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Sir Peter Emery: Further to the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), will my right hon. Friend next week, for the debate on Friday, try to ensure that, whatever the Government's long-term view may be, they will allow the Tobacco Advertising Bill to get into Committee, so that the effect of

1039
cigarette smoking and especially the effect on asthma could be fully debated, rather than just on the Floor of the House, even if the Government have to take action at another time?
Mr. Newton: I think that my right hon. Friend, in his capacity as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, will acknowledge that in the end the decision as to what happens to a private Member's Bill is a matter for the House and not the Government.
Mr. Roland Boyes: In the week that the Rover car company was swallowed up, will the Lord President refer to the President of the Board of Trade for a statement that there is still a major car company in the United Kingdom—the Nissan Motor Company in my constituency, Washington, Sunderland, which was the biggest United Kingdom car exporter in 1993? It has exported 182,000 cars, worth £1 billion. In addition, the Micra and Primera cars are built by British workers and British management, and we are proud of that car company in our region.
Mr. Newton: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He knows of the long-standing interest that I have had in industrial matters in the north-east, not least in the year that I was a Trade and Industry Minister and visited Nissan. It is a considerable credit to that company, and to the work force in the north-east, that we have the gathering success in what is a resurgent British car industry.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Bearing in mind the undoubted but regrettable propaganda coup scored by Gerry Adams in the United States this week, will my right hon. Friend ask his colleague the Home Secretary to come
1040
to the House to give a statement about the future of the broadcasting ban, which at the moment is widely abused and circumvented by all the television companies? I am certain that that would be a recognition of the tremendous unnecessary mileage that was given to a man who is a terrorist and whose brother has been convicted of terrorist offences.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend may find that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who is due to answer questions in the House on Monday. However, I shall draw his question to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: Bearing in mind the fact that old-style economic recovery cannot possibly solve the problem of unemployment, and that high unemployment, especially among the young, is likely to have incalculable costs as a result of social alienation and conflict, could we have a debate on that matter, and specifically on European Union proposals that we should aim to shift the burden of taxation so as to encourage the use of labour—that is, people—and discourage or reduce the use of natural resources, because natural resources are the capital on which our future prosperity depends?
Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman considers what has happened to employers' national insurance contributions, which constitute an important cost involved in employing labour, and which the Government are now in the process of reducing again as part of a package of measures taken together, and if he examines what has been done to reduce the contributions paid in respect of less well-paid workers over the past few years, he will realise that the Government have directed much attention to that problem, with the sort of success that is now attracting companies to come here rather than going to places where they incur much higher social costs.

Points of Order
4.10 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that from the Terrace—and indeed, so far as I can tell, from the Speaker's Apartments—it is possible to look across the river and see the Japanese flag flying over county hall? Personally, I find that offensive, and I suspect that many other Londoners do, too. Are there not regulations and restrictions prohibiting the flying of a foreign flag from a building other than an embassy which is the property of the country concerned?
Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for me, but if what the hon. Gentleman says is true, I am interested to hear that he has seen that flag from the Terrace of the House of Commons. I must say that I have been rather too busy to notice it from my apartment.
Mr. Peter Luff: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should be grateful for your guidance in telling me whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to continue his vicious and spiteful vendetta against another Member of the House on the basis of inaccurate information, under the cloak of parliamentary privilege?
Madam Speaker: Had the comments made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) been out of order, I would of course have intervened. However, I caution all Members that we should have courteous language here, so that we can conduct our debates in good order and with respect for one another.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that the matters that I have raised are matters of public policy?
Madam Speaker: I think that, when the hon. Gentleman raised the matter the day before yesterday, he was somewhat out of order, and I refer him to the remarks that I have just made. I am sure that there will be other opportunities for him to put his case in a proper manner.

Orders of the Day

  Local Government Finance
  [Relevant document: the First Report of the Environment Committee on Standard Spending Assessments (House of Commons Paper No. 90).]
  4.12 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move,
  That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1994–95 (House of Commons Paper No. 179), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.
  I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motions:
  That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1994–95 (House of Commons Paper No. 181), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.
  That the Special Grant Report (No. 9) (House of Commons Paper No. 180), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.
  The debate enables us to reach the culmination of the local government finance settlement for 1994–95. The process began a full 12 months ago, almost before the ink was dry on the previous settlement. During that time we have held extensive discussions with local government about the cost of local services, the need for Government support and how that support is to be distributed.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am sure that my right hon. Friend gets substantially more kicks than ha'pence in his job, so I am sure that he will be delighted to know that my city council has written to say how delighted it was with the settlement that he has given it. Provided that Lancashire county council does not go berserk, it should enable our citizens to pay less council tax.
  On a sadder note, I hope that my right hon. Friend will join me in regretting the storm damage in Lancaster, which has ripped the roof off one of the university college buildings, caused a chimney stack to fall over—fortunately, with no loss of life—and the whole of Castle hill to be shut because of falling tiles and roofs. Will he also commend the emergency services for doing a superb job?
  Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the whole House would want to commend my hon. Friend for her perfectly proper ingenuity in being able to say publicly what we all feel and to support the emergency services for their work in the particular unpleasant storm damage. I hope that it will be repaired as rapidly as possible.
  I certainly got more than ha'pence out of that intervention in terms of compliments, though I do not know whether one can be absolutely sure that Lancashire county council will not go berserk—but no doubt we shall see.
  We carried out considerable discussions because we thought that it was necessary to try to improve the method of sharing the money out among local authorities. That was a proposal from the local authority organisations. Whatever else may come between us, most agree that the report has been carried out in a thorough way. They may

  1043
  not be entirely happy about the results and they may disagree among themselves, but it was carried out with us in a thorough way.
  At the start of December I announced my proposals for the coming year. Since then my colleagues and I have met 58 delegations from local authorities and received 148 written representations. We carefully considered all the points that were raised with us during consultation. My final decisions are embodied in the reports before the House.
  From the outset, we have made it clear to local government that this would not be an easy year. We knew that we needed to establish a sound basis for future economic growth. That meant cutting the public sector borrowing requirement, and we expect local government to play its part. Local government accounts for about a quarter of spending. It therefore cannot be immune from the pressures that all of us face.
  Tough action to sort out public finances will help to ensure that the economic recovery is sustainable. It is already true that the economic recovery in this country is much more favourable than for most, if not all, members of the European Community. We must ensure that that continues. Inflation has been below 2 per cent. for the longest period since 1960. Interest rates are among the lowest in Europe. Unemployment has fallen by more than 225,000 since January last year. Other countries are looking to see how they can even begin to copy that.
  United Kingdom industry is in an excellent competitive position. Good cost and productivity gains are providing exporters with the opportunities that they need. At this point in the recovery, nothing would be more damaging than a loss of confidence in our ability or willingness to control public spending. We do not intend to make that mistake.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way at this early stage. My point is important. Surely the Government must take steps to ensure that local authorities collect the council tax. Figures that have been made available to us show that a number of local councils are not even starting to do the job properly. Some have collected only 25 per cent. of the 1993 figure. Unfortunately, many of them are Labour authorities. Surely the Government can do something about that and thus assist in the recovery that my right hon. Friend is talking about.
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. If one does not collect the council tax, one can hardly complain about not having the money to provide services. He is also right to say that those who are least good at collecting the council tax are, almost without exception, Labour councils. However, there is likely to be an improvement.
  I heard today that Southwark council—about the fourth worst in the country, I believe—has decided to discuss the possibility of contracted-out collection of its council tax, so unhappy is it with the system that it has at present. One can imagine why the council is so unhappy about the matter. It was unable to collect much of its council tax last year because of considerable difficulties with the collecting staff. I hope very much that other local authorities will take that example and that we shall see a better answer in future.
  1044
  In a difficult period, I am still able to say that I am increasing the provisions we make for local authority spending next year by 2·3 per cent., after allowing for changes in local authority functions. Total provision next year will be £42·7 billion. That is equivalent to £880 for every man, woman and child in the country. It represents a massive commitment to public services—a commitment that we are making even in this most difficult of years.
  Sir Anthony Grant: My point follows the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). It is one thing for a local authority to get a good standard spending assessment settlement; it is quite another for it to use it sensibly. I give an example. Cambridgeshire needed 68 extra police officers, as everyone agreed. We had an excellent police SSA of £1·5 million, but the Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition on the county council spent only £100,000 of that. That tells us something about the commitment of a Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition to the police and to law and order, and about having a Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition anyway.
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is only one party that is committed to law and order—the Conservative party. If there is an advantage to be got from the most recent county council election results, it is that they show just how soft the Liberal Democrats in particular are on any law and order matter. It is very noticeable all over the country; Cambridgeshire is a particular example.
  Government support for local authority spending next year will be £34·3 billion—an increase of 1·7 per cent. over 1993–94. That should enable authorities to provide local services at a cost that their council tax payers can afford. The level of council tax is, of course, a decision for each authority and will depend on, among other things, the services that it chooses to provide, how efficiently it can deliver them and how well it collects what it is owed—the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) made. I am therefore not about to start predicting council tax levels. When taxes are set, local people will be able to judge the performance of their councils.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: My right hon. Friend knows about the position in Ealing. The Conservative council there has succeeded in reducing council tax by an average of £100, and for band D it has been reduced by £122. I ask my right hon. Friend to compare that with the spend, spend, spend policies of the loony Labour council in Ealing between 1986 and 1990. When Labour took over in 1986, there were huge reserve balances. When Labour left office in 1990, having trebled the rates, it left a debt of £2,000 on every man, woman and child in Ealing.
  Mr. Gummer: I feel that I should declare an interest here. During the week, I live in the London borough of Ealing. Everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) says is true.
  I give my hon. Friend an additional piece of information which I am sure that he would like to know. I have had occasion to make some points about Birmingham council in the past. After a long meeting with Councillor Stewart, she has, I am pleased to say, taken my advice. The council has announced that it is likely to reduce its council tax,

  1045
  admittedly by only £22 or £23 for a band C property. At least that authority has seen that it is possible, within this settlement, to do that. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that that says something clear about the settlement which has been made at so difficult a time.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Despite the increase in funding that the Minister announced in his statement before Christmas, the London borough of Newham received a reduction of 2 per cent. Is the Minister not aware that our homeless expenditure in the borough is £12 million a year? His trumpeted new formula, about which he was so confident a few moments ago, provides only £2 million of that amount, so £10 million has to be taken from the standard level of services that even his Government think is necessary. Is that the partnership about which he lectured us for 40 minutes at West Ham town hall?
  Mr. Gummer: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was unhappy with my speech on that occasion. A number of his Labour colleagues said how pleased they were with my speech and how pleased they were with the partnership part of it. Partnership is exactly the word. The SSA in Newham, which has been established on the basis of objective criteria, is reduced by 0·8 per cent. To help Newham, it is receiving a damping grant of £13·3 million to help it over that difficult period. Reminding the public of that £13·3 million does not seem to enter into the hon. Gentleman's definition of partnership.
  Already, the SSA per head in Newham £1,143—well above the average for outer London, which is £782—and it is the fifth highest in England. Before we go to town on the local pressures of Newham and attack all the hon. Gentleman's local government colleagues who have worked hard and before we refuse to accept that they have been careful, we should remember that their SSA is the fifth highest in England. Many other hon. Members who are representatives of councils may argue with the hon. Gentleman, at least on that.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I want briefly to thank the Secretary of State for what he has said about the decisions that we expect in Birmingham and the £22 reduction in band C council tax. That is coupled with an extra expenditure of some £40 million on education, which for the first time will take us above the standard spending assessment, which has been reduced. We are extremely grateful for that and we make no bones about it. The day Councillor Stewart was elected leader, three days before the Prime Minister made his speech at the Tory party conference, she uttered the words that in Birmingham we are going "back to basics"—and she meant what she said.
  Mr. Gummer: I do not wish to enter into the painful situation of Birmingham city council, where the present leader thinks that the policies of the previous leader were all wrong, as both leaders are of the same party. When one wants to find divisions, one usually finds them in the Labour party, at least between those two. It was convenient that Councillor Sir Richard Knowles was in charge of the Labour party in Birmingham for a long time—
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Not two minutes like George Gardiner.
  Mr. Gummer: It was not two minutes. He carried out
  1046
  policies which have been entirely thrown out by Councillor Stewart. I am pleased that Councillor Stewart has taken my advice and I hope to have further meetings with her. Perhaps we can do even better than the £22 reduction.
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I welcome the revenue support grant settlement for 1994–95 as it affects local authorities in my constituency, and especially the significant increases in the standard spending assessments for Broxbourne, East Hertfordshire and Welwyn Hatfield. May I therefore congratulate my right hon. Friend on his decision to base the SSA formulae on more up-to-date expenditure data and to incorporate information from the 1991 census? That has certainly significantly benefited the
  Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments, which were supported by the Select Committee on the Environment in its recent report. It is also clear from that report that Newham would have done worse under the Labour party than for the reasons for which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) thinks that he ought to attack me. I notice that Labour Members supported an amendment which would have meant that Newham, like the rest of London, would not have benefited from the area costs allowance. I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, South will ask his colleagues why they voted for that amendment. I should like to know whether Opposition Front-Bench spokemen also support that view.
  I wonder whether the hon. Member for Newham, South has noticed that the proposal would remove about £54 million from Newham and would involve nearly £1,000 million for the whole of London. When people talk about money for London, I hope that everyone will notice that Labour Members on the Select Committee on the Environment wanted to take action which would have affected £1,000 million of money for London.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Where do you get all this?
  Mr. Gummer: I get it from the record of the Select Committee and that is a very suitable place to get it from. No doubt the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will wish to speak to his colleagues. The proposal might help Workington, but it certainly will not help London.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State is providing information of which I was not aware. I will go away and study it assiduously as soon as possible. However, does he not accept that there are still many people, including some of my hon. Friends, who feel that London receives far too much by way of resources? That is absolutely wrong. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, according to the latest indices for urban and local authority deprivation, Newham is number one? London is not studded with meat pies. There are areas of deprivation in London that are as bad as, if not worse than, any other place in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Gummer: In a spirit of cross-party support, I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. It is perfectly true that London has particularly difficult circumstances. That is why the area cost adjustment is there and why it is not, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) suggested,
  "the result of political judgment rather than statistical fact."

  1047
  As the Minister responsible for London, perhaps I may ask the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to have a word with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and make it clear that we are talking about an objective effort. When the area cost adjustment was queried last year, we took a great deal of trouble when we examined the statistical base. The statistics suggested that the figures had been underestimated rather than overestimated in the past, so the new statistics have been taken into account.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West would want to press that case very strongly. When we consider the figures, it is clear that interference would involve £26 million in Haringey, £35 million in Camden, £45 million in Hackney, £37 million in Islington and £53 million in Lambeth.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: You have got it wrong.
  Mr. Gummer: The facts are clear. According to the Select Committee report and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish,
  "the Area Cost Adjustment is the result of political judgment rather than statistical fact."
  I thought that the Labour party wanted statistical fact rather than political judgment. No doubt Labour would be happy for Tower Hamlets to lose £45 million on that basis.
  Sir Anthony Grant: I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend again. With regard to the area cost adjustment, I make no comment about London. However, it produces very peculiar results. The most peculiar result of all is that Cambridgeshire receives no benefit from the area cost adjustment while Bedfordshire, which is right next door, does. That is quite absurd.
  Mr. Gummer: One of the problems is that those who win are fond of it, and those who do not win are not fond of it. We have taken the most extensive statistical efforts to discover the facts. I went into all this thinking that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and some of my hon. Friends might be right. After all, Suffolk receives no benefit from the area cost adjustment. However, when I examined the facts, and when the figures were examined with great care, we concluded that the figures supported the case.
  I realise that these matters are difficult and I am sure that they are not easy for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) to understand. However, when the work has been carried out so assiduously and in company with the now Labour-dominated local authority associations it is unsuitable and odd for Opposition Members to suggest that as the proposal does not suit their constituencies it must be the result of a political judgment.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that in most areas the allocation per primary pupil is more than £3,000, whereas in places like Tameside and Stockport the corresponding figure is less than £2,000? Given that teachers are paid on a national scale and that those in London receive a small additional allowance, it is remarkable that certain London boroughs need to spend twice as much on a pupil as do many areas in the
  1048
  north-west of England. Can the right hon. Gentleman claim that the situation is based on statistical fact rather than on political judgement?
  Mr. Gummer: I can not only claim it—I can state that it is utterly true. We are dealing here with statistical fact. This is not just my claim. People from all political parties have gone through the facts in detail in an effort to demonstrate that the situation is different. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will no doubt agree, there are very clear reasons, in terms of total employment costs, ethnic mix, and so on, for the differences.
  When facts relating to a matter of concern to all parties are trawled and they all come to the same conclusion, it is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that everybody —including members of his own party—is engaging in some sort of plot to prevent his constituents from receiving money to which they are entitled. We must all try very hard to ensure that the public are not outrageously misled on a matter of this sort. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think about that.
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I must try to make some progress, as I am sure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will agree. I shall try at a later stage to facilitate hon. Members who have been trying to intervene.
  We must look closely at the spending priorities of local government and take any opportunities to improve its efficiency. In particular, pay accounts for about 70 per cent. of local authority budgets—teachers' pay alone accounts for about 25 per cent.—so we expect pay awards and pay bills to be kept within what is affordable. We have just received the 1994 report of the school teachers' pay review body, along with those of other review bodies, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced the Government's response. For the teachers, we propose to accept the recommendation for a 2·9 per cent. increase. I believe that that award will be affordable provided that local authorities are realistic and sensible in their budgeting.
  Of course pay increases have to be paid for, and this must be achieved through improved efficiency and increased productivity. There will be no extra money. We cannot go on putting more and more taxpayers' money into local authority budgets to cover pay increases that simply cannot be afforded. That is the challenge that everyone in the public sector has to face, and I believe that sensible, efficient local authorities will be able to rise to it.
  Mr. Jack Straw: The right hon. Gentleman has just announced that the teachers' pay award will be 2·9 per cent. That exceeds by far what local authority budgets provide for. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the settlement will have to be paid for by improved efficiency and increased productivity. As the principal way in which schools can increase their efficiency is by increasing class sizes and cutting numbers of teachers, may we take it that this salary increase will be paid for by job cuts?
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman fails to remember the explanation that he himself gave in "The Walden Interview" of 14 October 1990, which was before the last general election, when he said:

  1049
  "The most challenging issue in education is not so much the issue of resources but how you manage the service."
  The hon. Gentleman was quite right. It is perfectly possible to manage the service through efficient use of teaching, back-up and administration staff. Account must be taken of the way in which, in the case of many Labour-controlled areas, central administration costs so much.
  In all these areas it is possible to achieve the efficiency by means of which many costs can be met. The hon. Gentleman tried this year when he was shadow Minister of Education. Every year, he claimed that the only way to meet the teachers' pay bill was to reduce the number of teachers, and he put forward figures which in the event turned out not to be so. What I look for are local authorities which start not by reducing jobs but by reducing bureaucracy and inefficiency, and which look to ways of saving money rather than—
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I think that I should give way to my hon. Friend who is Chairman of the Select Committee.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the primary schools in the Dacorum district of Hertfordshire which have set up purchasing consortia? They have agreed to share attendances at outside conferences and working parties so that not every school is denuded of staff at the same time, and they are ably demonstrating that costs can be reduced and services can be improved.
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right in his reference to Dacorum. Perhaps it might be said that Dacorum is doing precisely what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that he would like councils to do when he said that it is not the issue of resources but now the service is managed that matters. Not only that: he also said that the bill for teachers is so enormous that it is difficult to pay it. Of course that is true, and we must find ways of doing it through efficiency.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Secretary of State pay attention to the authorities that make up the Webber C'raigh Group, of which Wakefield—my authority—is one? In the past, that group's expenditure has been suppressed because of the lack of rate support grant. This year an adjustment has been made, and we congratulate the Minister and his colleages on that. Because expenditure was suppressed over the years, we are now finding it difficult to make the economies referred to by the Minister. Now that the second level of rate support grant has been reasonably set, will he also set the cap at a reasonable level to meet the demand for services in the Webber Craigh Group, especially Wakefield?
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the excellent work that that group has done on these issues. Some of the background work on unemployment and morbidity that has been done there is of great help, and I would not like in any way to underestimate what that is. I am happy to look at any of the specific issues raised by the hon. Gentleman because this authority group has sought to find ways of facing up to some of the real issues.
  This is another example of the sort of area in which we have tried to be closer to the realities in the new SSA formula. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the difficulty is that when it has been favourable it tends to be commented
  1050
  on favourably, but when it happens to have reduced the SSA in an area it is not quite so popular. However, I will certainly look at the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. John Evans: My local authority is also a member of the Webber Craigh Group of authorities. As the Minister and his colleagues know, it has worked hard to get economic indicators as part of the SSAs, and all of us are grateful that the Government have accepted that. Over the past three years, we have had to make savage cuts in our services because of the reform that happened then. Now that the Minister has put that situation right, will he consider that perhaps we are entitled to a little something from the Government for the years that have already passed?
  Mr. Gummer: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that one of the problems about changing this is that those who benefited from the previous situation understandably say that they cannot possibly change now because they have got used to it, and that they must have some help in changing when they have to lower their spending because they got too much in the past. Those who find that the change is in their favour come to me and say that that means that they must have had too little in the past and therefore need extra support now because of that.
  If we are to have a system whereby we are willing to react properly to real and sensible points made by local authorities, we must draw a clean line and say that we will start again from this point and do it as well as we can. Otherwise, the temptations not to change when change is necessary would be great, and I do not want to succumb to those temptations: I want to have a system that we are willing to change when a good case is put to us. The economic indicators aspect is important and I appreciate the work done by various local authorities of very different political views on which we have been able to depend.
  We can expect the usual demands from Labour members for higher spending. Of course, it is a little more difficult this time because the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) would undoubtedly have a word or two to say about that. If one reads the local government press, one sees that many in the local government world are saying that they were expecting a tougher settlement—a cash standstill or worse.
  An article in the magazine Public Treasurer, which I am sure is prescribed bed-time reading, last month said:
  "The local authority finance settlement has come to resemble an elaborate pas de deux"—
  I am not sure whether I wish to do a pas de deux with the hon. Gentleman.
  "After the announcement, councils warn of dire cuts in jobs and services."
  The article goes on to quote Mr. Tony Travers, a leading independent expert on local government finance, as believing that local authorities last year
  "overstepped the mark and caused themselves embarrassment"
  when the number of jobs lost
  "failed to come near their earlier doom-laden predictions".
  Of course, that happens year after year.
  In December, the Local Government Chronicle said of last year's prophecies:
  "It is obvious many of the more vocal councils were crying wolf and their supposed job cuts have failed to materialise."
  I have no doubt that we will have the same from Labour members this year.
  Our grant distribution has one simple aim: to ensure that the available resources are divided fairly so that all

  1051
  authorities are placed on an equal footing. Achieving that, however, is far from simple. In evidence to the Environment Committee recently, the local authority associations agreed—I point this out to the hon. Member for Blackburn, who has made some opposite remarks—that
  "The distribution of grant to 420 authorities in England on an equitable basis is a complex task and it is not surprising that the extensive analysis and research over the years has shown that there are no simple answers."
  I have already referred to the thorough review of the calculation of SSAs that we have carried out over the past 12 months. That review was prompted by the need to incorporate new data on social conditions which are now available from the 1991 census. I am pleased that the review of SSAs has been carried out in close co-operation with the local authority associations. A lot of hard work has been done, and my ministerial colleagues met delegations from individual local authorities to hear their views and discuss their ideas.
  I refer to the views of the Audit Commission. The Commission published its own study and noted that the SSA system
  "is a more sophisticated system for equalising needs than any overseas system examined in this study and it is an improvement on its predecessor in many respects."
  I think that we can accept that as a fairly widely held view. I acknowledge and thank the Environment Committee for its timely report on SSAs. The Committee took evidence from a wide range of people. I am gratified that one of the Committee's first conclusions is:
  "We welcome the openness with which this year's SSA review has been carried out, and we trust that this approach will continue in future years".
  One of its final conclusions is:
  "We recognise that the changes to the SSA methodology this year have led to some common-sense improvements in the 1994/95 proposals."
  I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, South will take that for the important—
  Mr. Spearing rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I am sorry that I tempted the hon. Gentleman. I really want to get on, but I will give way.
  Mr. Spearing: I suspect that the Environment Committee did what is usually called a "quickie". I think that the Secretary of State will find that the Committee took limited evidence from three major local government organisations in one day. There was relatively little in terms of memoranda and the Committee did not address the question of homelessness which I put to the Minister in my earlier remarks.
  Mr. Gummer: I do not want to move too closely into the definition of "quickies". The document has more than 100 pages, so I should have thought that the process was fairly lengthy. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should dismiss so cavalierly the evidence of the three local authority associations, all of which are dominated by his party. The hon. Gentleman's local authority has the fifth highest standard spending assessment in the country, and it is difficult to see how he can complain.
  Mr. Tracey: I wish to raise a point with my right hon. Friend regarding the Select Committee report. I was interested to read what the report said about the funding of London. Was my right hon. Friend surprised, as I was, to
  1052
  find that Labour Members have suggested that the day visitor principle—one of the principles relating to the calculation of SSA—should be examined? If that principle were to be changed radically, that would seriously affect the number of London boroughs and, of course, it would affect also the number of other parts of the country which are controlled by Labour authorities?
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to point to that element, which has been introduced for the first time and has been widely welcomed. My hon. Friend might like to put together a list of the reductions in money coming to London which would have arisen if the proposals made by the Labour group on the Select Committee were carried through. That piece of information might be of use, not only to the House, but to a wider audience.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: The Secretary of State made an error when he said that Newham was fifth last year; it is now 10th. Does not the index with which he is working with Manchester university put Newham first?
  Mr. Gummer: I was referring to this year, which is still 1993–94. We are talking about next year. If Newham is 10th next year, and the hon. Gentleman finds the whole system unacceptable because of that, he is being a little idiosyncratic in the defence of a system. There is also the significant dampening grant of more than £11 million.
  Mr. Leighton: The grant was £13 million.
  Mr. Gummer: It is kind of the hon. Gentleman to make sure that I did not understate my point. A figure of £13 million for next year is not unreasonable to help people over the change from fifth to 10th. I hope that the co-operation which we have enjoyed will continue, because one must have a system which provides fairness and objectivity.
  It is important that it is not a matter of central Government versus local government, and that the system tries to share out the money in the most effective way. Therefore, these matters must not be party political, but they must be political matters as they involve the distribution next year of over £17 billion in revenue support grant. Grant distribution is therefore not something that I can delegate.
  In any settlement, authorities which do badly are tempted to cry foul but that is not the case this year. Greenwich borough council is not one of the Government's greatest supporters—I am sorry about that and I hope that the council will become so—but it says that it
  "has been heartened by the attention paid in the settlement to the points which it put forward."
  Northumberland county—again, not a Conservative authority—said:
  "The County Council is greatly encouraged by the changes to SSA methodology."
  In his evidence to the Select Committee, Mr. Tony Travers said:
  "A number of commentators have accused SSAs of being politically rigged … Yet there is no evidence of such political intervention".
  That is why I regret and resent the scurrilous allegations of the Opposition—particularly the hon. Member for Blackburn—that the system is somehow affected by the party political divide. That is clearly not true, and all the independent commentators and Tony Travers have said that in turn. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw

  1053
  that allegation, which is unworthy of him and which is not suitable if we are trying to find the best way to reach an achievement.
  It is perfectly proper for the hon. Gentleman to say that more money should be spent, although the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East might object to that. It is perfectly proper for the hon. Gentleman to object to some aspects of the Government's policy on the matter. It is not proper for him to complain about a system which is known to be objective and which is supported as objective by large numbers of the hon. Gentleman's supporters.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I ought to move on, but I will keep my eye on the hon. Gentleman who is attempting to intervene.
  I do not want to weary the House, and I hope to continue the present system. There may be some changes, but I hope that they will not be too radical so that they can settle down satisfactorily. The methodology that I proposed in December is set out today in the local government finance Report which is before the House.
  I do not want to recount all the changes in the methodology, but there is one specific set of changes which have occurred since the start of consultation which I should mention. During the consultation, a number of authorities commented on the data which we had proposed to use in calculating their SSAs. In particular, Havant district council and Tameside metropolitan borough council drew our attention to problems with the data for the number of people claiming housing benefit, which we used in the new economic index. Opposition Members have referred to that.
  In the light of representations from the councils, I have adjusted the data used in the SSAs for Havant, and for authorities bordering Manchester. I hope nobody thinks that that is party political. I have done my best to get as near to the objective truth as I can.
  A number of other data changes have been made where more up-to-date or accurate figures have become available. For example, we have since the consultation been able to incorporate actual basic credit approvals and the latest estimates of supplementary credit approvals into the calculation of the capital financing element. The latest information on the size of local authorities' local tax bases has been incorporated to grant calculation also. In many cases, the effect of the changes is small but accuracy is important if the system is to continue to have the widespread support which the changes have brought about.
  This year's review of SSAs has been thorough and wide ranging. I agree with the Select Committee that
  "there will always be a trade-off between improving the technical content of the SSAs and increasing its complexity."
  I hope that we do not need such a wide-ranging review for some time to come.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Minister has quoted selectively from the Committee's report, and he has tried to suggest that the only people who believe that SSAs are not an objective and mathematical equation are Labour members.
  Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Audit Commission said in evidence that by the choice of the data used, their formulation and the weight which they were given, the system could be no more than a covert way of taking political decisions in the distribution of grants?
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman ought to read the Audit Commission report more carefully, and he should be much less selective in quoting what the report said.
  I will repeat what it said in full so that the hon. Gentleman will not in fact miss this out. The Commission said that the system is
  "a more sophisticated system for equalising needs"—
  I cannot think of anything more objective than needs—
  "than any overseas system examined in this study and it is an improvement on its predecessor in many respects."
  I find that difficult to square with the selective comments of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. John Whittingdale: May I thank my right hon. Friend for listening with such care to the representations which were made to him by local authorities in the south-east, and in particular for extending the area cost adjustment? That has resulted in Colchester borough council having an increase in its SSA of 14 per cent. Does he agree that, given that generous settlement, there can be no justification for excessive rises in council tax this year?
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is kind to say that we listened to Colchester borough council. We have listened to all who came to us, and we have tried to make as clear a change as possible. Of course, we cannot make changes for individual local authorities. The system is designed to be objective, so it would be wrong to believe that something special can be done for any particular authority. I agree with my hon. Friend that, given the difficulties of the time, the settlement is sufficiently good for people to expect local authorities to make the kind of efficiency savings which will enable them not to have large rises in council tax.
  I note that both the London borough of Ealing and the London borough of Brent have announced that they will he reducing their council tax by £100.
  It may be that the political complexion of those two authorities explains how they are able to do it against the background of the Labour authorities that they replaced. They may have had a good deal more elbow room. It is more difficult for well-run Conservative councils which have already been extremely good about running their affairs to make such significant decreases. But then people have had the benefit of lower council taxes over the years.
  We shall continue to discuss the SSA methodology with the local authority associations. For 1995–96, we will want to consider the treatment of the police element in the light of the proposals in the police Bill. I have also undertaken to have a further look at the way in which the area cost adjustment in the south-east region decreases as one moves away from London.
  I appreciate the position of authorities which will see a sizeable reduction in the SSA next year. Despite the firm underlying rationale of the changes that I have proposed, authorities will need time to adjust to those changes. Not only have we created a system that we can stand by as objective, but we have seen that where changes are large there must be some help for people moving from one figure to another.
  That is why, in December, I made proposals for a special grant to compensate authorities which have lost more than 2 per cent. of SSA as a result of the incorporation of the new census data, and of the changes stemming from the review. That grant is a generous response to the problems of those authorities and it was

  1055
  widely welcomed during the consultation process. The special grant report No. 9 will establish that grant for 1994–95, and some £280 million will be distributed to local authorities in that year.
  The SSA reduction grant will ensure that authorities which face a reduction in SSA will not have to make an unreasonable demand on their council taxpayers. I shall look closely at the issue again next year before deciding whether it is justified to continue to damp the year-on-year impact on local taxpayers of the SSA changes.
  I announced my intentions for capping for 1994–95 on 2 December. The House will know that I hope that we will not have to have recourse to capping this year. We had few cases of capping last year and I hope that we shall have even fewer this year. Those intentions give effect to the Government's view that local authorities must play their part in controlling public expenditure by setting budgets that taxpayers and the country can afford.
  As the House will be aware, capping works in two ways: by limiting budgets which in my view represent too large an increase over the previous year or budgets which are simply too much. In relation to the former, the provisional criteria allow authorities with budgets close to their SSAs larger increases than authorities with budgets which are higher relative to SSA. Those excessive increase criteria remain my firm intentions for 1994–95.
  I also announced on 2 December my proposals for relevant notional amounts for certain authorities. "Notional amounts" is not a phrase that I like, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is one that represents the base from which I shall measure increases in budgets for the purposes of the excessive increase criteria. I proposed notional amounts for authorities which are subject to a change of boundary from 1 April 1994 to take account of the effect of their budgets of changes in their area and population. A small number of authorities made representations to us on those proposals.
  In those cases where authorities have submitted information which in our view provides the basis for a better assessment of the effect on their budgets, I have specified a revised notional amount which will be used —if the House approves the notional amounts report—as the basis of the operation of the excessive increase criteria. In all other cases, the notional amounts specified in the report are those originally proposed. So we have tried always to go along with local authorities where they have come armed with effective proof.
  On absolute excessiveness, we have considered whether authorities which are subject to a substantial reduction in SSA as a result of the changes that we have made following the SSA review and the incorporation of data from the 1991 census should be required to reduce their budgets in cash terms. Authorities could not necessarily have anticipated the scale of those reductions and they may need more time in which to adjust their expenditure. I hope that Opposition Members will accept that, again, I have tried to find a way of helping those authorities which could not protect themselves in advance, even in circumstances in which their overall excessive expenditure ought to have made them wish to reduce it.
  In order to help, it is my intention that authorities with budgets more than 12–5 per cent. above SSA, of which the SSA has been reduced by at least 5 per cent., as measured
  1056
  for the purposes of SSA reduction grant, should not be required to make more than a cash freeze on their budget for the previous year in order to avoid designation for capping. In all other respects, the provisional absolute excessiveness criterion which I announced on 2 December remains my firm intention.
  As for start-up costs of local government reorganisation, we have announced details of a scheme for 1994–95 to allow authorities to borrow for certain costs. I have previously announced that if authorities include in their budgets any reorganisation costs, as defined in the scheme, those costs would be disregarded for the purposes of capping. That remains my intention.
  I would not, however, expect provision to be made for significant expenditure by authorities other than those which are to be reorganised from 1 April 1995. Authorities should be quite clear that, when I take my capping decisions, I may come to a different view on the treatment of reorganisation costs. It would, for example, be open to me to decide to take account of all or part of that provision for capping purposes, if authorities had used it as a means which clearly was not part of what was designated or sensible for reorganisation.
  This year's settlement shows the Government's determination to take tough decisions on public spending, while recognising the importance of local services and of providing authorities with the resources that they need to provide those services at a reasonable cost to their taxpayers. It also demonstrates the Government's wish to see a fair distribution of the available resources on a robust basis which uses the most up-to-date information. It shows above all that the Government are willing to listen to local government—
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: what about an elected authority for London?
  Mr. Gummer: —and to co-operate in improving the systems within which local authorities must operate.
  Some of the examples which the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) would have heard if he had been here, many of which related to London, show that, when we have listened to local authorities, we have changed our proposals to fit what they have asked for. All the SSA changes were changes that the local authorities themselves sought, and we sought to meet.
  Mr.Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman—to whom I shall not give way—would have been better advised to listen carefully to the points that I made. Yet again, I was able to show—
  Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to refer to a Member in disparaging terms and then refuse to give way to him to allow him to defend himself?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): It is entirely a matter for the Minister, or any other Member who has the Floor, whether he decides to give way or not. It is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with it.
  Mr. Corbyn: What is the convention on the matter?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here for many years and he knows of many ways in which he might pursue any complaint.
  Mr. Gummer: I was coming to the last sentence, but I should like to say, so that the hon. Gentleman should not feel that I have been unfair to him and in response to his intervention from a seated position about London, that I was able to deal with London. I mentioned that his colleagues on the Select Committee suggested measures which, if they were carried through, would remove £1,000 million from London. Others of his colleagues in the Opposition wanted us to change the SSA on daily visits. That again would take money from London.
  The hon. Gentleman should have been here to hear that, because he could have interrupted me to say how pleased he was that I was fighting for London. I am sure that he is pleased that I am fighting for London, and that he will fight with me for London against his honourable colleagues.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am deeply grateful to the Minister for giving way at last. I really appreciate it. I want him to know that. While he is on the subject of London, he will just occasionally have picked up the argument for an elected authority for London so that London's planning, transport, housing and other issues can be properly co-ordinated. Every other capital city around the world—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Obviously, the Minister's colleagues are upset.
  I should be grateful if the Minister would let me know what he says to Londoners when they respond to his document by asking for the return of an elected authority for London that could help to solve London's problems and enable London to speak with one voice.
  Mr. Gummer: I am happy to say that, of all the issues that Londoners want to talk about, an elected authority is pretty well down the list, even if they want to talk about it at all. It is interesting that, with our enormous investment in the London tube system, we are paying for all those years when the Greater London council did not invest in that system. In almost every case, the all-enveloping London authority wasted thousands of millions of pounds. It also left behind enormous problems, which are now being suitably met both by elected boroughs and by the involvement of Government in the enormous investment in London.
  I commend the settlement to the House. It is a fair settlement in a difficult year and it has been recognised as such across the board. It has wide support and we have sought to achieve a fairer system of sharing out the money. I am pleased that many different authorities, of all political complexions, have suggested that what we have done is well done.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: In July 1979, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) announced his strategy to set local government free. He said:
  "We will sweep away tiresome and excessive control over local government. They do not need, they do not want, the fussy supervision of detail that now exists."
  But 15 years on, the reality is very different. Each of the 144 Acts of Parliament affecting local government that has
  1058
  been passed since then has restricted its rights, increased the tiresome and excessive control of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke and extended
  "the fussy supervision of detail".
  The party that once campaigned to roll back the frontiers of the central state has been responsible for a massive extension of the powers of the central state. In an article just last week in The Guardian, a former Conservative education Minister, the hon. Member for Stratford-onAvon (Mr. Howarth) said that the result of the past 15 years has meant
  "the virtual destruction of the autonomy of local government".
  In Britain, local government is more centrally controlled than it is anywhere in the western world, in Europe or outside the old Soviet Union. The Conservative party of Joseph Chamberlain now has a local government policy of which Joseph Stalin would have been proud. The key to the central state power that Ministers now exercise over England's 400 local councils and 24,000 councillors is capping.
  The first objection to capping is that it patently undermines local democracy and local accountability. That view is widely understood across the parties and was even a few years ago. In her memoirs, Lady Thatcher records that the then Secretary of State for the Environment, Chris Patten, was
  "strongly opposed to any kind of comprehensive capping of local authorities. He argued against it … on the grounds that it would undermine the principle of local accountability".
  The second objection to capping is on the grounds of fairness. As long as local government draws a substantial part of its revenue from central Government—that will continue for ever into the distance—there will have to he as fair a system as possible for the distribution of that grant to recipient local authorities. That was the purpose of the standard spending assessment system when it was established in the late 1980s. At that time, as the Audit Commission made clear in its report "Passing the Bucks" published last March, and the Select Committee on Environment repeated in its report:
  "SSAs were now being used for tasks for which they were not orginally designed."
  The Secretary of State comprehensively failed to mention that in his quotations from the Committee's report, which were so selective that I seriously doubt whether he has read or comprehended it.
  The Audit Commission report continued:
  "The manner in which SSAs are used to limit council expenditure has confused accountability for local services between central and local government."
  That is obviously the case because, as the Audit Commission said, when the SSA system was established, less than 50 per cent. of total local authority revenue was controlled by the SSA system. Now, 80 per cent. of local government revenue is directly dictated by the SSA system and the total spending of every authority is controlled by its SSA.
  If one uses a machine in a way for which it was not designed, one imposes intolerable stresses on it for which no design solution exists, and the result will be irrational, unpredictable and, in the case of SSAs, profoundly unfair. I am glad that every member of the Select Committee recognised that truth. Again, the Secretary of State stayed silent on this statement by the Committee:
  "We appreciate that the use of SSAs in the capping process is putting pressure on the SSA system. We recommend the

  1059
  Department address the problem of how to reduce the pressure on SSAs as a result of using them in the capping process and that it considers and evaluates alternative approaches."
  The SSA system is literally a zero sum gain, to use the jargon. One council's improvement is another council's loss: a reform made here will lead to a perceived injustice there.
  However fair Ministers may claim to be in making judgments about the system, some of the conclusions defy human experience and understanding. Under the new social index, Hove in Sussex ranks as a region of greater social need than Liverpool; Runnymede ranks as more deprived than Wolverhampton. Ministers must understand that those absurdities would matter far less if councils had the freedom and flexibility in their revenue base to set their own tax levels and were not the subject of the most monstrous gearing penalties, under which, for every £1 change in their grant, there is typically a £4 change in the level of their council tax.
  The third objection to universal capping is that it does not work on its own terms—it lacks utility. Of course many councils, particularly those in high-stress urban regions, have had their budgets forced down well below the levels necessary to maintain a decent level of service year after year. Many authorities have been forced to cut out discretionary but important sectors of spending. There are also councils, however, whose budgets have been forced up by the capping process and are above the levels that the local electorate and councillors thought appropriate.
  In January 1993, Ernest Mallet, the Conservative leader of Elmbridge district council in Surrey, described the capping system as a joke. He said that, in his view, it encouraged councils to "spend up". He added:
  "if there were no capping, our spending would probably be about £1 million—[or 8 per cent.] lower".
  The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): The hon. Gentleman has chosen the worst example that he could give. The spending of the council to which he referred is 49 per cent. above its SSA. It is about the only place in the country where his thesis is unsustainable. Capping is pulling down that expenditure and ought to pull it down. That irresponsible council needs to be taught a lesson.
  Mr. Straw: I am talking about a Conservative council and about what happened in 1993. The Minister should listen rather than quote silly figures. I have used the argument on that council before and it has never been contradicted by Ministers in the past. Mr. Ernest Mallet said that if there were no capping, the council's spending would be about £1 million lower.
  Ministers have played their part in the process. While Environment Ministers, as we have seen, have attacked local authorities for spending too much, education Ministers have attacked the same local authorities for allegedly spending too little. That was precisely the position that Birmingham council was in year after year. It was caught in a vice of Ministers' making. Environment Ministers said that it was spending too much, but education Ministers, year after year, complained that it was spending too little.
  Mr. Curry: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said that Birmingham had seen the error of its ways and was trying to make a virtue out of spending
  1060
  more on education. It set a budget that plans for the maintenance of services, but the budget speech did not once refer to the loss of a single job in Birmingham. If the hon. Gentleman's thesis were correct, Elmbridge district council's spending could not be 49 per cent. above its SSA because it would have been capped. He cannot say that its spending would be £1 million lower if it were not for the system. Its spending is 49 per cent. above the SSA. It is one of the councils about which the truth is very clear, but capping is reducing that expenditure.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman will have to take that matter up with the Conservative leader of Elmbridge council. I was referring to what that gentleman said in January 1993. His figures were correct. There is plenty of evidence to show that capping authorities that were spending under their standard spending assessments—that applies to some small districts and to other authorities—put political pressure on them to spend up to their SSAs, thus using the assessments as a control figure for which they were never intended.
  The Minister of State mentioned Birmingham. He may not realise—this is also incontrovertible—that having spent years complaining about the fact that Birmingham was spending too little on education, this year he and his colleagues at the Department for Education have cut the amount that it can spend on education by £18 million, so this year Birmingham is spending above its SSA. On this occasion, will he condemn or congratulate Birmingham for doing what last year Education Ministers called for but Environment Ministers damned—spending more on education?
  Mr. Curry: The answer is plain. We have always made it clear that spending is not hypothecated. That is one of the firmest principles of the SSA system and it was sustained by the Select Committee on the Environment. Spending on education is therefore a matter for Birmingham. Of course we must distribute grant according to some sort of methodology and education is one of the elements, but once the grant arrives in Birmingham the council can spend it on what it wants. It may not be wise, but it is legal and that is the essence of the matter.
  Mr. Straw: I am glad to have that on the record and I support the principle. Perhaps the Minister and the Secretary of State—who also takes that view, I think—will talk to their colleagues and especially to the Secretary of State for Education and stop him from saying something wholly different from the message that we just heard from the Minister.
  The problem is that the system ends with something reminiscent of the 1970s incomes policies so despised by the Conservative party. In place of local discretion and negotiations with electors there is a national going rate, regardless of local circumstances. On a normal distribution curve, the pattern of spending before capping is translated into a single vertical line.
  As a delegate to the Conservative party conference last autumn, Miss Sarah Whitehouse, put it
  "under rate capping"—
  meaning the system of capping that we have now—
  "you can't tell the difference between Labour and Tory."
  I think that one can, but her remarks contain an essential truth, as there is no longer any discretion at a local level enabling people to enter into a bargain with their electors about what they should spend.

  1061
  What is more the effect on public spending is perverse. I am not aware that the Treasury and the Department of the Environment have undertaken any studies on the utility of capping. No doubt they are frightened of what they might discover. Several times in his speech the Secretary of State quoted with approval the views of Mr. Tony Travers—a man whom he described as
  "an independent expert on local government finance".
  A study by that same Mr. Travers—from the London School of Economics—which was published in July 1992 found that capping had
  "led to higher spending by councils, the opposite result to that intended".
  During the debate on housing last week I warned Conservative Members, with my customary concern for their welfare, about the dangers of relying on the briefs produced by Conservative central office. When such giants as Iain Macleod, Rab Butler and Enoch Powell worked there, Conservative central office research department had the enviable reputation that, however disputatious the arguments advanced, its assertion of fact would be beyond question. As standards have plummeted as much inside the Tory party as they have within the Conservative Government, much of that department's material is now tendentious, inaccurate or downright mendacious in the extreme.
  Ten days ago central office, panic-stricken by the effects of Labour's exposure of the Conservatives' tax fraud at the last election, produced the so-called list of Labour spokespeople's alleged spending commitments that I have here. In it, central office alleged that the cost of ending capping and compulsory competitive tendering—as I made clear in a speech in Brighton on 1 October 1993—would be £800 million. Were the Secretary of State or his political advisers or officials consulted about that figure? Where did it come from? If not, was the statement a straightforward invention—like so many statements from Conservative central office? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am happy to give way to the Secretary of State at any moment.
  When will he and central office wake up to the truth that the policy that we intend to adopt on local government finance is, with one important additional safeguard, precisely that policy outlined by the Prime Minister, in the White Paper that I have here, when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury in July 1988? When the White Paper was produced the Secretary of State was a local government Minister, so I assume that he had something to do with it and approved of what it said.
  In the White Paper the Government announced that they would
  "in future exclude expenditure from the public expenditure planning total which local authorities finance or determine for themselves."
  It went on to explain why they intended to do so, saying:
  "The present procedures lump together expenditure for which the Government has different degrees of responsibility. This blurs the status of the various aggregates—grant on the one hand and locally raised finance on the other. A further disadvantage is that by counting the total expenditure of local authorities in the planning total insufficient attention is paid to the grants that central government provide to local authorities."
  It went on to say:
  "Very few other industrial countries plan public spending in this way. For federal states, such as Germany, the United States or Canada, this would conflict with their federal constitutions but even in other unitary states such as France or the Netherlands the Government generally makes budgetary plans only for central government expenditure … the new process of public expenditure control would be enhanced by redefining the
  1062
  planning total so that it distinguishes expenditure which was the responsibility of central Government from that which is the responsibility of local government",
  which would be excluded from that planning total.
  I am not surprised that the Secretary of State is burying himself in his notes on the Bench. The crucial question is, if that policy was right then and he endorsed it, what—apart from the monumental mismanagement of the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Cabinet, which has brought the economy to such a low point—has changed since? That policy was sensible and is the one that we shall adopt.
  As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon said in his excellent article in The Guardian last week:
  "We should end capping, re-establish local government and allow it to resume its traditional right to act on behalf of local communities, answerable to them through the electoral process."
  Mr. Tracey: While the hon. Gentleman is on the question of policy, will he say what is the Labour party's policy on councils that do not collect council tax in such great measure?
  Mr. Straw: Our policy on Labour, Tory, Liberal or any other council that does not collect council tax is that it must do so. We have only one policy; it is the same for the collection of local and central Government taxes. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) should devote as much attention—proportionately more, given the weight of the problem—to the collection of Inland Revenue taxes by the Government as he devotes to the minor problems associated with collection of the council tax. It is a scandal that £1·7 billion of income tax and other central taxes are uncollected. When will the hon. Gentleman start to condemn his hon. Friends for that?
  On top of that, I hope that the hon. Member for Surbiton will look at the appropriation accounts for 1992–93, which spell out the extent to which Ministers are complicit in tax dodging in the black economy—that is in addition to the £1·7 billion of tax that has been levied but not collected. The Inland Revenue and the Public Accounts Committee say that there may be an annual tax loss in the black economy of several thousand million pounds per annutn. That is in paragraph 171, vol. 12 of the appropriation accounts. The hon. Gentleman needs to spend more time doing that instead of nit-picking at the excellent record of most Labour authorities.
  Mr. Gummer: May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to local government? If the London borough of Southwark is not collecting its council tax, it cannot spend it. Does the hon. Gentleman support the proposals of the London borough of Southwark to put council tax collection out to tender?
  Mr. Straw: I support the right of democratically elected councillors of Southwark to make their own decisions. The Secretary of State is a centralist and believes that he should make the decisions for every single council in the land.
  Mr. Curry rose—
  Mr. Straw: The Ministers are now doing a Mutt and Jeff act. I will give way to Jeff.
  Mr. Curry: In an article this morning, the hon. Gentleman said that part of his formula for local government was a universal system of election by thirds. Is that telling local government what to do or leaving it the choice?
  Mr. Straw: That is an absurd proposition.
  Mr. Curry: Well, the hon. Gentleman suggested it.
  Mr. Straw: The Minister is making the utterly absurd proposition that local government should entirely write its own rules. Of course it should not do that.[Interruption.] Local government is part of the national democratic framework, or should be—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many sedentary interruptions. I am also concerned that instead of debating local government finance, we are now discussing other matters which may be related but are not the heart of the matter we are debating now.
  Mr. Straw: I say parenthetically that the Secretary of State does not even know what the rules are.
  By law, without discretion, in every metropolitan borough there are elections by thirds, except in one year when there is a bye. In London boroughs, there are elections every four years. In the shire districts, there are either elections by thirds or all-outs every four years. In the shire counties they are once every four years. That is a rag-bag of a system. Democratic accountability could be improved by elections by thirds everywhere and by changing the financial year so that the local elections each year could genuinely be a test of the local authorities' financial proposals to their electorate.
  Mr. Rooker: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is a fundamental principle that there is a direct and specific connection between local government finance and accountability at the ballot box? The House is the Parliament of the nation—it is our duty to write the rules. One of the rules that we should like to write would provide for annual elections. I have repeatedly asked the Government to restore annual elections, even in Birmingham, to give us back the missing year from the abolition of the county council. It is wrong that one year in four should be missing and that London should have the chance to vote only once every four years.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Our proposal of annual elections is very popular with the electorate. They want the chance to choose; why is the Secretary of State denying it? I am astonished that it has become a partisan issue. We should all be agreed on it as it extends accountability.
  Mr. Gummer: Let me bring the hon. Gentleman back to the collection of council tax. I am not asking him whether he would insist that Southwark does that, but the public would like to know, as he has been extremely diffident in his advice. Is he or is he not in favour of contracting out, and would he or would he not support the London borough of Southwark? It is perfectly reasonable to ask whether he would or would not support it—or does he not know?
  Mr. Straw: Although I am not in favour of compulsory competitive tendering, as I believe in local democracy, I believe that local authorities have a right to decide whether their services should be directly delivered or put out to contractors. If Southwark decides that that is the most appropriate way to collect the council tax, I will support Southwark's right to make that decision. It could not be clearer.
  1064
  I am sorry that the Secretary of State has turned accountability into a partisan issue as we support greater accountability. If the financial year for local government were changed, as we are proposing, each year's local elections would not only be a test of local government policy but could act as a referendum on the budgetary proposals of local councils.
  The Secretary of State had much to say by way of self-congratulation about how well he had done in the public expenditure round. He seemed not to recollect the embarrassing table on page 97 of the Red Book, which shows that his Department suffered the largest cut by far in planned expenditure of any single Department—three times that proposed for the Ministry of Defence which suffered the next highest cut. He also referred to claims made last year about job losses. I notice he could not produce any claim that I had made which turned out to be inaccurate because the claims made by the Opposition turned out to be all too accurate. We did a proper study of the likely effects of last year's settlement upon job losses.
  The previous Secretary of State said that there would be no job losses. As the recent study from the Local Government Management Board made clear—a study in which Department of the Environment statisticians take part—there has been a reduction of 50,000 local government staff in the year to September. At least 30,000 of those were reductions in staff as a direct result of the local authority financial settlement last year and not because of transfers to compulsory competitive tendering or of transfers of staff to grant-maintained schools.
  It is too early to predict the overall consequences of the settlement, but we know two things. First, there will not be sufficient money to pay teachers and other public servants. What I object to about the Secretary of State's statement and the Government's stance is the pretence. They promise to make the pay award of 2·9 per cent. recommended for teachers, and seek to curry favour with a particular section of the electorate by doing so, but fail to follow that through by providing the necessary resources. As local authorities' administrative expenses as a proportion of the total are now tiny, many local authorities will have to pay for teachers' pay awards increases with the jobs of other teachers.
  The settlement will have a severe effect on some local authorities. Liverpool is one example. Under the ludicrous ranking of the new social index, Liverpool is only the 85th most deprived area of the country, below Salisbury, Bath, Hereford and other green and pleasant cathedral towns. In the real world, however, simple observation shows that Liverpool has one of the worst concentrations of social and economic problems, not just in the United Kingdom but in the whole of western Europe.
  The Government know that that is true. That is why they supported Merseyside's successful argument for objective 1 status, which revealed that the average income of households in the region was only 79 per cent. of the EC average. That great city, responsibly led by Harry Rimmer and his colleagues, now for its pain faces a gratuitous cut of £4·5 million in its SSA. Most of that is explained by an absurd cut—not offset by other improvements—of £11·5 million in its SSA for children.
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The Secretary of State made several references to the fact that the Government were accommodating, flexible, ready to meet local authorities and hear their objections. We have faced capping and cuts. The city council then decided to

  1065
  commission Miss Rita Hale as a consultant and took its case to the Minister of State. Is my hon. Friend aware that it went away with another cut of £100,000 in its grant? That is another gratuitous kick in the teeth for the city council.
  Mr. Straw: Yes, I am aware of that. I was saddened by reports of the meeting, and I hope that the Minister will consider Liverpool's problems again.
  As we know—not least from the harrowing James Bulger trial last year—Liverpool's problems in relation to children at risk are no less severe than those of other areas. Where is the rationale in earmarking a 30 per cent. cut in Liverpool's spending on children at risk and on other children's services? That is irrational and is bound to be harmful. The vice in which Liverpool is now caught is a direct result of the total central control that Whitehall—200 miles away—now exercises over Liverpool city council's ability to solve its problems.
  Mr. Wareing: My hon. Friend mentioned that the European Commission had granted objective 1 status to Merseyside: it recognised the area's problems. Liverpool fears, however, that not much money will be available to meet objective 1 aims. All other programmes have been cut, and the Merseyside development corporation is likely to be phased out by 1997. We are told that the European objective is to create employment and services for the people of Merseyside—contrary to the aims of the gauleiters who reign from Marsham street. If the gauleiters are to review Liverpool's programme, they should consider the need to match the objective 1 funds.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is entirely right: he has illustrated the extent of Liverpool's financial problems.
  Within living memory, the Conservative party and its allies the progressives held sway in Liverpool, as they did in many other great towns and cities. Now, the Conservatives have been reduced to a rump in local government. That may explain why so few Conservative Members are present for this debate, why so few were present for the debate on housing, and two weeks ago, in the debate on the flagship policy of the national business rate, why for hours on end not one was in the Chamber to support Ministers.
  The Conservatives now control just 10 London boroughs, one metropolitan borough and one shire county. In contrast, Labour has never been stronger in local government, with good reason: people know that Labour provides a higher level of service and better value for money than either of the other main parties.
  Of the 10 councils with the best record on nursery education, seven are Labour-controlled; none is controlled by the Tories. In Labour areas, 40 per cent. of three and four-year-olds have the chance of a nursery education; in Conservative areas, the figure is only a third of that—just13 per cent. Of the five local education authorities with the best record on class sizes, three are Labour, while four of the five worst LEAs are Conservative-controlled. Contrary to what was said by the Secretary of State, class sizes have risen as a result of the intense squeeze on LEAs.
  Of the 16 most efficient councils named last year by the Local Government Chronicle, eight are Labour, while just two are Conservative. Of the 25 most efficient housing authorities named before Christmas by the Minister for
  1066
  Housing, Inner Cities and Construction, 11 are Labour-controlled, three are Labour-dominated, and only four are Conservative.
  Collection rates have been mentioned. Far the worst council in regard to rent arrears is Conservative Brent. It is owed £16·8 million—a third of its rent roll. The Conservatives have been in power for four years, and they cannot even collect the rent. If we consult the Department of the Environment's computer to find out which authority has the highest proportion of homes that are available for rent but empty, which authority emerges at the top of the list? I almost hesitate to name it. This authority has only 40 council houses, although 1,463 people are on the waiting list; of those 40 houses, 13—30 per cent.—are empty. I refer to the district council in the Secretary of State's constituency.
  Conservative Ealing has the highest council rents by far: £66·06, twice the national average.
  Mr. Tracey rose—
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) clearly wants another fact to take around his local estates. Every one of the five councils with the highest rents is a Conservative-controlled London borough.
  Mr. Corbyn: One of the strategies adopted by Westminster council was to leave homes empty, so that the homeless remained on the streets, in hostels or in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and then sell them to the highest bidder, thus depriving the poor of somewhere to live. Is not the Secretary of State's local authority likely to adopt the same strategy?
  Mr. Straw: Yes—and we look forward to hearing some condemnation of what has happened in Westminster. I shall return to that later.
  As I think the whole country now knows, average household council tax bills are £14 higher in Conservative areas than in Labour areas, although they generally provide worse services. The Secretary of State said that it was up to councils to set the level of their taxes, but that is not so. The total revenue of councils is set by the Secretary of State in the capping orders and notional amounts: it follows as night follows day that council tax levels all over the country are also effectively being set by the Secretary of State.
  Let me warn the Secretary of State and the country that, if his decisions about the relation between capping and SSAs cause average bills to be higher in Labour areas than in Tory areas—contrary to this year's position—that will serve only to confirm our claim that Conservative Ministers tend to favour Conservative rather than Labour authorities. The absolute power of Tory Governments over councils must be accompanied by corresponding responsibilities for council tax levels.
  For all the fancy words of the Prime Minister—who said last year that he wanted a "renaissance of local government"—or the Minister's frequent mention of the need for a new consensus, Ministers can rarely bring themselves to praise local government. Instead we are fed a diet of low-grade, mendacious abuse, especially by Conservative central office.
  Two weeks ago, it published a dossier on the London borough of Haringey: it is a tissue of fabrications, inaccuracies and downright lies. According to one of its sections, after the demolition of Wood Green and Hornsey

  1067
  town halls, a secret report to the Labour group had recommended the sale of a grade 2 town hall for about £5 million.
  We can argue about statistics, and we sometimes do; we can argue about political philosophies. It is difficult, however, to argue about whether a building is standing or has been demolished. For the benefit of the Secretary of State, here is a photograph of Hornsey town hall. It is still standing, as is Wood Green town hall.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will my hon. Friend refresh my memory? Was it not Conservative-controlled Kensington and Chelsea council that knocked down a town hall overnight when the preservation order was about to be served?
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should point out that this is not a general survey of council properties. We must return to the main thrust of the debate, which concerns local government finance.
  Mr. Straw: I entirely accept what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point is that, had those town halls been demolished and had Haringey council lost the money —as Conservative central office alleged—serious spending cuts or a council tax increase would have been necessary. This is not just an aberration in an otherwise impeccable statement about Haringey's record; it is symptomatic of the lack of care and the tissue of innuendos and lies that emanate from Conservative central office.
  Mr. Gummer: I am happy to accept that Wood Green and Hornsey town halls are still standing, but can the hon. Gentleman explain why Haringey's long-term debt is double that of Romania?
  Mr. Straw: My answer is that, until I see further and better particulars from Conservative central office, I should not dream of accepting that what the Secretary of State said was remotely accurate.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: If the hon. Gentleman is not happy with the documents produced by Conservative central office, I commend to him a document called "Haringey Council" written by the council's deputy leader. It describes the council as having a legacy of waste, inefficiency and centralism and says that it suffered from a crisis of management which still infests the council's culture. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his own side?
  Mr. Straw: No, I do not. Haringey has a very fine record and produced an extremely good rebuttal document which deals with the town hall and the rest of the lies. I recommend it to the hon. Gentleman.
  I am glad that he intervened because I understand that he is the chairman of the local government committee of Conservative central office—a part-time post if ever there was one. He racketed from Bradford to Brentwood with failure in his wake. It was he who, as leader of Bradford council, diverted £13 million of housing capital allocation to fund the inner-city ring road, cut £13 million from the education budget in a single year and increased rents by £8, thus losing £8 million in subsidy from the housing revenue
  1068
  account—no wonder Bradford Conservatives lost control as quickly as they had gained it. Now he is in Brentwood and cannot gain the support of his senior party officials.
  The Brentwood Weekly News of 20 January 1994 states that Mr. Dashwood-Quick, the chairman of West Horndon Conservatives, went on air to say that the Government
  "had a clear lack of responsibility, poor leadership and disregards the views of grass roots Tories who helped get us elected".
  He is also reporting as saying:
  "all decisions seem to be governed by a need for expediency rather than what is right."
  Mr. Dashwood-Quick was right.
  The Secretary of State for the Environment mentioned Birmingham, Britain's second city. Under Labour control, the economy and environment of that great city has been transformed for the better. The programme of public buildings in the centre of the city, from the international convention centre, the symphony hall, the council house and down to New street, makes the area one of the finest cities not only in the United Kingdom but in Europe. It is so fine that the Prime Minister was all too happy to share in the reflected glory for the Birmingham summit in October 1992.
  Of course, such programmes of inner-city and urban renewal require vision and cash. Of course, they were bound to cause controversy, but Birmingham Labour leaders and Birmingham Labour party had the courage to see their vision through. No one can gainsay their achievement, except the small-minded partisans among the Conservatives and their lickspittles in the Conservative press.
  Last Friday, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment with responsibility for housing, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), issued a tacky, two-page attack on Birmingham, under the heading "Birmingham the Barmiest". However, not even he could bring himself to make his assertions with absolute confidence. He said that Birmingham was coming up on the inside as the new loony left authority but added the important qualification
  "if you believe last week's Mail on Sunday."
  My advice to the hon. Gentleman is that it would be dangerous to believe The Mail on Sunday last week or any week, as he clearly realised.
  In the same disreputable handout, the Minister relies on the Birmingham Evening Mail. Virtually every adverse story about Birmingham which appears in the national papers begins life in the Birmingham Evening Mail or its sister paper The Birmingham Post. The headline "20 Barmy Ways Labour Waste Cash in Brum" which appeared in The Sun was a direct lift from the list of 50 such charges in The Birmingham Post last November. There is, of course, a reason for that. The Birmingham Post and the Birmingham Evening Mail are owned by Midland Independent Newspapers. One of the few surviving Tory Members of Parliament for Birmingham is the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). He is not only chairman of the Conservative party but chairman of Midland Independent Newspapers.
  The man who is allowing Conservative central office to peddle whoppers about town halls in Haringey and even bigger untruths about tax is the man who heads the two monopoly papers in Birmingham which tell lies about Birmingham city council. Instead of acting as the mouthpiece of Tory central office and denigrating it, those two papers should be speaking up for that great city. If

  1069
  there is any meaning in the word "independent", the group could begin to show it by inviting someone other than the right hon. Gentleman to act as its head and appoint as chairman someone who does not have such a patent and vested interest in shoring up the fortunes of a Tory party on the slide in that great city as elsewhere.
  Mr. Roy Thomason: If Birmingham city council is the paragon of virtue that the hon. Gentleman describes, will he explain why the current leader only recently took control in a left-wing coup, dispossessing the Labour group's chosen leader?
  Mr. Straw: I am almost tempted not to allow any more interventions from Conservative Members for fear of their humiliating themselves. in case the hon. Gentleman had not spotted it, the truth is that, when my good friend and great colleague Sir Richard Knowles retired as leader of Birmingham city council, there was an election. In the Labour party we honour our elders and allow them to go in their own time—not for us the backstairs coup for which the Tory party is even today sharpening its knives.
  Mr. Gummer: Hardly had Sir Richard Knowles left office than the new leader attacked his polices, said that they were wrong for Birmingham and wanted new ones. The hon. Gentleman must decide which Birmingham he is talking about—the Birmingham of Councillor Stewart or that of Sir Richard Knowles—because Councillor Stewart said that she would have preferred to use the money very differently.
  Mr. Straw: I happen to know both people rather better than the Secretary of Stale, and one cannot put a sheet of paper between them. I have here the budget statement of the new leader of Birmingham city council who went out of her way to praise her predecessor's record.
  As for the charge of inconsistency, the Secretary of State should be careful. We have heard him pontificate about the merits of the council tax but I have here the 27-paragraph speech—called "The Morality of the Community Charge"—which he made in Blakeney in Norfolk in 1988 and which I suspect that he wants to forget. In it, he castigated the idea of any tax based on property. It contains the fantastic sentence:
  "As a moral traditionalist, I have grave misgivings about situational ethics"—
  whatever they may be. He then described the iniquities of domestic rates. He ended by saying that the community charge was indeed
  "a morally superior alternative"
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Could I be very boring and inquire how this relates to the financial reports that we are supposed to be debating?
  Mr. Straw: I was challenging the sincerity with which the Secretary of State is recommending the new system when only four years ago he was supporting a completely different system—the poll tax—and when he also supported the 1988 White Paper, which set its face against capping.
  In the list of councils that did best and worst in the provision of nursery education—
  Ms Estelle Morris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the picture painted by the Conservatives of the difficult decisions taken by Birmingham city council with its limited finances is not
  1070
  accurate? Does he agree also that the Government's handling of the economy prevented the council developing the city centre and promoting housing, social services and education? It is only as a result of clever leadership that Birmingham has been the only city that has invested in its city centre and saved jobs. What Councillor Theresa Stewart means is that now we can turn our attention to meeting other pressing needs, and the needs of other parts of the city.
  Does my hon. Friend agree about two matters? If the Government had taken—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be short and this sounds as though it is going to be a mini-speech.
  Ms Morris: No, it will be a very short intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government had taken a lead from Birmingham city council and invested in industry, the nation would not be in the mess in which it is now? Does he also agree that there is no difference of opinion between councillors in Birmingham city council? We are tackling all our problems, but because of the way in which the Government give us finance we need to do things one by one instead of being able to do them all at the same time.
  Mr. Straw: I agree. I congratulate Birmingham city council on its excellent record in economic and social development. On the issue of the so-called prestige projects, Councillor Theresa Stewart said in her budget speech:
  "I want to say a word about the so-called prestige projects which I am supposed to love to hate. I believe we have safeguarded their position"
  in the budget. She recognises their importance to economic development in that city.
  In the list of councils that did best and worst for nursery education, to which I drew attention some minutes ago, the few Liberal Democrat councils that exist are at the bottom of the list, not the top. The Isle of Wight, where the Liberals have been in control since 1985, is 96th in the list of 107 local education authorities for nursery education. Only 7 per cent. of children in the Isle of Wight have the chance of a nursery education. By their deeds shall ye know them. The only appearance of a Liberal council anywhere near the top of the list—Tower Hamlets—reflects the investment of ILEA, not of that Liberal borough.
  In the past few months, the country at large has seen the reality of Liberal Democrat control of councils—overtly racialist, unprofessional and literally out of the control and influence of the national policy. As the ombudsman said of Tower Hamlets, many of the problems of Tower Hamlets stem from the Liberal Democrats' decision to decentralise administration of seven neighbourhoods.
  To try to salvage their fortunes, the Liberal Democrats in Tower Hamlets have now hired the services of the television reporter Mr. Vincent Hanna, not as a public relations adviser, but as acting chief executive, for a fee of almost £3,500 a week. Mr. Hanna is now earning—
  Mr. Corbyn: He is not worth it.
  Mr. Straw: Mr. Hanna is now earning, I understand, almost as much as Mr. Ian Wright, Arsenal's excellent striker. I think I know who is better value, and it is not Mr. Hanna.
  Only 12 months ago, the Prime Minister said that we must build a new accountability fit for the 21st century, a new accountability that goes directly from those who run public services to those who use them. The Prime Minister was correct, but I doubt whether he realised what he was saying, for contained in those words was a revealing admission that, 14 years after the Conservatives came to power, there is a crisis in the accountability of the public services. Indeed, far from having a system fit for the 21st century, we have one that is slipping back to the 18th century, in which graft, corruption and favour reign supreme.
  That was the message of last week's Public Accounts Committee Report. It had nothing to do with denigrating loyal career public servants and everything to do with blowing the whistle on Ministers and their appointed cronies who fail to understand how vigilant they must be in maintaining the critical line between the public's interest and the interests of the Conservative party and its backers. Far from strengthening accountability, it has been weakened by Government policies. Responsibility for £24,000 million a year of public services has been removed from local government and a high degree of cynicism has been generated about the way in which some so-called flagship authorities have been favoured at the expense of the rest.
  Everyone knows that, year after year, grant was stuffed the way of Westminster and Wandsworth. This year, 17 per cent. of the total of transitional relief is going to a single borough—Wandsworth. The arithmetic is plain for people to see. Everyone knows too that the trail from Westminster city hall and its appalling policies of social cleansing and political gerrymandering leads straight back to Conservative central office and to a number of hon. Members, in this House and in the other place.
  Of course we accept that there should be due process, but that was not, by the way, what was accepted when it came to Labour councillors or other councillors who were being surcharged at the behest of Conservative objectives. We do not have to wait for the procedure to be through before we hear from Ministers about their view of the policy. After all, when those objections were made three years ago, Ministers in the other place were saying that the scheme of designated sales was a very good scheme which addressed a difficult problem for Westminster. Ministers have never been slow to criticise or condemn Labour councillors on the flimsiest evidence or none. When, then, will their trappist silence on Westminster end?
  The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, in the excellent article in The Guardian to which I referred, said:
  "The superseding of local responsibility by centrally appointed bodies and individuals has gone too far and weakens the democratic political culture".
  He is right.
  We oppose the orders because they are the tangible representation of a centralised system of control, which denies people proper choice, which removes responsibility from elected local councillors and which has undermined the standards of the public service and the health of our democracy.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Barry Field: I do not want to continue along the road down which the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has led us, but I wonder whether he could help me. I do not know whether he is listening to me, but I wonder whether he can confirm that the Vincent Hanna whom he mentioned is the same Vincent Hanna who had such fame in the BBC exit poll in 1979 that was the subject of an inquiry in the BBC. Is he one and the same?
  Mr. Straw indicated assent.
  Mr. Field: I take it amiss when the hon. Gentleman tells us that Conservative Members are uninterested in local government or are somewhat opposed to it, because my family have served for five generations in local government and we have enjoyed our service immensely. I think that many of my hon. Friends would share that view. We think that local government is an honourable service and that to serve it is a way of putting something back into life in return for what we receive from our local community. I resent the assertion made by the hon. Member for Blackburn that Conservative Members do not value local government and the service that it provides.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn took us from Joseph Stalin to Dashwood-Quick; we went via Romania. He focused on the empty houses of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—all 13 of them. I have heard a de minimis argument maximised from time to time in the House, but never in such an extraordinary way. When he discussed capping and his usual antipathy to it and proved the way in which it encouraged everyone to spend, it seemed to me that he must have been thoroughly in favour of it, if that was the nature of his argument. It is well known, however, that his views about local government are about as up to date as a wicker shopping basket.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), Chairman of the Environment Select Committee, hopes to catch the Speaker's eye in Monday's debate about the aftermath of and the follow-up to the Rio conference. In his usual generous-hearted way, he asked if I would introduce the Environment Select Committee's report on standard spending assessments this evening, as a member of that Committee, rather than hope that he might catch the Speaker's eye on two separate occasions in a short time. I am happy to have that opportunity this evening.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made some kind and courteous comments about the Select Committee's report, for which I thank him. He referred to Mr. Tony Travers, who was one of the witnesses who came before the Select Committee, and pointed out that a report by Mr. Travers said that the doom and gloom of last year's settlement had been very much overdone by Opposition Members. Indeed, if every one of us who has served in local government had a pound for every occasion when an initiative of the Government or some announcement or settlement was going to be the end of local government and bring it to a screeching halt, we would be richer than the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and we would all be able to afford a council house in Westminster.
  The report makes more than 20 recommendations, which encompass a mixture of technical and procedural

  1073
  changes, as well as matters of presentation. The theme throughout the report is an acknowledgement of the genuine attempt that Ministers, officials and local authority associations have made to bring a better understanding and a greater transparency to what was a rather opaque process. Although that process hardly ignites the interest of the citizens of our nation, it certainly touches on each and every one of their daily lives in the cities, boroughs and districts in which they live.
  There was a universal welcome for the openness of this year's standard spending assessment review, and our recommendations reflect the Committee's desire for that progress to be taken further and improved so that it is as transparent and open as possible. That could be done by improving the technical construction of SSAs and by reducing the pressure on the whole system by reconsidering their use for purposes other than grant distribution.
  I know that many Opposition Members wish to speak, so I shall not take up the time of the House by going through all the Committee's recommendations. Instead, I shall highlight some of them. One recommendation, which is especially pertinent in view of a number of the interventions in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, concerns openness. That is a good place to start.
  Most, if not all, of the members of the Committee had had experience as councillors, either on our present local authorities or elsewhere in the country, so we appreciated the fact that there is a cake-cutting system. Sometimes—in fact, practically always—that system is seen as political. Our recommendations include a suggestion that it would be useful if Ministers highlighted where they had exercised judgments, spelt out those judgments and explained why they had been made. I see no reason why we should be shy of doing that. After all, politics is what we are here for, and Conservatives are here to form a Government and discharge our responsibilities. We should not be shy of setting out where Ministers have made those decisions.
  Much time was taken up in the Committee by discussions on a subject that has already featured in our debate—the area cost adjustment. I believe that my right hon. Friend dealt effectively with that subject when he opened the debate, but I am certain that if we could see the way in which Ministers take decisions, and when and why they take them, we could begin to depoliticise the process, which would be helpful.
  The Committee thought that the Department of the Environment could be more helpful to local authorities if it provided them with individual completed calculations to show the composition of their SSAs. I do not know whether my experience is typical—one cannot help drawing on one's own experience of the way in which matters are arranged by one's own local authority and of taking deputations to see: Ministers—but it seems to me that hon. Members are often used by their local treasurers to see Ministers in order to explore the figures behind the decisions, and to get down to the formula, or the arrangements of figures, for their local authority.
  An enormous amount of public money seems to be spent, and national resources wasted, by deputations coming to Marsham street from all over the country. It is a time-honoured craft. I am sure that some people come because they like shopping in Harrods and others because they like singing "The Red Flag" in the four-ale bars in the
  1074
  House. So there may be other agendas involved. In general, I believe that the deputations come in order to get down to the nitty gritty of the figures.
  If, when they weigh that recommendation, my right hon. and hon. Friends in government believe that it would be expensive and onerous, I wonder whether they might consider making the data available, in disc form compatible with local authorities' computers, to each family of authorities—perhaps to a few authorities in each family, as an initial experiment, if they are not prepared to go the whole hog and dish out all the facts and figures, which I appreciate would be a pretty mammoth exercise. I believe that that could lead to considerable savings.
  We agreed with all our witnesses that hypothecation should not feature in SSAs. I especially homed in on that thought, because we read reports that the Labour party is now flirting with the idea of hypothecation to overcome the great problem caused by the fact that it keeps telling us where it would spend money but never tells us where that money would come from. We also know that the Liberal Democrats fought the general election on the idea of a hypothecated tax.
  In my view, that idea strikes at the core of democracy, because if we start hypothecating taxes we cause all sorts of problems. No doubt we should have to create a vast bureaucracy to ensure that all the money raised in that way was allocated and spent accordingly. The main reason why hypothecation should never be attempted in local government, which has been alluded to by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, is that it specifically undermines local democracy.
  Two principal divides take up much of the time spent on local government in the Chamber. The first is the quantum, and that subject will be with us for ever, whatever Government are in power. The other concerns the fact that local councils want the maximum freedom to make the choices that affect their local communities.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: While my hon. Friend is talking about democracy, and the Liberal Democrats, does he recall the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) leading a campaign to get rid of area cost adjustment? Does he think that that campaign will be revealed by Liberal Democrat candidates in the London boroughs, or might the Liberal Democrats say one thing in the north of England and something entirely different in the south of England?
  Mr. Field: My hon. Friend contributes, as always, a reasonable and practical point. The Secretary of State dealt well with area cost adjustments in his opening speech. Although there is antipathy in some parts of the Labour party for area cost adjustments, clearly London would have a problem if they were abolished.
  If my hon. Friend thinks it rare for Liberal Democrats to contradict themselves between the north of England and London, he ought to come and see what happens in the Isle of Wight, where they contradict themselves between one side of the island and the other. That is a much smaller area than the United Kingdom.
  One rather interesting result of our report was an article that appeared on the front page of the Evening Standard last Tuesday, arising from recommendation 9, concerning responsiveness to local circumstances. I have taken some soundings from my London colleagues on that recommendation. The Committee received evidence that the SSAs for

  1075
  London skewed the national SSA analysis and distribution, so we recommend that London should be taken out of the system for the rest of the country—or at least, that the Department of the Environment should consider taking it out, and evaluate the pros and cons of doing so.
  I have been an officer of the Back-Bench tourism committee for some years and nobody knows better than I the problems that tourism creates in London. The House itself is a magnet for international tourists, and we have to work our way through groups of evil little French children who seem to block our way during the summer months. I remember that our dear old friend the late Robert Adley was always on about the problems of coach parking in London and the difficulties and traffic congestion that tourists created.
  I believe that most of my hon. Friends think that the recommendations of the Select Committee give us the opportunity to take London out of the system. Judging by the soundings that I took, they believe that if we get the formula right everything else flows from that. Indeed, when we look at this year's settlement and see the damping that has been put into a number of London boroughs, because of the way that the formulas work this year, we hope that our recommendation will commend itself to Ministers and officials. Nowhere in our recommendation did we have the temerity as a Committee to make the point about the quantum, which is on the front page of the Evening Standard. Other things may flow from our suggested reform, but we certainly did not go that far.
  In opening the debate earlier, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has probably almost dealt with the point about the reform of local government. I hover over it, however, because I very much hope that the Isle of Wight will be the first unitary authority under the local government reorganisation in the United Kingdom. I must make the point that any reform of local government structure will create considerable turbulence in the SSA in the short term. My right hon. Friend mentioned that he has already announced arrangements for the costs of reorganisation. With the greatest respect, that is a differernt point from the one that we make in our report, on turbulence.
  One of my concerns has always been that the merging of three local authorities into one—there will perhaps be greater combinations of that elsewhere where recommendations have been made—might lead the system to believe that the pruning of bits of the SSA for districts, when they go into counties, or vice versa, could take place. That is rather worrying.
  We homed in on the use of data and the census information. A number of us found that our population projections had been overstated in the interim. Once the census has taken place, there is a fairly dramatic effect once a decade. Although it is true to some extent that local government has a bit of a vested interest in over-egging the cake in the interim, and gets a holiday out of it, in this day and age, with the use of computers, it must be possible to try to keep the information more up to date. We hope that our officials will take that point on board rather than have that precipice at the end of every 10 years.
  The point was made about year-on-year change in SSAs. I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend, who said that he hoped to keep them much as they are, and with as
  1076
  few changes as possible in the future so that the system could settle down. The Committee was concerned about how the cost of delivering a standard level of service could change dramatically from one year to amother. I have already alluded to the damping that has been made available to some London boroughs. We hope that the Department will carry out more research into the real cost of service provision and the additional educational needs factor, which has been alluded to.
  This has been my contribution to introducing the Select Committee's report on SSAs. It is a dull subject and hardly bedtime reading. I hope that I may now be forgiven for introducing my own constituency interest in the matter.
  The Select Committee met my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 13 January, following a meeting with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), on 12 December about community care funding. We had a difficulty because of the huge distributional difference that arose between 1993–94—50 per cent. was based on local income support cases and 50 per cent. on the then current SSA—and the revised basis of the SSA in 1994–95.
  We appreciate the fact that local authorities knew that the distribution system would change in 1994–95, but the only information that we had was that contained in the 1993–94 SSA data. No one in the Department or in local authorities knew at that time what the revised SSA would be. Further, there was no prior suggestion to local authorities that all the resources for community care in SSA and special transitional grant would be distributed on a 1994–95 new SSA basis.
  The national resource total has been preserved, but the distribution in different years has changed by factors from a multiplier of 5·537 in the City of London to one of 1·206 in Sefton, with the Isle of Wight in the penultimate position, a multiplier of 1·435, and a national total factor of 2·254.
  The delegation to the Department of Health on 21 September sought to persuade the Department to reconsider the distribution at least to the extent of agreeing that the excessive swing above and below the national average increase should be dampened. I am still waiting to hear the outcome of that meeting from my hon. Friend, but I remain concerned about the effect that it will have on the SSA for 1995–96, because it seems that next year's figures will set that figure in the future.
  Another concern is much longer running. I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, because when we met him with his officials on 13 January he said that we were the only local authority deputation he had seen who had raised with him the fire and civil defence SSA. He generously told us that he would take up the matter with the Home Office. I draw his attention to the fact that, on 24 May 1988, we took a deputation to the Home Office to meet the noble Lord Ferrers. There was a letter on 31 October 1991 to the Home Secretary from the chairman of the public protection committee about the problem. I wrote again on 23 January 1992. We received a reply on 18 February 1992 from Mr. Gilderoy at the Department of the Environment, which was referred to the Home Office.
  We took another delegation on 5 March 1992 to meet the noble Lord Ferrers. We had a meeting on 5 March 1992 to discuss the matter and, on 6 December 1992, met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who was then Minister at the Department of the Environment. On 4

  1077
  February, we took his excellency the lord lieutenant for the Isle of Wight to the Home Office. When I met my hon.Friend the other day in his Department, he said that he could see our frustrations at having gone backwards and forwards between the Home Office and the Department of the Environment. We had a problem with the Department's definition of the SSA as
  "the appropriate amount of revenue expenditure which would allow the authority to provide a standard level of service, consistent with the Government's view of the appropriate amount of revenue expenditure for all local authorities".
  That is significantly at variance with the appropriate amount for a standard level of service as determined by Her Majesty's inspectors of fire brigades. Thus, in the island's case, two separate assessments of need by the same Department of State produced two totally different answers. Clearly, both those answers cannot be right. I ask that my hon. Friends do all in their power to put that right. Our archaeological curator on the Isle of Wight, when we were discussing coastal erosion and sediment transportation, likened the Isle of Wight to a giant Alka Seltzer which was dissolving into the sea.
  I have given the long litany of deputations and meetings, involving Ministers at the Home Office and at the Department of the Environment, about the fire service standard spending assessment for the Isle of Wight. We can hardly dial 999 and expect the adjoining fire brigade in Hampshire to catch the ferry to help us put out the fire. That gives us great cause for concern. If we are not an Alka Seltzer dissolving into the sea, we are in this respect a ping-pong ball which has gone backwards and forwards between the Department of the Environment and the Home Office. I look to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary not only to ensure that there is fair play but to put the ball right out of court so that we can stop this administrative nonsense, which is quite unnecessary.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Ron Leighton: The London borough of Newham has more than its fair share of problems. Its economy was based on port-related activities in the docks and on the railways. All that has gone, leaving a great void. Newham's docks, the Royal docks, are still an eerily empty moonscape. The promised development associated with the London Docklands development corporation has just not happened. Newham has suffered greatly from the recession. It has more than double the national average rate of unemployment, with all the damaging and debilitating consequences. Few of Newham's school leavers get jobs.
  Much of the borough's housing was built at the turn of the century, and is in bad condition. The council has a huge waiting list, and it has 3,000 people in temporary accommodation. The most recent survey, conducted by the Department of the Environment and Manchester university, shows that Newham is the most deprived local authority in England and Wales. I am not proud of that; we want to get away from that. Many people in Newham are striving valiantly to improve things; they want the Government's support, not their hindrance.
  One area in which progress is being made is education. There has been a big increase in good GCSE results in Newham. The one exception is Stratford school, where the results are abysmal and a scandal; that school has opted out. The education service is working against great difficulties.
  1078
  I visited one comprehensive school and saw, in the reception area, a long list of more than 20 languages. When I inquired about it, I was told that it was a list of the home languages of pupils in that school. We have many refugees. I was told by the representative of one group that there were 7,000 Somalis in Newham. Not only are their children not fluent in English when they arrive, but, because of the war, they have not gone to school to learn to read and write their own language.
  Some 50 per cent. of Newham's children have a home language other than English. Section 11 was a great help to us because section 11 grants paid for teachers to help with the teaching of English, but that money has now been cut. I led a deputation to the Home Office. The Minister of State listened to what we said, congratulated the deputation on its cases, and more or less said that he agreed with it. However, he then said that his budget had been cut.
  Last year, Newham was aggrieved by its revenue support settlement, which allocated unfair standard spending assessments—the Government's estimate of what a local authority should spend to provide a standard level of service. The borough was short-changed by more than £22 million.
  There were two main reasons. The first was that Newham's capital SSA was based not on the real amount that the council had borrowed over the years, with permission from the Government, to invest in houses and schools—£208 million—but on a notional amount of £109 million. Under that ludicrous arrangement, Newham received a capital SSA of only £18·5 million, while it was committed to spend £29·75 million to service its capital debt. That left a shortage of £11·25 million, which had to be taken from somewhere else, robbing other areas of activity.
  The second reason is that Newham has an acute homelessness problem. It has a statutory obligation to house homeless families in priority need, using temporary accommodation if necessary. Last year, Newham had to spend £11·25 million and there was no statutory provision —no SSA recognition—for that. Once again, other budgets had to be raided. With a shortfall of more than £11 million for capital and another shortfall of more than £11 million for homelessness, Newham was short-changed by more than £22 million.
  Newham, a deprived inner-city borough with multiple problems, had to spend under its SSA less than the amount that even this Government think we should spend on services across the board, including education. It was a nightmarish situation, and all our problems were made worse.
  Out of concern for the damage that was being done and for the unfairness of the settlement, local people got together to form the Newham Needs Campaign. It consists of the Churches, voluntary organisations, local trade unions, the borough council and the local newspaper, the Newham Recorder. It arranged a deputation to the Department of the Environment to see the Minister of State. It organised a conference at the town hall and a rally in Trafalgar square.
  The campaign—this grouping of local people—rejoiced and had high hopes and expectations when it was learned that the SSA methodology which had so penalised Newham was to be reviewed and changed. It was felt that, at last, Newham's grievances would be remedied. Here was an opportunity to give the borough a fair settlement.

  1079
  The House can imagine the consternation, the dismay, the shock, the disbelief and the sense of betrayal when it was discovered that that new settlement and the new methodology were more damaging than the old, and that they gave Newham an even worse deal. Indeed, if the previous system had remained unchanged, Newham would have received £18·75 million more than it was allotted under the new arrangement. This year, a one-off reduction grant of £13 million is being paid to cushion the effect of that cut. Even that is guaranteed only for one year, and, if it is removed, things will be even worse in a bleak future.
  The three Members of Parliament and the council leader came to see the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment. He told us that the settlement was formula-driven—that the formula was fed into a computer and that what came out was the settlement. It appeared that Ministers had no discretion: that we had government by computer. That proves to me that the straitjacket of a rigid formula does not meet the individual needs of each authority. The effect on Newham is perverse and appalling.
  I can illustrate that point by comparing the borough with its neighbours. The SSA per head for Barking and Dagenham was increased by £42 compared with the figure for last year. For Tower Hamlets it was increased by £45 per head, and for Havering it was increased by £46 per head. For Greenwich it was increased by £73 a head, but for Newham there was a reduction of £31 per head. That is outrageous—it blights all our hopes, and sabotages all our efforts to improve life in the borough.
  Do Ministers want a spirit of hopelessness to pervade the borough's affairs? Are they proud of the fact that we cannot spend up to our SSA on education, and that our teachers are expected to struggle with less than even the Government think we should spend on education? If our SSAs are reduced this year—we have had confirmation of that—will Ministers please tell us what else should be cut? I should like them to give us guidance today. Perhaps they think that we should shut the borough's swimming pools, or close even more of our libraries. How many more staff are they asking us to sack?
  Ministers have a duty to tell us what ought to be cut. I want the Ministers to come to Newham to meet the people on the ground, to see the damage done by that settlement and to discuss with those people what should be done.
  The Secretary of State, who is not present, came to a recent conference at Stratford town hall. He did not come to listen to any of the speeches that preceded his. He made his own speech and disappeared immediately, without any contact or discussion with anybody else. His theme was partnership.
  After the financial stab in the back that we have just heard, a hollow laugh and much cynicism is likely to greet that theme. We feel let down by our partner, who is kicking us in the teeth. If any life is to be breathed back into that partnership, the Secretary of State should agree today that he will visit Newham to discuss on the spot in the borough how that settlement is to be implemented and what he thinks should be cut.
  Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend witnessed the exchanges that I had with the Secretary of State on that word "partnership". Does he agree that the Secretary of State and the Government must explain why we are being short-changed by £20 million-worth of expenditure
  1080
  through an SSA calculation which they claim to be fair, but which is clearly fraudulent? It is breaking down local government in London, while their quangos and partnerships are able to provide patronage, and will do even more in the coming financial year.
  Mr. Leighton: It is fraudulent. We saw the Minister about the fact that we were short-changed on capital financing and homelessness last year, and he did not dispute the point. If the old SSA methodology had remained, we would have received £18·75 million more than we have been offered under the present settlement. That cannot be right. Whatever formula was fed into the computer, it must have been defective.
  Let us consider the future. If the £13 million reduction grant which has been allocated to compensate for the loss of £18·75 million is removed next year, we shall certainly be looking into a big black hole. The only glimmer of hope on the horizon is contained in a letter from the Minister for Local Government and Planning, which I received on 27 January. That letter said of the representations that the Minister had received from local authorities:
  "They raised many interesting issues, some of which we will want to look more closely at for future years."
  I hope so. I also hope that the Minister and the officials in the Department of the Environment will carefully study the letter that they received from Drew Stephenson, the chief executive of Newham local authority, of 5 January.
  There are four areas which I would like them to consider for the forthcoming year: capital financing, homelessness, the needs indices and the use of expenditure data. This year, there is a £10·7 million gap in capital financing in Newham. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will remember that he suggested that local authority associations supported what he had done.
  I was able to point out that Price Waterhouse and Co. was supported by the Association of London Authorities and by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities when it proposed a different capital criterion, the non-housing credit ceiling for 1990, as opposed to the notional debt figures. We agreed. If that system was in operation, Newham would have had an extra £9 million in its capital SSA.
  This year, there is a £10·3 million shortfall between what the council will have to spend on homelessness this year and the SSA that it will receive. I hope that Ministers and officials will consider that there should be a separate sub-block for homelessness expenditure.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Before my hon. Friend moves off the issue of homelessness in Newham, would he draw conclusions from the fact that, in 1981, the borough spent around £50,000 a year on homelessness, and it now spends £10 million a year?
  One of the big problems in Newham is the number of refugees who are attracted to the area. We are not objecting to the Government allowing people who are fleeing from oppression to come to the country, but they should not wash their hands of their responsibility for those people at the port of entry. Refugees put great stress on the services of boroughs such as Newham, Haringey, Camden and Islington, without those boroughs receiving additional resources to deal with the problem.
  Mr. Leighton: My hon. Friend is right, although he underestimates the situation. We spend more than £10 million, and receive only a little bit of that back in the new

  1081
  SSA. The gap is £10·3 million. My hon. Friend is right to say that, a few years ago, Newham spent virtually nothing on housing homeless families in temporary accommodation.
  However, because the Government have prevented local authorities from building houses, the homelessness situation is worse. There is now a statutory duty on local authorities to house homeless families who are in priority need. Newham is obliged to spend that money, but it gets no recognition for it from the Government.
  That money must be taken from somewhere else. It has to rob other budgets, such as the budget for education, to pay for homelessness, because the Government will not recognise the need. Only a small number of London authorities have that great problem of homelessness, and there should be a separate sub-block for homelessness in the SSA settlement.
  Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend recall that the London group of Labour Members constantly pressed for a formula which would have enabled London boroughs to be properly recompensed for the legitimate needs of refugees in their communities, and to link it with the problems of severe homelessness, which are worst in the inner-London boroughs, of which Newham is one?
  Mr. Leighton: It is true that we have a large number of refugees—some 7,000 Somalis, as I mentioned previously. I visited one primary school recently, where there were over 20 home languages in one class. I also mentioned Langdon school in my constituency, which has done extremely well. In its reception area, there is a list of over 20 home languages. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has said, no one can say that we are not willing to do our best for refugees, but that presents extra challenges, for which there should be some financial recompense.
  Despite that additional difficulty, we have to spend less on education than the Government say we should in their SSA, because we have to spend more than £10 million on capital financing and more than £10 million on homelessness than we get in SSA. Can that be right? Can Ministers be proud of that? I want them to visit my borough, talk to the teachers and justify that situation. It cannot be right. I hope that Ministers will take that matter on board, and will be willing to discuss education with the borough's teachers.
  We must have new needs indices, because they too penalise Newham. Newham has been relegated. The Secretary of State said that Newham was fifth in the country. That is not true. It was fifth last year, and it is now 10th. The Under-Secretary knows that his Department is drafting indices with Manchester university which put Newham first.
  One of Newham's especial objections is that the lack of bathrooms or inside WCs, which was previously required in the all-ages social index, has been removed. That is an example of deprivation. Many houses in Newham do not have those facilities, yet the requirement is being dropped from the new index. Once again, that penalises us.
  Expenditure data in the SSA are used to measure the need to spend. From 1990 to 1993–94, that measure was based on the 1987 expenditure data. However, that has been changed this year, and we are now going to use 1990–91. It is unjust to Newham to use that year, because, in that year, Newham cut its expenditure by £7·6 million in
  1082
  the face of anticipated rate-capping. That year is compromised as a basis because of the expenditure constraints in that year. I hope that Ministers will re-examine that.
  I have mentioned the four areas which must be re-examined to give justice and a fairer deal to Newham. I hope that Ministers and officials will consider my comments seriously. I hope that officials in the Department will read what I have said and consider it for future years.
  Newham has great potential. It is anxious to work in partnership, but the Government must prove to be a better partner than they are being at the moment.
  6.50 pm
  Sir Peter Fry: I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument. We have heard rather a lot about Newham today, and perhaps it is time to move on to other parts of the United Kingdom.
  No doubt the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), thought that he gave a very clever speech. All he proved was that he has excellent research assistants. His speech seemed to be composed entirely of quotations from other people. It was very short on Labour party policy—except perhaps that relating to removing the cap, with the typical Labour contempt for the problems of local council tax payers.
  Over the years that I have been a Member of this place, I am afraid that I have had to make representations several times about central Government funding for local government in Northamptonshire. I have always done that on behalf of the county council. This year, the problem is somewhat different.
  Hon. Members who represent the county find themselves in a difficult situation, and I would like to explain briefly why. As we all know, on 2 December last year, the provisional revenue support grant settlement was announced. It apparently became clear to the present county leaders that Northampton was going to be very badly affected.
  Unfortunately, there was no communication from the county leadership to the county's Members before the consultative period ended on 10 January. Therefore, we as a group had no opportunity or information to enable us to intervene or make proposals during the consultation period.
  None the less, the new Labour leadership managed to put a case together, and asked for, and obtained, a hearing on 12 January with the Minister for Local Government and Planning. I want to assure the House that the county's Members would have been willing, and indeed anxious, to take action at that time. Parliament had already resumed after the Christmas recess and alas, as we all know, we have been in almost constant attendance ever since.
  It is also interesting to note that, on that same day—12 January—Northampton's education department issued a letter to all head teachers and chairmen of governors announcing that there would be a cut in the most sensitive area of all: the age-weighted pupil unit. That is the money given directly to schools on a per-pupil basis, and it was a cut of £3 million.
  That cut seemed to run contrary to what the chairman of the education committee stated on that day. He said that his policy was one of protecting front-line services as much as possible. What was worse was that he then had the gall to

  1083
  call on the county's Members to attack the core problem. At that time, he knew—or he should have known—that the details of that core problem had not even been communicated to us.
  School governors were urged to hold meetings. They were told to write to their local MPs and to persuade parents to demand action. All that took place without any direct contacts between the county council leadership and me or my colleagues. Indeed, my first intimation of the extent of the problem occurred when I received a lobbyist, a member of UNISON, the county council's local trade union, on 18 January. That was six days after the papers were issued to head teachers and governors.
  That trade unionist gave me a summary of the meeting that took place between the county leaders and the Minister on 12 January. Irrespective of one's political affiliations, I suggest that many people would agree that that was hardly an ideal way to conduct affairs between the leadership of the county council and those who have the honour to represent it in this House.
  I have listed those events because, like some of my colleagues, I fear that we have been deliberately set up for purely party political motives. Historically, we have always supported the county leadership, be it Conservative-controlled or Labour-controlled, to do our best for the people of the county and to try to keep the tax at a reasonable level.
  I want to make it quite clear that, although we may be angry about the way we have been treated, that does not prevent us from being concerned about the way in which the county's SSA has been calculated this year. To begin with, it is necessary to set out the county's basic case. That case is fairly simple.
  If we consider the movement of population between 1981 and 1991, the latest year for which figures are available, we see that, while the population of England and Wales was virtually stagnant and increased by only 0·08 per cent., the population of Northamptonshire rose by 8·2 per cent. Our school population dropped by only 10·2 per cent., while it dropped by 15·9 per cent. in the rest of the country.
  Perhaps even more significantly, in the zero to five age group, national figures show a rise of 10·9 per cent., while ours increased by 15·2 per cent. Therefore, I submit that, on population grounds alone, it is at least somewhat surprising to discover that our SSA shows a reduction of 0·3 per cent. for 1994–95. Ours is the only shire county in which there is a reduction.
  It has been suggested that previous county councils were never over-generous in education provision. The current average primary expenditure per pupil in England and Wales is £1,632. Northamptonshire is spending £1,555. For secondary level, the national figure is £2,310, while Northamptonshire is spending £2,139. In the expenditure league tables, we are 32nd of 39 shire counties on primary school expenditure, and 28th on secondary school expenditure.
  One does not have to be a public relations genius to be able to whip up strong feelings based on a presentation of the figures to which I have just referred. However, I will refer later to another issue that is very relevant to those figures.
  1084
  Many people in the county are saying to themselves, "What's gone wrong?" My first reaction to what has happened was to remember the story of the lonely man who went to a dating agency and asked for a young, beautiful, exotic female with slim legs and red hair. He discovered to his horror that the computer dated him with a cockatoo. The problem with the system is that one can feed the information in, but one does not necessarily get the result one expects.
  From my discussions with the Department, I now understand that other factors in the calculation outweigh our population increase. I understand that there have been changes in the weighting of payments to take account of the number of children of single-parent families and the number of families on income support and of ethnic minorities—quite apart from changes concerning homelessness, unemployment and long-term sickness.
  It seems to me, however, that Northamptonshire may well be losing because it has become slightly more affluent. One accepts that a more affluent county should have to bear a greater proportion of its essential costs, but the increasing population, by causing a reduction of the allowance for sparsity of population, has resulted in a wider gap, and this has been very damaging in the current year.
  I turn now to the one aspect of the county's current education spending that has been common to the Conservative and Labour leaderships in recent years. Northamptonshire is one of the counties that have for some years been educating all their rising fives. This has had a considerable effect on the primary-sector budget.
  It takes about £10 million to make provision for all children to go to school after they reach their fourth birthday. Thus, the average cost per pupil is brought down, as under-fives expenditure is not recognised by the Government on the ground that it is purely voluntary, and no grant is forthcoming. That complication indicates a very crucial fact—that, no matter what the budget is, the county council decides its own priorities. If the county is to continue its policy of educating the rising fives, the next 12 months will undoubtedly be very difficult indeed.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I—like all my Northamptonshire colleagues, I believe—share my hon. Friend's plea for a fair deal. We are deeply concerned about this matter and are confused by the fact that a county with a rising population and an increasing number of children should receive a lower grant, even at a time of low inflation.
  Sir Peter Fry: It is clear that, if the standard spending assessment were based merely on the number of schoolchildren, the result would be different. The SSA and the way in which the level of grant is worked out are now so complicated and so continually refined, and there are so many other factors—to some of which I shall return in a moment—that the increase in school population does not automatically ensure that funds come from central Government. That is the terrible truth that we in Northamptonshire have discovered this year. In a moment, I shall suggest how we might address it.
  On the basis of all the discussions that I have had, I believe that, no matter how we look at it, the Government's calculation was absolutely correct. It may not suit Northamptonshire—we may be the odd one out—but there is not much doubt that the figures that were fed in and those

  1085
  that came out were correct. I should make it clear, however, that I do not regard the result as at all satisfactory —in fact, it is far from satisfactory.
  For the reason to which I referred at the beginning of my speech—involvement only after the end of the consultation period—I regretfully accept that at this stage very little can be done about the amount of SSA, and therefore about the grant that we shall receive for 1994–95. I accept that any formula change at a late stage would affect not just Northamptonshire but all other local authorities, with the confusion and delay in settlement that would be caused.
  I should like to deal with two matters at which I hope the Government will look carefully over the next few months—certainly before this time next year.
  First, at present, the date on which we take the number of children at school for the purposes of grant calculation is 1 January. I suggest that that is far too early, and that it certainly does not take into account areas where the school population starts to rise. From the under-fives figures that I have provided, it is very clear that we shall soon have a considerable increase in the primary education needs of the county.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confer with the Department for Education to see whether the date could be changed to 30 September. That would have the very real advantage of including part of the school year in which the financial year starts at the beginning of April. The Government say that they want to use up-to-date figures. Here is a way in which that could be achieved.
  The second matter at which I hope the Government will look carefully has been mentioned by the Secretary of State and by other hon. Members tonight—the area cost adjustment. To those of us who have been members of county councils since this adjustment has been in force, this is not a new Department of the Environment problem.
  What we do not understand is why, no matter how worthy the adjustment, and however necessary it is in London and other inner-city areas, there should be such disparate figures for adjoining counties. Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire—the last two hardly less affluent than Northamptonshire—receive more than £20 million extra in grant. I do not expect the Government suddenly to give us parity with those counties, but there should not be such a stark contrast between adjoining counties with very similar standards.
  Surely this allowance should be revised, the support varied or tapered, so that it is reduced as one moves further and further from London. Surely that would be better than the current sharp break. I submit that, nationally, it would be much more equitable. It would remove the grievance of my constituents about their being unfairly penalised. This is a matter that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department must consider over the next few months.
  Because of the complications that have been introduced at such a late stage, we can only make these representations tonight. I shall not withhold my support in the Division Lobby, but the people of Northamptonshire would not forgive me if I were to fail to tell the Government that we feel that there must be some improvement in one or both of these areas before we come to next year's settlement. If there is no improvement, support will become more problematical.
  In the meantime, the county council will have to live within the budget that has now been fixed. However, the arbitrary reduction of the age-weighted pupil unit is the worst possible option that the county council could have
  1086
  taken. It may lead to a number of redundancies in the teaching profession. When one realises that there may be a need for increased redundancy provision, one sees the weakness in the policy. The truth is that, because of the increase in the provision for redundancy, a cut in the AWPU figures will produce a much smaller gain than we had thought.
  There is another element. When I suggested to the leader of the council that implementing some of his election pledges on extra expenditure could be put off this year, I was met with a refusal. In other words, the current council leadership are saying that they are prepared to see teachers' jobs sacrificed to their social doctrine or—dare I say it?—their own pig-headedness. That is the attitude of the county council, and I hope that the teachers and unions will take note of it.
  Many other savings could have been made. I pay credit to the Conservative opposition on the council, who presented an alternative budget which would have reinstated the AWPU payment in full. It would have gone further than that—it would have reduced the level of the total council tax that is required, and the county would not need to spend up to the capping limit.
  I suggest that, in the interests of both our schoolchildren and county taxpayers, it is a tragedy that the leadership of the council ignored that alternative strategy, refusing to consider even a part of it. I can understand the concern of many parents, teachers and governors, but we must make the point that it is the county council, not the Government, that sets the priorities within the budget available.
  What I am asking for is a clear commitment that the present system, refined and complemented as it has been, is not perfect, that some change is desirable and that that will be considered over the coming year. In all local authority finance matters, there must be a balance between the level of service and the cost to the taxpayer. On both counts, we shall be losing in Northamptonshire in the coming 12 months.
  The loss of grant, plus the political decisions of the ruling group, make for a bleak year. I am making a public plea today for a return to the traditional co-operation between the county's MPs and the county leadership, regardless of their politics. That would be a first and useful step forward. But an encouraging response from my hon. Friend the Minister tonight would do us much more good, and give us real hope for the future.
  Our opponents have claimed that Northamptonshire has been punished for electing a Labour county council. Of course that is totally untrue, but the only way of proving it untrue by actions is in the hands of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I look to them to consider our case, and to make us somewhat happier when we debate these matters next year.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: I hope that my remarks will help to persuade the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) that he should use his vote in line with his conscience and what appear to be the wishes of his constituents and join the Opposition in the Noes Lobby. Certainly, it seems to be important that we should take real action now not simply to talk about this issue but to persuade the Government that none of the three reports should be approved.

  1087
  The Government introduced the council tax originally to overcome their unpopularity over the poll tax. It was a fairly desperate move. I do not believe that it has worked, and it will be seen not to have worked even more this year as a result of the huge increases in council tax levels which are liable to take place in certain parts of the country at least. Such increases are due to the fact that transitional relief has nearly ended. In my authority, for example, the only places that will be left with any transitional relief are those houses in bands G and H—the top two bands. One might think that if relief is to be given to anyone, it should be given to the poorest members of the population. In practice, what is happening in my authority is that relief will be given only to the richest members of the population —those who own houses in the top two bands. That is a topsy-turvy policy if ever there was one.
  External support for local authority funding will be increased, but not by as much as SSAs. Because SSAs are becoming not simply the maximum but the minimum amount of money to be raised and used by local councils almost everywhere, that means in effect that council tax payers will be paying much more in council tax. Certainly, the increases will be greatly in excess of inflation.
  We must make it clear as far as we can to all and sundry that those huge increases are directly to the account of the Government, not local authorities. Especially hard hit will be those who are currently appealing against council tax bandings which are too high. The reason, as I found out in the reply to a written question that I put down recently, is that some of those people will still be waiting for their appeals to be decided three years after they started paying council tax. In some cases, when their appeals are decided they may be owed £500 or £600. If that is the case, that money will eventually be paid to them but without interest. It is interesting that the Government claim interest on unpaid national taxes after only a few months but refuse to repay overpayments of council tax with interest even after three years.
  The Conservative party will suffer in the local elections this year as a result of the big increases in council tax. It is interesting that the special grants that the Government are making to reduce their losses will affect some of the largest and most notorious Conservative-run county councils and local councils. Of course, very few areas where the Liberal Democrats are in charge will gain anything from the special grants.
  As has already been said, there is one interesting aspect of the Minister's statement which is welcome—his promise to review the area cost adjustments. There can be no sense at all in giving a much bigger area cost adjustment on the east side of, for example, the Dorset-Hampshire border than is given on the west side. There is no reason to suppose that teachers are more expensive one mile further to the east, so a review of that system will certainly be welcome. The sudden breaks that take place at present as one moves across the boundary of an area subject to an area cost adjustment are nonsense and should be reviewed.
  Local Government financing is in a mess at present—I do not think that there is any doubt about that—and desperately needs to be reviewed. Perhaps one way to force a review is by voting against these three reports tonight. Too high a proportion of local government finance still
  1088
  comes from central Government. That is bad for democracy. Another thing that is bad for democracy is capping. By capping local government spending, central Government are inevitably using their power to take from local electors the right to decide on the level of local services.
  Mr. David Harris: I wonder whether I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly. Did he just say that too much of the money came from central Government? His colleagues in Cornwall are for ever saying that more money should come from central Government to help council tax payers.
  Mr. Rendel: The two are not incompatible. What we need to do is to change to a system of local income tax. If we did that, it would be possible to reduce the proportion of local spending funded by the Government while at the same time reducing national income tax, which would allow us to make the two compatible. Unfortunately, we do not have such a system.
  Mr. Gummer rose—
  Mr. Rendel: I am sorry—I have been asked by the Speaker's Office to finish quickly and not take interventions. I have already taken one intervention, which is one more than I should have taken. The Secretary of State will have a chance to respond at the end of the debate. [Interruption.] I have been asked by the Speaker's Office to finish quickly, and I respect the Speaker.
  I am unhappy to have to say that there is another reason why local government funding is in a mess at present: the grant system is too obscure. It is difficult for local people and, indeed, for local authorities to work out why they are receiving the level of grant that they receive. This year it seems that nothing is being allowed in total spending for increases for our teaching staff; yet we have been told today that increases will be given. It is hypocritical of the Government to say that no increases should be allowed in the total spending for local authority teachers and at the same time give teachers their increases.
  Huge increases have been caused by the Government's decisions about what local government will receive to spend and what will have to be raised from council tax payers. That will also bring local government into disrepute. I believe that that is the wrong way to go. Sometimes local government funding is based on out-of-date figures. It is often unfair and it is always obscure. It desperately needs a total review. We know that there will be huge national tax increases in April. In addition, we now see the likelihood of huge local tax increases. I believe that the Government are set on a path to even greater unpopularity. If the Government want to avoid that path today the House should refuse to approve any of the three papers.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) refused to take interventions, because he suggested that a local income tax might be workable. It is a fact that the man who devised the local income tax for the Liberal party, Dr. Truscott, is on record as saying that at the election the Liberal party seriously underestimated the effects of a local income tax.
  Mr. Gummer: Is it not a fact that a local income tax under the present system would mean that there would have to be people in every town hall who would compute how much local people would pay? Would not everybody in those town halls know what each person's income tax was? How would that affect poorer people who would not like people to know how small their income was? Does my hon. Friend agree that this is the usual Liberal business of having a busybody in every town hall?
  Mr. Pickles: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right, but he should go further. Such a tax might prove to be quite expensive for poor people, who would have to pay a lot of money.
  The hon. Member for Newbury also complained that no Liberal county council was receiving any of the dampening. The simple reason is that the dampening is designed to go to county districts, metropolitan authorities and London boroughs.
  It would be churlish of me not to thank my right hon. Friend for the settlement, particularly as two authorities within my constituency received increases. Epping Forest received a 21 per cent. increase on its SSA and Brentwood a 36 per cent. increase. Those increases have been welcomed by all political parties within my constituency, and even on the pages of the much-quoted Brentwood Gazette.
  The Conservative group at Brentwood stressed to me that the most challenging thing facing the council was its SSA. It was my view that serious underestimations had been made of the needs of the people of Brentwood. The truth is that the early versions of the SSA repeated many of the anomalies which existed in the previous grant-related expenditure. That is not a particularly tough criticism, as trying to find a system to distribute grants is extremely difficult. The local government information unit has commented that the
  "difficulty of achieving fairness … is at a premium".
  Many overseas countries have faced similar problems. I commend to the House two recent reports concerning SSAs which give an overseas comparison. The Audit Commission said:
  "a more sophisticated system for equalising needs does not exist in any overseas system."
  The much-quoted Tony Travers said that no overseas country appears to have a full grant system which goes so far in achieving full equalisation.
  The changes in SSA are extremely welcome. I particularly welcome the changes in social services, with respect to the indicator of long-term illness among the elderly. I believe that the changes go a long way towards encouraging the Government's initiative of care in the community. In terms of the social index, I particularly welcome the recognition of the position of homeless households, children in rented accommodation and children with parents on income support
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman has welcomed the inclusion of homelessness as one of the indicators of deprivation or need. Does he accept that one of the authorities which asked for homelessness to be included was Westminster council, which happens to be the ninth-best gainer out of that inclusion, while Coventry, which anybody would have a hard job saying was less deprived than Westminster, comes 264th? Will the hon. Gentleman explain how that is a measure of social need?
  Mr. Pickles: From memory, I note that Westminster city council last year rehoused 1,297 homeless people. Frankly, that record is far better than that of a number of adjoining Labour authorities, which spend their time leaving council houses empty and not rehousing homeless people.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) made some important and coherent points about ensuring that a number of economic factors, and unemployment in particular, were included in the calculations of SSA. I am particularly pleased that the words of the hon. Gentleman and of his colleagues in local authorities have been listened to and that unemployment has been included in the calculations of SSA.
  Mr. Clive Betts: The inclusion of unemployment and other health indicators is to be welcomed, as it has marginally helped the position of Sheffield in relation to other authorities. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in terms of SSA distribution, the problem is that the year-on-year capping restrictions mean that Sheffield city council cannot use the extra SSA to spend on services for the public? Does not that mean that there is the nonsense of cuts in services and reductions in council tax at the same time?
  Mr. Pickles: I may regret mentioning and praising the hon. Gentleman in my speech. I must remind him—I say this in friendship—that Sheffield council decided before the election that there was going to be a Labour Government, and that it was going to go for bust. There were one or two minor problems with the financing of the world student games, and perhaps that has more to do with what he says than the level of capping.
  If the council decides that there are rules which will apply only to Sheffield and that it will look towards a Labour Government to bail it out, we should not be surprised if it has to face the consequences thereof. Nevertheless, I did agree with the hon. Gentleman on unemployment.
  As someone who has moved from the north of England to the south, I am more persuaded about the need for area cost adjustment. The argument now with regard to employment costs in the south-east of England—
  Mr. Betts: The hon. Gentleman has changed his mind.
  Mr. Pickles: I have had more experience of the employment costs, which I recognise are much higher in the south-east. I hope that area cost adjustment will remain within the calculations of SSAs for the foreseeable future.
  I was also particularly pleased to see that day visitors will be compensated for. We must recognise that the populations of many of our cities, towns and resorts artificially grow during the day. There are many extra burdens for authorities in those areas, ranging from litter to general wear and tear on the fabric of the city.
  My right hon. Friend should recognise that there is need for a period of stability in SSAs. We must recognise that the census will have some effect on next year's figures, particularly with regard to the age profile of councils. Such changes in SSA can mask efficiencies and inefficiencies. A period of stability would give local taxpayers a better chance of comparison.
  The standard spending assessment should be a living thing and it should adapt to modern circumstances. The changes which have been made are important. They have

  1091
  been broadly welcomed by local authority associations, academics and individual councils. We must not lose sight of the fact that stability is as important as resources.
  The system places enormous burdens on those authorities that are winners. Those authorities must share the increases in their SSAs with their populations, and the most effective way to do that is to cut the council tax. I welcome the commitment given by many Conservative authorities to do just that.
  I hope that in his reply to the debate my hon. Friend the Minister will take the opportunity to scotch a silly rumour that has been circulated in some councils that if councils do not spend up to their additional SSA, the Government will penalise them. That is clearly ridiculous. It is clearly not what is going to happen. It gives credence to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Blackburn that capping encourages people to spend up. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take the opportunity to nail that lie.
  It is important that we do not have misleading information on local government finance. I was shocked to hear the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who is no longer in the Chamber, say on 2 December:
  "the Secretary of State has sought to distort the system so as to stuff grant the way of a few favoured Tory councils."—[Official Report, 2 December 1993; Vol. 233, c. 1177.]
  It is a matter of regret that that allegation was repeated this afternoon. It is clearly not the case that the system has been distorted. It has been checked by academics and the specialist press. The allegation has been found to be untrue. In the words of the Local Government Chronicle:
  "There is a myth of a political fix by Conservatives."
  I hope that the hon. Member for Blackburn regrets his remarks. He has not made a good start by continuing to suggest that there will be job losses. He suggested that the settlement would cause thousands of job losses. That is a familiar tale. It is a tale that we heard last year. We were told that thousands would be put on the dole. I recall that in Birmingham—
  Mr. Betts: Fifty thousand.
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman talks about 50,000 job losses. With the figures for grant-maintained schools and further education taken out, we get down to a figure of about 30,000, or the part-time equivalent. Given the millions who are employed in local authorities, that figure hardly justifies the number of redundancies that people said would take place last year, I cannot find a better way of putting it than to quote the Local Government Chronicle. It said:
  "Last year Birmingham City Council grabbed the national headlines when it announced 3,000 jobs would be cut to find savings of £40 million, while tens of thousands more were said to be threatened across the country.
  A year later it is obvious many of the more vocal councils were crying wolf and their supposed job cuts have failed to materialise."
  I believe that the figures produced by the joint staffing in December bear out that view. It is certainly my view that, if councils run their authorities in a prudent, efficient and sensible way, they should avoid compulsory redundancies this year.
  The hard truth is that councils were expecting a much tougher settlement. I cannot remember a settlement welcomed by so many local government leaders at any time in my experience of local authorities. But there is still
  1092
  some room for savings. I noticed that the hon. Member for Blackburn fell into perhaps the worst sin that a politician can fall into by quoting himself. He quoted from this morning's Tribune article, in which he castigated Tory Brent for having the worst record for rent collection in the country. What he did not say was that for many years Brent was Labour controlled. The Conservative administration is trying to get back to the position of a normal authority. He did not mention that the top 10 authorities with the worst records for rent collection were Brent, Hammersmith and Fulham, Lambeth, Ealing, Southwark, Greenwich, Newham, Hackney, Haringey and Camden.
  We have heard much about the London borough of Newham in these deliberations. The good people of Brentwood and Ongar do not have much experience of Labour councils—that is to say, except for the tenants of the estates run by the London borough of Newham. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is looking for ways in which to judge the pleas that he has heard today, let him bear in mind the way in which that council mismanages the estates in my constituency.
  That Newham mismanages its estates is the view not only of a Conservative politician but of the local citizens advice bureau. I have had a disproportionate number of cases from the London borough of Newham. People have been threatened with eviction. They are usually elderly. They have usually paid their rent. They are usually fairly confused as to why they have been threatened.
  The cases follow a particular pattern. My constituents write to the London borough of Newham and ask why they are being threatened with eviction when they have paid their rent; they are ignored. They get their children to write to the London borough of Newham; they are ignored. Eventually the tenants either go to the citizens advice bureau or come to see me.
  I have never in my years dealt with a more inefficient bunch than the London borough of Newham. Letters are lost. Care of the elderly people is ignored. If the London borough of Newham wants increased resources, the first thing it should do is look long and hard at the way in which its housing department is run. It might be good enough for the London borough of Newham, but it is not good enough for the people of Brentwood and Ongar.
  There is sufficient room for increases in efficiency in local authorities. More savings are acceptable. Compulsory competitive tendering has proved to be a great boon to local authorities. It has challenged the way in which local authorities are run. It has given them much more commercial sense. I was pleased to see that Mr. Jeremy Beecham, the leader of Newcastle council and chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, recognises that many of the savings that have accrued under compulsory competitive tendering would not have accrued without it.
  It worries me that much of the creative energy behind compulsory competitive tendering has been dissipated by local authorities trying to get around the regulations. Bristol made it impossible for a private company to bid for its contracts. It put out a single huge tender for refuse collection, street cleaning, public convenience cleaning and building cleaning. Not surprisingly, no private firm felt able to provide a contract.
  Birmingham put out a 2 ft high stack of documents on the cleaning of just 364 buildings. One could virtually have

  1093
  stood on the stack to clean some of the windows. All the contracts had to start on the same day, thus making an outside bid unrealistic.
  Mr. Betts: Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on the case of South Oxfordshire council, which I understand is Conservative controlled? Without going out to tender, it awarded a computer contract to one of its own officers. That matter is now being investigated by the auditor there. As well as awarding the contract, the council awarded a lot of subsidies to that officer to set up a company, which has subsequently made substantial profits. Does the hon. Gentleman regard that as a proper way for local authorities to behave?
  Mr. Pickles: We shall have to see the outcome of the police investigation, then I will comment on the case. I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman's specific point when I refer to Tameside.
  Nottingham put its contract for road sweeping and refuse collection out to tender and awarded the contract to its own work force. In the process, it organised a party costing about £2,000 to celebrate.
  Returning to the hon. Gentleman's point, I have been concerned of late to read articles in the specialist press about externalisation, which seems to be the latest fashion. We often see fashions move in local authorities. The latest idea is to provide services, but not by providing direct employment within the council. That obviously has an appeal to Conservatives. However, some of the articles suggest that the primary motivation for that is to get around the regulations and avoid compulsory competitive tendering. As I think I demonstrated earlier, if that is the sole motivation, it is likely to lead to disaster.
  The hon. Member for Attercliffe talked about. South Oxfordshire. I should like to talk about Tameside council, which is currently being investigated by Greater Manchester police fraud squad. It is investigating £2 million losses by Tameside Enterprises Ltd.—a company created by the council to look after old persons' homes. I shall not go into the various allegations because they are still under investigation.—[Interruption.] If I were the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), I would not be so confident because a lot of elderly people have had a poor deal out of the process. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House are prepared to admit it when things go wrong. I am prepared to give the Labour councillors the benefit of the doubt until the investigation is complete. It seems that a clever wheeze was thought up to get around compulsory competitive tendering and insufficient thought was given to the level of service that would be delivered.
  Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, since the trust and Tameside Enterprises took over the running of elderly people's homes in Tameside, the quality of care in those homes has been as good as anywhere else in the country? Does he further accept that the directors and the council asked for a full investigation into the sad misbehaviour of one of the employees, and the council, directors and trustees asked the police to investigate the matter? The investigation is not a criticism of the council. The council, the trustees and the directors sought to put right an unsatisfactory situation created by an employee who appears to have broken the law.
  Mr. Pickles: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information, but that is not my argument. If more thought had been given to the way in which the external trust was put together, many of the problems that have surfaced in the allegations could have been avoided. I commend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State an article in the Municipal Journal, which bears close scrutiny. There is a disaster in the making unless the Government are prepared to offer guidelines on external funding.
  The grant settlement is more generous than local authorities were expecting. It can be implemented without widespread compulsory redundancies across the country. I shall walk into the Division Lobby to vote for it with enthusiasm.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): A large number of hon. Members still wish to speak. May I make a plea for slightly shorter speeches?
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be as brief as possible. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) spoke for only 21 minutes—it just seemed much longer than that. I shall try to be much briefer.
  I put on record the fact that I am sponsored by UNISON, formerly the National Union of Public Employees. I used to be the union organiser representing local government workers, who are bearing the brunt of an awful lot of what the Government are doing to local authorities.
  There have been many redundancies. Compulsory competitive tendering in local authorities has led to the awful sale of jobs every five years to the lowest bidder. The people who lose are part-time school meals workers, education helpers and school cleaners who work on disgustingly low weekly or hourly wages. They often have no job security and are unable to do a job properly.
  Local government workers, whom I represented before I came to the House, used to be proud to work for the local authority, and proud that schools were clean and good places for children to attend. All pride in work disappears when there is no guarantee of job security and wages are lowered every time compulsory competitive tendering comes up.
  The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar went on about the problems of compulsory competitive tendering and the way in which some local authorities have stacked the bid in favour of local authority direct services. But he should bear in mind the fact that, when a local authority's bid for a service is successful, there are nearly always job losses, a deterioration in working conditions, loss of training opportunities and trade union facility time and many other factors.
  Working conditions are getting worse, not better, in the public sector. We should bear that in mind, because we all rely on the efficient work of refuse collectors, street sweepers, maintenance workers, school meals workers, social workers and social services centre workers. Instead of offering a constant stream of condemnation, Ministers should remember that.
  I am also the chair of the London group of Labour Members, and I want to mention the problems in London. At present, there are 465,000 jobless people in the capital city. London's unemployment mirrors the national average for the first time in many years, and the position is getting

  1095
  worse. There are 39,000 homeless people in London living in hostels or bed-and-breakfast accommodation—some of them, tragically, living on the streets of the capital.
  We have chaos in transport and planning, yet, overall, the settlement undervalues London by £600 million in local authority spending. If we want a decent, clean capital, we have to be prepared to fund it. Above all, however, we need to bring some sense to the way in which London is managed.
  It is not surprising that London did not even have the opportunity to make the British bid for the Olympic games, and that London lost the chance to make the British bid for the Commonwealth games. Nobody will take seriously a city that has no unified form of local government. Who would one talk to if one wanted to bring the Olympic games to London? It would not be easy to arrange a meeting with the 32 London boroughs, the City of London and 25 quangos. It is not a sensible or good way to run the capital.
  When the Secretary of State said that he wanted to hear what Londoners thought about such matters, he craftily sent out the questionnaire in copies of the Evening Standard. That questionnaire asked people to reply, but it was loaded with questions such as: "Do you like the parks? Do you like the open spaces? What do you like most about London?" He did not include in the questionnaire the fact that Government money has been taken from London and that the elected Greater London council has been taken away from us.
  Across the river from the House, we now have the nonsense of European, Japanese and company flags outside county hall, which has been bought by a Japanese hotel chain. That building belongs to the people of London, and I hope that it will be returned to them, hopefully by compulsory purchase order by a future Labour Government.
  The subject of urban deprivation is not a debate or a competition between the north and south of the country or between Opposition Members. We all have problems in our communities, and we all have problems of underfunding. The 1991 census's score list on urban deprivation shows that seven of the top 10 regions are London boroughs. The list is headed by Newham, Southwark, Hackney and Islington, with Haringey in 10th position. There are many arguments about how the score list is drawn up. If we consider the SSAs of those boroughs in the settlement, we find that Newham loses 6.9 per cent., my borough of Islington loses 5·1 per cent., and so it goes on.
  The 1991 census was extremely inaccurate. It was plagued, as was the country for several years, by the appalling poll tax and by people fearing that answering questions posed by the census enumerator would lead to someone coming round and trying to make them pay the poll tax, even if they were staying at that address for only a short time. London has lost a lot through the poll tax. It is losing a great amount of council tax because of the way in which house prices are falling.
  The Government propose that, from next year, there should be a unified regeneration budget for London. I cannot work out—I am still open to persuasion on the matter—whether that is a late admission by the Secretary
  1096
  of State that London needs unified local government to tackle its needs, or, as I suspect, yet another attack on individual local authorities in London.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) sent a series of questions to the Secretary of State about how the scheme would operate. The answers that were finally given to my hon. Friend showed that there would be a sort of Government gauleiter appointed to look after the regeneration budget for London. I understand that Manchester and Birmingham will also have such a scheme.
  If the Government recognise, as perhaps they finally and lamentably have, that there are overall needs in a city the size of London, why cannot they honestly say so? They could then give us an authority that was elected by the people of London so that they, and not an endless parade of quangos, could decide what Londoners want.
  The former Secretary of State for the Environment—he with the blond hair, who waves the Mace—said that he was going to kill the quangos in London. However, he and his successors have ensured that London is dominated by quangos—mostly filled with placemen nominated by Tory central office. Are those people fit to run a combination of estate action programmes, education and training support, section 11 grants, regional enterprise grants and business start-up and local initiative funds? They are the sort of people who will decide how that money is spent in London.
  I hope that the House will at least recognise that the way in which the standard spending assessment operates seriously mitigates against inner urban areas of this capital. We want something done about it.
  My borough has serious problems, and is not a wealthy area by any means. Unemployment in my constituency is around 22 per cent., and in some estates is as high as 40 per cent. and rising. There is a sense of desperation and misery, especially among young people and older pupils who are approaching school leaving age. They feel a sense of hopelessness about the future, and also deep frustration that their local authority cannot meet their needs in any way—through youth provision, social services, libraries and so forth.
  I do not condemn the council, but simply point out the impossible bind that my local authority has been put in year after year. It has been told to make cuts, and on top of the £20 million in cuts last year, it will have to make more cuts this year.
  While the capping level for Islington council's spending has increased slightly, it will not meet the increased statutory requirements that have been placed on the local borough because of the introduction of community care and the like. On top of that, every council tenant has been told that rents will have to rise by £2·90 per week, which is yet another attack on people in the poorest sectors of society.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with one issue when he replies to the debate. I understand that representations about housing benefit indicators were made to the Secretary of State during the SSA consultation period—in cases where the SSA goes to the landlord authority rather than the resident authority.
  Only boroughs or councils which made representations to the Secretary of State benefited. Those councils which did not—like mine, which has a considerable number of City of London properties within it—have lost. I should be

  1097
  grateful if the Minister could tell us what attitude the Government will take. It is an important problem, and he should be aware of it, although I do not know that he is.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Has my hon. Friend any knowledge of another practice which seems to have become common? Liberal-controlled Tower Hamlets has been putting homeless familes in the next borough—my borough of Newham—and leaving them there for some considerable time. It has then made them an offer that they can only refuse, thus rendering them homeless in the very borough that it put them in, which results in greater problems for Newham. It seems a deplorable practice, and one which is normally associated with Westminster, but it seems to have spread to Tower Hamlets.
  Mr. Corbyn: I can confirm that. I have also had some experience of Tower Hamlets council and its treatment of homeless families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I am not surprised that the Liberal spokesperson gave what must be the shortest speech on record in a local government debate. There was no chance for anyone to intervene to ask what Tower Hamlets council was doing. If he wants to intervene now to tell me, I shall be happy to give way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is right, and that problem underlines the importance of having a London-wide housing strategy. We have an appalling vista of local authorities trying to get rid of their responsibilities for homeless families, refugee children and anyone else. They are pushing them from one borough to another.
  Surely to God we ought to care for those people who need a roof over their heads, rather than play ducks and drakes with the rules. The way in which central Government operate, however, encourages local authorities to play ducks and drakes, because they know that they will not get the money back at the end of the year for needs that they were totally unable to assess in the first place.
  I shall be brief, because there is not a lot of time, and other hon. Members wish to speak. I have been given a copy of the briefing document from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities about budget reductions in 1993–94. I am sure that other hon. Members also have a copy and it makes very sorry reading.
  For example, 184 job losses were achieved through redundancies in the borough of Barnet. The jobs were taken from special needs staffing in schools, from discretionary awards and from closing day nursery and elderly people's homes. Camden has lost 2,000 jobs, and borough after borough has been forced to make people redundant or lose them through natural wastage. That all adds up to an inferior service for people who desperately rely on local authorities to maintain some sort of standard of life, whether through social services, housing, recreation or other services.
  Why are half the libraries in London shut most of the time? Why are swimming pools not open as often as they should be? Why are so many families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Why are local authorities encouraged to spend money lining the pockets of bed-and-breakfast landlords and private landlords, while the Government tell them that they cannot use their own resources to invest in decent housing for the people of this capital city?
  1098
  I spent yesterday morning visiting one of a number of schools in my constituency. Highbury Quadrant school is a splendid school, with brilliant teachers and lovely kids—25 languages are spoken in the school, and everyone there is proud of that fact and proud of their cultural diversity. It is a lovely school. Ashmount infants school, which my son attends, is also a wonderful school, where many different languages are spoken.
  All the schools are terrified about what will happen because of the cuts in section 11 funding. My borough is set to lose £900,000 in section 11 money because the Government have changed the formula. I hope that it can absorb the cut within the budget, but I doubt it. I suspect that some very good teachers will end up unemployed as a result of that cut, and a lot of very bright kids will end up short-changed by the education system because there will be no one to teach them English as a second language, or to give them the support they need.
  These are desperate times to be in local government. I do not envy the lot of any councillor. The settlement is always used as a form of attack. The Government think that local government is the problem and must be attacked all the time, but without good and responsive local government, what sort of society are we?
  I am fed up with the attacks on local government. I want a return to real democracy and an acceptance of central Government's need to give proper financial recognition for deprivation in inner urban areas such as my constituency.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I shall do my best to comply with your request for short speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning for his patience and understanding and for his unfailing courtesy, first at the meeting at which he met me—I was also representing my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway)—and secondly when he subsequently met senior officers and group leaders of Shropshire county council.
  I do not wish to dwell upon the disappointment in Shropshire at this year's settlement, but people are disappointed about the changes in the settlements for area cost adjustment and sparsity. The 1994–95 reduction in sparsity weighting is estimated to have cost Shropshire's SSA £2·9 million and the area cost adjustment is clawing back around £5·4 million annually from the SSA.
  For the record, during the period of the new rate support grant system Shropshire's SSA increase has been the lowest of all countries and the capping increase has been lower than 37 of the other 38 counties. However, I do not intend to dwell on that.
  In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House how he and his colleagues had met deputations representing 58 councils. My contribution to this debate is set against the background of the annual round of representations and deputations resulting from decisions about local government finance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) queried the cost of that annual ritual of deputations. It is impossible to quantify that cost, bearing in mind the time, effort and energy that has been expended, but I

  1099
  suggest that it must be quite substantial. The time expended on those deputations and delegations is time not spent on more productive work in the shire and town halls.
  The Government champion subsidiarity—the principle of allowing decisions to be taken at the lowest competent level. They also champion deregulation. As the House knows, the Second Reading of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill is next week. They also champion the reduction of the burden of public expenditure, and the House will have noted the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he opened the debate. My proposals are deregulatory, thrifty and fully in accord with the principles of subsidiarity. I advocate an end to the sharing of responsibilities. Many of the difficulties that we have—and those difficulties produce the deputations and delegations with which we are all so familiar—arise from the fact that on so many scores responsibilities are divided between central and local government.
  I further advocate an end to the separation of authority from responsibility. That is one of the cardinal principles of good management. It is impossible to run a business, a local authority or a Government if one separates the authority for carrying out a function from the responsibility. If one tells a manager in a business, "You are responsible for that function, but you must not make any decision without further reference to a higher authority", that is a great demotivation to the manager and the management of the company suffers accordingly.
  I further advocate the vesting of total control for providing and funding of local government services in the same pair of hands. My recommendation is that those hands should be existing district councils as the new unitary authorities. I shall not regret the demise of county councils—that most remote and expensive tier of local government which is increasingly recognised by my constituents as the tier that we could do without. One of the three weaknesses about the present system of local government is that there are too many tiers, and the one most eligible for abolition is the county council.
  If subsidiarity means anything, it means cutting the Gordian knot that binds local government so tightly to central Government. It means critically examining the functions that we intend local government to discharge in future.
  There are three things to take into consideration if we want efficient local government. First, we have to consider how it is financed. We have had three different methods of financing local government in as many years: the rating system, the community charge and now the council tax.
  Secondly, we have to consider its structure. We reorganised the structure of local government 20 years ago. My fear is that we are in danger of reorganising local government again and not coming up with the right answer. We shall then have a botched reorganisation of the structure.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The Conservatives reorganise local government and the National Health Service as frequently as the Forth bridge is painted. They do not even finish before they start again. In the past 20 to 25 years there has been a tradition of Conservative Governments expensively reorganising public services with little to show for it at the end of the day.
  Mr. Gill: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I hope that he will listen to the rest of my speech.
  Having attempted to put the financing of local government on to a proper footing and get the structure right, we have neglected to examine its functions under a microscope and decide exactly what we want local government to do. Having decided what we want local government to do, we must not hedge our bets by saying that local government should carry out part of a particular function while central Government do the other part of it.
  I am advocating a complete demarcation between resonsibilities which can and should be discharged at local level and those which can be discharged only at central level.
  There may be howls of anguish—even from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)—when I suggest that we might have to consider abolishing local education authorities, but there is some logic in that. As an increasing number of schools opt for grant-maintained status, it is clear that the importance of local education authorities will be diminished and ultimately one can envisage their demise.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that every local government reorganisation since the war has been carried out by the Conservatives? Why should people have any confidence whatever in any future organisation on which the Conservative party wants to embark?
  Mr. Gill: The reorganisation that we carried out in the early 1970s resulted from taking off the shelf the blueprint left there by the previous Labour Administration. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I personally regret that my party took the blueprint prepared by the previous Administration and implemented it. I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding in assent to what I have just said.
  The gist of my speech today is that whatever we do in future must be in a form that we can all understand. It would be a brave hon. Member who pretended to understand all the intricacies of local government finance. I invite hon. Members to consider everything in the documents that accompany this evening's debate.
  Undoubtedly, much of the system of calculating a grant for a local government settlement depends on arcane calculations and equations which I find difficult to understand. I am sure that local councillors have difficulty in understanding them, too. Frankly, we cannot expect good, efficient, economic local government if councillors cannot understand the way in which the whole operation is funded.
  We have to have intelligible systems which essentially need to be simple so that we can all understand them and make a better showing of delivering services to the general public.
  I was saying that I advocate the abolition of local education authorities. I also suggest transferring social services to district health authorities. Both those services —education and social services—are in effect funded not by the council tax but by the taxpayer.
  Ministers have said more than once this evening that we do not have hypothecation of taxes in this country. However, let me illustrate my point. Education in my own county of Shropshire will cost £148 million in 1993–94. Social services in the same period 1993–94 will cost £33 million. The total of those two services is £181 million and

  1101
  the total external support that the county will attract in the same 12 months is £182 million. The two figures neatly cancel each other out, which proves that the two services could be removed from the local government equation and become a charge on the taxpayer, with all other services being deputed to the unitary authority.
  Three things must be done. First, local authority functions must be scaled down to match the local revenue-raising potential of the council tax. Secondly, councils and councillors must be required to raise £1 for every 100 pence that they spend. Thirdly, they must be exclusively answerable to the electorate for the services that they provide.
  The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) shakes his head, indicating disbelief. I apologise for not knowing his background, but what I am saying is predicated on a lifelong involvement in management and trying to motivate people to do a good job. One of the important lessons that I have learnt from that experience is that it is not possible to motivate people by giving them half a job, by giving them responsibility but ordering them to refer decision making to another authority or by facing them with an unintelligible system: they find that completely demoralising.
  We can create transparency of both funding and efficacy by making councils responsible for all their functions—including raising revenue for their spending—making them wholly accountable to their electorates and by defining their functions precisely so that they can be discharged within the limits of local fund-raising capacity. That, in turn, will lead to increased accountability and economy, which I—along with the Government and, I believe, every council tax payer in the country—want to see.
  There can, however, be no local accountability while there is doubt about who is responsible for which function: that is why it is so important to the Government to consider which tier should do what. Nor can there be accountability while funding remains a maze of arcane equations and calculations. Similarly, there will be no thrift while councils continue to spend ever-increasing amounts of other people's money. The figures speak for themselves: 75 per cent. of money spent by local authorities now comes from central Government, while only 25 per cent. comes from the council tax.
  Last but by no means least, there can be no prospect of improving the calibre of councillors, or of involving the business community, while the current position continues. Ministers do not need a commission to tell them what to do; the answer stares them in the face.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. John Evans: I am sure that most hon. Members will agree that local government finance is the most mysterious, arcane and complex subject in the political calendar. I suspect that, apart from council finance officers, few people—including national and local politicians—have any idea of the complexities involved.
  Having said that, let me add that I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of St. Helens. I am sure that the Minister will not disagree when I say that St. Helens is one of the councils that have had a raw deal ever since the SSAs were established some three years ago. As he knows, a small group of northern authorities was heavily handicapped by the lack of any factor relating to
  1102
  unemployment or economic decline, although all had been affected by the rundown of the mining, steel, engineering and, in the case of St. Helens, glass and chemical industries.
  For three years, those authorities—St. Helens, Wigan, Wakefield, Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster and Sheffield—have fought to right the current wrongs, constantly making representations to the Government. It is only fair for me to add that we are grateful to the Government for recognising the validity of our case and accepting that economic and social indicators should be included in the assessments; that has undoubtedly benefited St. Helens.
  During the Secretary of State's speech, I suggested that he should consider giving some recompense to those authorities in recognition of the three years for which they were so severely handicapped. St. Helens borough council, for instance, has been forced over the past three years to spend its entire balance in cutting £20 million to set a legal budget. Last year, it was forced to take £10·5 million from a budget of £142 million. Even jobs in the authority disappeared, in a town that has lost 20,000 jobs over the past 10 years as a result of the decline in our traditional industries. It had to close a library, an elderly people's home, a day nursery, a family centre and a day centre, while increasing charges for home helps, school meals and meals on wheels. We were not just cutting essential services; we were cutting the authority's work to the bone.
  It was with some trepidation that I heard today's announcement that the Government had accepted the teachers' 2·5 per cent. pay claim but that there would be no additional money. I doubt very much that St. Helens will be able to find the money to cover that increase without having to slash services further.
  The people of St. Helens are mystified by some of the unfairnesses in the SSAs. Over the past two weeks our two local newspapers, the St. Helens Star and the St. Helens Reporter, have run a series of articles comparing St. Helens with the London borough of Westminster, whose population size is almost identical. They pointed out that, on the social index chart, Westminster ranks as a much more impoverished borough—as do Kensington and Chelsea, City of London and Kingston upon Thames, to name but a few.
  Most people would be astonished to learn that Westminster is more impoverished than St. Helens. It is very peculiar, given that St. Helens is part of Merseyside, which the European Commission has just recognised as one of the most deprived regions in the European Union and has granted objective 1 status—which means substantial extra funds.
  What mystifies people in St. Helens even more, however, is the difference between the grants that it receives and those received by Westminster. In 1994, Westminster is to receive £2,622 per primary school pupil, while St. Helens will receive £1,851. In other words, it costs £770 more to educate a pupil in Westminster than it does in St. Helens. The figures for secondary pupils are even worse: Westminster receives £3,677 per pupil whereas St. Helens receives £2,590, so Westminster receives more than £1,000 more per pupil. For the care of the elderly, Westminster receives £18 million more than St. Helens, which works out at almost £1,000 per elderly person.
  The Secretary of State said that the figures for London boroughs were fair. If he says so, I have to accept it but I

  1103
  should be grateful if he would write and explain how the figures are arrived at. I guarantee that his answer will be published in the St. Helens newspapers.
  Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Evans: No, I shall not give way because time is getting on. The hon. Gentleman spoke for a long time and several of my hon. Friends still wish to participate in the debate.
  I shall now complete the comparison between Westminster and St. Helens. Both councils have received the auditor's report. Most people will agree that the report on Westminster was rather damning. Indeed, some Westminster officers and councillors were criticised unmercifully. In St. Helens, the district auditor, Frank Kerkham, gave a special mention to the council's
  "sound and business-like management".
  He especially praised the way in which the authority collects and monitors the council tax. The district auditor said:
  "By the end of October 1993 the money owed in Council Tax was £4·9 million. This represents 3·9 per cent. of the gross debit for three years of the community charge's existence."
  The council believes that that is a good performance, given that it has had to introduce and collect the council tax in tandem with the residual community charge. In other words, Westminster receives a great deal more finance from central Government than St. Helens but received a damning and damaging report from the auditor whereas St. Helens received praise.
  I wish to raise a more immediate and pressing problem. As I said, the new SSA is beneficial to St. Helens and we are grateful for that, but the roof has fallen in on St. Helens council once again. A major road is being constructed, a link from the M62 to the town centre. It is vital for the economic regeneration of St. Helens, but the area through which the road passes contains almost 300 hectares of some of the most contaminated derelict land in the country. More than 180 hectares of the land have been identified as potentially excellent development sites. Indeed, a couple of years ago Pilkington decided to locate its UK5 and UK6 flute glass plants in St. Helens rather than on the continent or in southern England because of the benefits that would flow from the new road. The prospect of the new road has already begun to attract people to St. Helens.
  The original tender for the main contract, which was awarded in May 1991 when the total cost of the scheme was estimated at £35 million, was for £19·2 million. The current estimate of the final cost is £53·6 million. I shall not go into all the details, but the increase in costs has been caused by problems over which the council has no control. They include hitting unknown dumps of highly toxic waste which have had to be removed to the ends of the country because of the new environmental protection legislation and hitting deposits of coal which have also had to be removed. Gas mains were discovered which no one knew were there, public utilities have also had to be removed at considerable expense and a serious problem arose with British Rail over the new bridge that had to be constructed as part of the project. The costs and delays have added to the council's problems.
  As the problems arose, the council notified the Departments of Transport and of the Environment but, out of the blue, the Department of Transport informed the
  1104
  council at Christmas that it would receive no assistance with the additional costs. That was a considerable bombshell to be handed to the council as a Christmas box. The council must now attempt to fund the project out of revenue which, as I am sure the Minister of State will accept, is utterly impossible.
  This morning, I led a council delegation to the Departments of Transport and of the Environment. We are grateful for the sympathetic response that we received from both Departments and I pay special tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). Ministers were courteous and sympathetic, but I do not know whether they can help us to solve the problem. I want the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport to understand the problem and accept that St. Helens council is in a catch-22 situation.
  If the council attempts to fund the scheme out of revenue, it will not only have to slash education and social service provision once again—they have already been decimated in the past five years—but will undoubtedly have to overspend and be capped. The alternative, which some people in the town are beginning to demand, is for the council not to complete the road, although 80 per cent. of it has already been built. If it were left unfinished, the centre of the town would be in utter chaos and look like a first world war battlefield. It would mean that the main contractor and many small contractors would face a financial crisis, to say the least.
  I suggest that no council should have to face problems of this nature involving the construction of a major highway. I appeal to the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport to ensure in the coming three or four weeks that St. Helens receives assistance to solve the short-term problem.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. David Harris: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), because the contrast between the problems facing his local authority and the problems with which I shall deal later could not be greater.
  I wish to speak about the Isles of Scilly. The mention of the Isles of Scilly in the same breath as St. Helens highlights the fact that local government has to meet very different needs in different parts of the country. I am also pleased to see sitting next to the hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), with whom I sat for many years on the Greater London council. I mention that only because I do not share his view about the demise of that authority, a view which is supported by some other hon. Members.
  I look back on the GLC with great nostalgia. I was a member for eight and a half years, and in those days it had a role to perform. That role largely disappeared because of the fact that services such as sewerage were taken over by the boroughs. The GLC's role was rationalised, and in the end it was left searching for something to do.
  Mr. Tony Banks: I shall be brief because I do not want to prevent the hon. Gentleman from talking about the Isles of Scilly. Is it not odd that London is the only capital city in the world that does not have a single authority or an elected mayor to speak on behalf of its population? If such a system works in every other capital city, why not in London?
  Mr. Harris: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but to return to that huge bureaucratic structure would be a retrograde step. I have read all the opinion polls that are trotted out on this subject and, despite their findings, I do not sense among the people who live in London a great longing for a return of the GLC. I, too, spend the week here, and return to Cornwall for the weekend.
  I am still recovering from the remarks of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). I pay tribute to him for sitting patiently through the debate. He said—I intervened to ask him about it—that he thought that less money should be provided by central Government, albeit in the context of the local income tax and the raising of more money locally to fund local services. I pointed out that that was not the view of his colleagues on Cornwall county council.
  I think it is fair to say that the Liberal Democrats who now control Cornwall county council—the chairmen of its various committees—virtually have season tickets to come up to London on delegation after delegation to plead with Ministers for more essential Government money to meet the needs of Cornwall. They cannot really lose. The Liberal Democrats come up to London and say, "You Ministers must give us more money." If the Ministers do not give them more money, they blame the Government, but if they do give them a bit more money, they say, "Liberal Democrats are wonderful people, because we have got more money from central Government for the needs of the people of Cornwall."
  The hon. Member for Newbury should have a word with his colleagues at county hall in Cornwall, and try to get the party line clarified on that aspect of policy, as on so many others.
  Mr. Rendel: Obviously, I did not make myself clear. There is no incompatibility between local people now calling for greater Government intervention in terms of providing money towards local costs at a time when local costs—and SSAs—are increasing, but unfortunately the Government are cutting the grant.
  A policy of local income tax—which would allow whatever rate was set by the Government under the present system for grant from central sources to decrease gradually, while more and more of the rate was taken on to a local income tax—would mean that national income tax was decreasing, while local income tax was increasing. Taxation would remain at the same level, but more of the kcal tax would be raised locally. That is the important argument. That is why the two principles are compatible.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I remind the House of the 50 minutes available before the wind-up speeches begin. Five hon. Gentlemen are hoping to catch my eye. Long interventions do not help.
  Mr. Harris: I will not pursue that point, but I could pick many holes in the hon. Gentleman's argument.
  I want to use the time allotted to me to discuss the special problems of the Isles of Scilly in my constituency. The contrast between the Isles of Scilly and many of the local authorities that have been mentioned in the debate could not be greater. The isles of Scilly council is unique in local government. It is a unitary authority with a population of slightly fewer than 2,000, but it has all the responsibilities, at all layers, of local government. The difficulty is that any small change is therefore greatly
  1106
  magnified. I shall illustrate that by outlining the difficulties that the Isles of Scilly council foresees in the current settlement.
  There are three problem areas. The first is education. The standard spending assessment for education has been cut by £59,000 for the Isles of Scilly—a minute amount compared with the expenditure of other authorities that have been mentioned, but large in proportion to the budget of the Isles of Scilly. That has come about simply as a result of a factor mentioned by Conservative Members—the fact that the figures on which the formula is based are already out of date. There are 22 more pupils in the Isles of Scilly than there were when the figures were collected. That is a minute number, but it has big funding implications for the Isles of Scilly.
  There are other factors. Several of the pupils who account for the increase live on the off-islands. They have to be boarded on St. Mary's, the main island. That adds to the cost.
  Another factor is that the formulae do not take account of the fact that there are no educational facilities for pupils aged over 16 on the Isles of Scilly, so they have to go to the mainland, which means that the Isles of Scilly council pays about £75,000 every year in boarding and travel costs to take those pupils to the schools on the mainland, mainly in Penzance in my constituency. The formula takes no account of that factor, and it adds to the difficulty. There is, therefore, a significant shortfall in the spending on education.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field)—perhaps the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Wight are similar in some respects—mentioned the costs of providing the fire service on an island. Those costs and those difficulties are compounded on the Isles of Scilly, because all five inhabited islands need some fire cover. Yet, as I understand it, the money that is made available to any local authority that is a fire authority depends in part on the number of calls and the number of false alarms that are made during the year.
  Fortunately, very few people cause a false alarm on the Isles of Scilly, but if one adds all those factors together, there is a big shortfall in the funding of fire services. It costs £91,000 to provide fire services on the Isles of Scilly. The SSA for the islands is only £57,000.
  The third factor is the revenue that is handed over to local authorities to recognise to some extent the extra expenditure they incur as a result of dealing with tourists. That is done on a national basis, as I understand it. There has been a decrease in that revenue, because the feeling is that surveys have shown a decrease in tourism in the past year. That, fortunately, is not true of the Isles of Scilly, where there has been an increase.
  Those factors add up to a cut in the SSA for the Isles of Scilly council of 2·9 per cent. In fact, its SSA has been reduced this year from £2,556,000 to £2,482,000a decrease of £74,000. Incidentally, the reason why the council has apparently so large an SSA in relation to the population is that, as I mentioned earlier, it is a unitary authority providing all services, and with large extra costs because they are provided on an island.
  I understand from the documents and from the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the special grant to take account of decreases in SSA will apply when there is a reduction of 2 per cent. As I said, the SSA for the Isles of Scilly has decreased by 2·9 per cent. I ask the Minister of State whether he can throw any light

  1107
  on the situation when he replies to the debate, because the Isles of Scilly are not mentioned in the document as qualifying for that special grant. I hope that he will consider that. If he cannot give me an answer tonight, I know that he will provide one later.
  However, my plea to the Minister of State and his colleagues is to reconsider the special features of the Isles of Scilly. We all go in for special pleading in a debate such as this. I make no apology for doing just that for the islanders I represent, and I hope that my arguments will be considered—not only seriously, as I know they will be, but sympathetically.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I shall be as brief as possible, and I intend to talk about the standard spending assessment and capping criteria. As we know, the Government are now trying to use the capping criteria to get local authorities to spend exactly to their SSAs.
  You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of my opposition in previous years to the methodology used in calculating standard spending assessments. They use out-of-date census data and inadequate indicators that take no account of need, unemployment, social deprivation, or the need for health education. They use inadequate ethnicity factors, and they make too much use of proxies, rather than direct indicators.
  I am pleased to be able to say that the Secretary of State has at last taken on board many of the complaints that have been made in the House, especially by people representing areas covered by the Webber-Craigh authorities, such as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), and has altered the SSA calculations to take account of those complaints. I especially welcome the economic index, which takes account of unemployment and long-term illness, both of which are prevalent in my constituency.
  The resulting standard spending assessment per head of population for my local authority shows an increase of 6·9 per cent.—the second highest increase for any of the metropolitan districts. I believe that our new level of SSA under the new methodology totally vindicates our complaints in the House against the previous SSA. Had the changes been implemented earlier, my local authority would have been spared the losses that it has suffered over the past three years, and would not have been capped in 1990.
  However, even with a 6·9 per cent. increase Barnsley is still 32nd out of the 36 metropolitan authorities. The gap between the highest and the lowest SSAs has closed, but it is still quite large. Last year, I used the example of Manchester, and then the difference between my local authority and Manchester was more than 60 per cent. That gap is still 47 per cent. Manchester has an SSA 47 per cent. higher than that of Barnsley to provide a standard level of service. Hon. Members have already referred to Westminster; last year its SSA was 102 per cent. higher than Barnsley's, and this year it will be 79 per cent. higher.
  As I shall explain, the increase in SSA has been completely overshadowed by the capping criteria that caused the existing lower level of SSA to be capped. The changes to the SSA methodology are welcome, but further
  1108
  review will be necessary. All the problems with the SSAs cannot be addressed in one year alone, and in future years we shall need further fine tuning.
  The capping regime had an impact on the levels of SSA for previous years, which were artificially low. That means that we shall have a low level of spending in the forthcoming year, despite the increase in the SSA. The losses from the past are never likely to be made up. As I have said, the Government want to equate spending to the SSA, using a form of what may be called permanent capping.
  The SSAs will never be the fairest method of dealing with local government finance, and further work is still needed in examining the methodology. Barnsley's SSA has increased, giving a possible increase of £8 million, but the authority cannot spend anything like that. Its revenue support grant has been increased by 18 per cent.—£11 million—but that will serve only to reduce the level of local council tax.
  I am sure that many of my constituents would be happy for the council tax to remain the same if some of the services that we have lost over the past three years were restored—for example, the excellent music tuition centre, and all the other local government services that have either had charges imposed or been removed altogether. I should especially like to see more funding for special needs education, and the residential care homes that have been closed over the past 12 months in Barnsley being reopened. I should also like to see the reintroduction of the discretionary education awards that were ended last year and have still not been restored. I am sure that the people of Barnsley would like to keep council tax levels as they are and retain those services.
  Because of the capping criteria, there will be a shortfall of £8 million in the local authority's budget. The council is meeting now to try to draw up a budget to avoid capping while maintaining as many services as it can, and it is under extreme pressure in trying to achieve that.
  I must also mention council tax transitional relief, which was intended to last for two years. I referred a constituency case to the Secretary of State involving a household which on the specified date for the measurement of transitional relief contained an artificially high number of people—four. When the household was reduced to two people, although their home was in a high council tax band, the family could not take advantage of the transitional relief. Could the relevant date be changed or, even better, could there be some sort of appeal in the mechanism to allow a family who did not qualify for transitional relief when it had more people in it on the specified date, to go back to the local authority and show that their circumstances had changed so that they could take advantage of the relief?
  Representatives of the South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority came to meet Ministers at the Department of the Environment and the Home Office. During that meeting, the chief fire officer admitted that the steps that the authority were taking to save money, difficult though they were, would not prevent it from falling below the Home Office accepted minimum standard. That authority is, therefore, facing a difficult situation. It cannot maintain Home Office standards on its present funding. The SSA for the authority has increased by 5·7 per cent., but it has been capped at 1·75 per cent., despite the fact that the budget has been reduced substantially over the past two years.

  1109
  Fire stations in my area have been closed to accommodate a five-year rolling programme and to facilitate the building of a brand-new fire station to serve the area and improve the service. Unfortunately, that plan is now under threat because of the difficulties that the authority faces. Its balances have been reduced to £200,000 —substantially below the balances recommended by the chief finance officer.
  The authority has suggested three possibilities, but even if it maintains its current freeze on recruitment it will still be £1·1 million short of adequate funding. It is £1·38 million short of what it needs to maintain Home Office minimum standards, and £1·77 million short of what it needs to restore its balances to the minimum recommended by the finance officer. It is falling below the minimum standard.
  The Minister was asked whether, due to the difficulties with pension payments by the fire authority over the past year, those could be capitalised for this year and the authority given permission for supplementary credit approvals to borrow the money to meet that capitalisation. If permission is given to capitalise that sum, but no credit approval is given, the capital would have to come from existing programmes and the new fire station proposed at Tankersley would be stopped. There would not be enough money in the capital programme to maintain the building and to meet the capitalisation of the pension commitment. The two go hand in hand. I am looking to the Minister to give some sign today that South Yorkshire will be allowed that capitalisation and given the authority for supplementary credit approval. I hope that he will consider that request seriously.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The background to the debate is the Government's 1987 claim that they would make local government finance simpler and easier for people to understand. Against that criterion, they have created three major problems for local authorities. First, they have made money more difficult for local authorities to collect. It is amazing to hear Conservative Members go on about local authorities' failure to collect, because they do not recognise that many of the problems were created by the Government. The rates were a simple way of collecting money and most local authorities had a good level of collection. First with the poll tax and now the council tax, the Government have made collection much more difficult.
  The second problem that the Government have created is in dramatically reducing the tax base for local authorities. Before the Government started with the reorganisation and changes, local authorities raised about 55 per cent. of their income by local tax, the remainder being made up by the Government. Now local authorities raise about 20 per cent. of their income. The result is that, for a small cut in Government grant, local authorities have to put up their charges by substantial amounts—the ratio is about 1:4.
  Thirdly, instead of bringing clarity and understanding to local government finance, the Government have made it even worse. There is no way that individual electors can make a judgment about their councillors and their effectiveness in the way that they spend the money on the basis of this extremely complicated formula. It seems to
  1110
  me that it is against that background that we must judge the Government's record on local Government finance. It is pretty terrible.
  I was disappointed with the Minister for Local Government and Planning who, when he came to the Select Committee, did not accept that most of the decisions on the standard spending assessments are political. He kept trying to claim that they were somehow objective and fair, based on the figures. I do not complain that he makes political decisions, but he should defend them rather than claim that there is some statistical validity in them. One particularly blatant example was the original introduction of extra money for overnight visitors and then, as a result of the outcry from that, the extra money for day visitors. In his introduction, the Secretary of State suggested that, by my objection to day visitors being included, I wanted to take money from London.
  I certainly do not. But I want to take money away from Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and ensure that it goes to places such as Newham, because the money for day visitors simply means that some central city places and seaside resorts do very well out of it. I cannot see any justification for the idea that day visitors automatically add to a local authority's costs. Stockport is one glaring example. It maintains Lyme park, which is within Cheshire. It costs each of the council charge payers in Stockport £5 a year. It is good value, but Stockport gets no compensation from the grants scheme for maintaining Lyme park. The people who benefit are in Cheshire.
  Many of my constituents like to go to Alton park. It is good value. It is a fun fair. Staffordshire will now benefit from that facility, yet it is almost totally self-contained. It will cost Staffordshire very little to maintain the tourist facilities there, whereas Blackpool fun fair, which is nothing like as self-contained, may well cost Blackpool. The idea about day visitors is nonsense. Some will be a source of revenue for a local authority through parking charges and other aspects from which it can benefit; some will be a serious drain on its resources. To say that it has anything to do with fairness is a myth. It has to do with where the Government want the money to go, which in this case, sadly, tends to be towards Tory authorities.
  Another example of the way in which the system is particularly unfair is the SSA for schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) compared Manchester and Barnsley. I do not begrudge the money that goes to Manchester. I have been into the schools there and think that they need the money. But it is amazing that, at the Reddish and Denton end of my constituency, where it comes up to Manchester, there are schools within about a mile of each other: one in Manchester, one in Denton within Tameside and one in Stockport. I cannot see any justification for the difference in the allocation of money to those schools. The Manchester school gets £2,214 for the primary school; the secondary school gets £3,106. In Tameside—within a mile—the primary school will get £1,826; the secondary school, slightly further away, £2,556. The primary school in Stockport will get £1,776; the secondary school, £2,484. Those primary schools are within a mile of each other. The secondary schools are within some three miles of each other.
  I am perfectly willing to concede that, between my constituency and somewhere like Moss Side in Manchester, there is a big difference in the problems of teaching children, but there are not those problems between those areas within a mile of each other. Because

  1111
  of the local management of resources in schools, Manchester schools get so much more than those in Tameside or Stockport. As teachers' salaries are fixed nationally, the small amount over which an individual school has discretion is a substantial problem for the Stockport and Tameside schools. They are badly underfunded. I can see nothing fair about that. I would argue that the Government must look at the weighting that they give to extra educational needs, to make it fairer.
  Other hon. Members referred to the area needs cost. I make no complaint in arguing that, compared to London, schools in the north of England need extra resources. I do not want to take funding away from London schools, because they need the resources, but I cannot see how schools in areas such as Stockport and Tameside can cope with the present level of funding.
  If the Government believe in democracy, they must take away the process of capping. Let the electors make the choice—either pay for higher services or not do so. At the moment they are caught in this situation. The financing is difficult to understand. They are not able to make a judgment about whether local councillors or the Government are failing to provide the service that they want. Let us get rid of capping, let local authorities make their decisions and let the electorate make the decision on that. If we want a healthy democracy, we must return democracy to local government. That means that local government needs a bigger tax base. Local councillors should be able to make decisions about the level of tax raising that they impose. The electorate can please themselves whether to support them or not. The present situation is a farce.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) has gone for a pie and a pint, partly because he is a good lad and was right on Maastricht, but also because he said that he was looking forward to the abolition of the county councils and a future of secure and more clear government.
  Before the hon. Gentleman left, I handed him a copy of the reply that other colleagues and I have had from the Secretary of State about the court judgment on the Local Government Commission guidance notes, in which we are told
  "The Government is not appealing against the court ruling … The Government believes that unitary authorities will often be the best way of achieving these objectives … They will therefore often provide the best form of local government … However there is no national blueprint and the Government does not rule out consideration of two tiers in particular circumstances, with or without changes to the status quo".
  I thought that the hon. Member for Ludlow would be interested in seeing what sort of monster is shambling towards Jerusalem to be born. I bet, that as he has an outside chance of retaining Ludlow at the next election, during the next Parliament he will see that what is proposed will have to be undone, with consequent complex financial ramifications.
  I obviously have a strong interest in Lancashire, both as a Lancashire Member and as a former county councillor. I am well aware of the problems of fishing in local government revenue support figures and of the ease with which anybody can come up with an old boot. I am also aware that one can hardly make the case for a particular
  1112
  authority being hard done by without appearing to wish to disadvantage another authority. Comparisons are odorous, as someone once said.
  The only way in which the position in Lancashire can be illustrated is by comparison with authorities of similar size —1·5 million people. The three other counties in that category are Essex, Hampshire and Kent. My main concern is that Lancashire's financial allocations have been deteriorating steadily since 1989–90, during which time Lancashire's standard spending assessment has gone up by 23·7 per cent.; the average shire increase is 29·4 per cent. That is a considerable disparity.
  This year, Lancashire's SSA has gone up by 1·43 per cent., whereas the SSA for Essex has gone up by 3·35 per cent., the SSA for Hampshire by 2·97 per cent. and the SSA for Kent by 3·09 per cent. In 1989–90, Lancashire, Essex, Hampshire and Kent had virtually the same grant-related expenditure, as it then was. In 1994, after a period of steadily widening graphs, Lancashire is way lower than the others—£100 million less than Kent. From 1990–91 to 1994–95, Lancashire's basic credit approval has gone down by 41 per cent., whereas the average county reduction has been 13 per cent. At the same time, Lancashire's budget increased by 58·9 per cent., whereas the county average was 62·1 per cent. Those are general figures against which this year's allocations and this year's difficulties must be seen.
  I know that the Minister for Local Government and Planning has looked at the figures, because we discussed them at a meeting with a deputation a few weeks ago. He assured us that he had no ideological or theoretical objection to changes in the methodology of allocation and that he was open to persuasion about the mechanics. Lancashire can show itself to be underfunded on at least six counts: the area cost adjustment, the special transitional grant, interest receipts, the education of under-fives, capital financing and the further education transfer. Lancashire estimates the total shortfall to be about £56·2 million. I am talking not about a wish list but about significant, punitive or partial calculations. I shall pick up three aspects of that.
  As the Minister knows well enough through his knowledge of his own local authority's finance control—he comes from the right half of the country—the area cost adjustment is a major source of justified complaint among authorities outside the south-east. About £1·6 billion this year is skewed south-eastward by that device. After all the vigorous representations from local authorities and their associations over the past few years, it came as a slap in the face to find that this year the ACA has been increased by 15 per cent. The Association of County Councils has argued for its redistribution among all authorities; pro rata, that would mean £15·9 million extra being allocated to Lancashire.
  I listened carefully to the exchanges earlier today between my hon. Friends who represent London constituencies and the Secretary of State. Anyone in Lancashire—I am sure that my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike) agree —can understand the need for extra provision for London because it has extra and special problems. However, no one could persuade people in Lancashire that Kent, Sussex, Berkshire and some of the other leafier areas around London required the same provision—
  Mr. Bennett: The Isle of Wight.
  Mr. Pickthall: Or the Isle of Wight. I cannot believe that they require that skew.
  The element allowed for the pay of higher education teachers, police and firefighters should be assessed by reference to London weighting allowances which are actually paid rather than by reference to a new earnings survey. The Department's own paper, No. 93/51, which was considered by the SSA sub-group last summer, described the ACA approach to those worker groups as dubious. It recommended actual London weighting, the incorporation of which into the SSA would make the ACA factors correspond more closely to the real world. It was the Minister's own Department which said that.
  Authorities disadvantaged by the ACA are, therefore, especially aggrieved by the inclusion of areas around London that they believe should not be included. I can quote a specific example of the effect of that exclusion by reference to primary and secondary SSAs in 1994–95. Each primary child is worth as follows: in Essex £1,972, in Kent £1,961 in Hampshire £1,929 and in Lancashire £1,867. A Lancashire primary pupil is allocated £94 less than a Kent contemporary. Annually, a typical school of 100 pupils in my constituency receives £9,400 less.
  In secondary schools the same thing applies, but on a greater scale. A Lancashire secondary school student is allocated £145 less than an Essex contemporary. That means that in a typical school of 800, a Lancashire school receives £116,000 less than it should. Schools in each of those four authorities face similar costs, certainly in wages, and no one can possibly imagine that such disparities are remotely fair.
  I shall cut my speech short because my hon. Friends are dying to speak on similar matters and I shall mention only briefly the standard spending assessment funding for under-fives' education. In view of the Prime Minister's recent discovery of the importance of nursery education and the fact that the Secretary of State for Education grudgingly agreed with him not too many days ago, it is absolutely preposterous that the SSA element for under-fives' education is judged on the population of an area rather than on the provision. That basis specifically discourages good providers such as Lancashire from improving and it specifically discourages bad providers from improving their performance. That could be changed without, in the first instance, any implications for the overall allocation. It is a matter of adjustment. I shall allow somebody else to jump in.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I shall be brief because my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is straining at the leash in his desire to get into the debate. The settlement is a bad one for local government. We were told that there would be a 2·3 per cent. increase, but the figure represents a 1·2 per cent. cut on the current year's local authority budgets.
  The Secretary of State said that the teachers will get a 2·9 per cent. increase. How will that be paid for? The Evening Standard headline said that it was "an inflation busting increase". As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, it will be paid for only by employing fewer teachers, by having fewer local government employees and by having bigger classes.
  The Secretary of State also said that the predictions of massive job losses this year would not materialist. That is
  1114
  wrong. On the authority of the Local Government Management Board, 50,000 fewer staff were employed in local government up to September in the past year. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who is not in his place, talked of motivating people in local government. One does not motivate them by sacking them. The Secretary of State, as always, has dealt in assertions, just as he used to assert that the poll tax was a fair tax and that there was no way that a property tax could ever be fair.
  In 1988 or perhaps before, I remember the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who was then the Secretary of State for the Environment, likened the system of local government finance to stumbling about in a bog in a fog. The report of the Select Committee on the Environment, which came out a couple of weeks ago, said that the system of local government finance was difficult for the expert to understand, hard for the councillor to follow and almost impossible for the non-expert voter to use to make judgments. That is certainly true.
  In north-east Lancashire, there is a feeling of absolute bewilderment at the savage nature of the settlement. We met the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), a few weeks ago and he listened politely enough, but we got absolutely nothing at all from our discussions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) touched on nursery provision. We were told in November by the Daily Express that the Prime Minister was committed to a drive to give every three-year-old a place in a nursery school. That message was plastered across the front page of all the Tory-inclined tabloids.
  The reality is that Lancashire county council already provides more nursery provision, but it is discrimated against because the SSA formula is based on the under-five population and not on the under-five population in nursery schools. Lancashire is doubly discriminated against. It has a much better record than North Yorkshire, which includes the constituency of the Minister for Local Government and Planning. However, North Yorkshire receives more money than Lancashire.
  My hon. Friends the Member for Lancashire, West and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) referred to the massive injustices in the education SSAs. I have two examples to underline those points. Why should a primary school child in Lancashire receive £119 less than a primary school child in East Sussex? Why should a secondary school pupil in Lancashire receive £208 less than a secondary school pupil in the Isle of Wight? People are bewildered by that.
  In my district authority of Pendle, the SSA per head has slipped from 70th to 150th. The unviersity of Bristol tells us that we are 55th out of 366 districts in the university's deprivation index. Our SSA is declining from £9·1 million this year to £8·4 million from April. That is a 7·1 per cent. reduction.
  A similar story can be told in respect of all the local authorities in my neck of the woods. There is a 11·5 per cent. reduction in Blackburn, a 9·6 per cent. reduction in Burnley and an 8·6 per cent. reduction in Hyndburn. However, Lancaster's SSA is to increase by 11·7 per cent. Now we know why the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was gyrating at the beginning of the Secretary of State's speech.
  People in Pendle do not understand why our SSA is dropping from £106 per head to £98 while it is rising in Bath—with all the deprivation there—from £102 per head

  1115
  to £106. That is an increase of 4·5 per cent. On the social index, to which other hon. Members have referred, Pendle is ranked 92 while Bath is ranked 72. Bournemouth is ranked 40, but Bournemouth is receiving an SSA per head of £114. I do not know how the figures are calculated. A basket of measures are used which are not an accurate reflection of deprivation. We must change that process.
  Pendle has the second-highest Asian heritage community in the county. The changes to the ethnic definition impact adversely against my local authority. The factors must include reference to social class. In Bournemouth, 19·9 per cent. of people are skilled manuals while 27 per cent. are skilled manuals in Pendle. Twenty per cent. are class 4 in Pendle while 14 per cent. are class 5 while 4·5 per cent. are class 5 in Bournemouth. The construction of the social and economic indexes must be placed under the microscope once more.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's assurance today that he will examine the SSA reduction grant. He said that the grant may not be a one-year one off and we may have to return to it. My authority will receive £726,000 next year, but if the grant vaporises the year after that, the impact on our council tax payers would be severe indeed.
  In addition, our transitional relief has been cut by 70 per cent. It has collapsed from £1 million to £300,000. That will have an absolutely cataclysmic effect in Pendle where we have so many of what were previously low-rated properties. No one in band A to band C properties will receive any help from the transitional relief scheme and 77 per cent. of the properties in my constituency fall within bands A and B.
  I will finish now because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West wishes to speak. However, the settlement is bad for north-east Lancashire and it is bad for the country. It is another of the sleights of hand that we have come to expect from the Government.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) for giving me six or seven minutes to cast a few pearls before the Conservative Benches.
  My hon. Friend ought not to worry too much about the fact that all of this does not make sense. I do not think that anyone—even Ministers—understands how the system works. When one allows civil servants to come up with formulae that are punched into computers, all the discrepancies and all the injustices are churned out. We could have spent the entire night demonstrating the inconsistencies and the unfairness in the system. This is the price that we are paying for a Government determined to centralise everything and unwilling to allow local authorities elected by local people to raise their own funds to meet their own needs. Only we—I refer to people on all sides—really know where the shoe hurts, and it should be possible to deal with the matter through local accountability and local democracy. But local accountability and local democracy are being dismantled—destroyed, indeed—by the Government, as also happened under their immediate predecessors.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State met a deputation from the London borough of Newham and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr.
  1116
  Leighton) indicated, we put the case to the Minister. It is difficult to know what more we could have said. We came on behalf of a united community—a community represented or supported by local businesses, through the chamber of commerce, the Newham Recorder, the local Conservative party and the local Liberal party—and we put the case to the Minister, but he did not give us any satisfaction. He was polite. I was fascinated by the great fat Waterman pen that he was using, and even more fascinated by his big, fat gold cufflinks, but in the end I was not pleased at the fact that he gave us nothing. There was no fat reward from the cerebral Minister. I suppose we ought at least to be grateful that he listened to us before throwing us out of his office.
  We in Newham have appalling conditions brought about by circumstances well beyond our control. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will look more carefully at our needs if the urban conditions index being developed by his Department in conjunction with Manchester university is accepted and puts Newham at number one—a position that we do not want to be in—in the league of deprived local authority areas in the country, and I hope that he will be far more sympathetic next time Newham Members go with representatives of the local authority to see him.
  I appreciate the fact that Opposition Members now seem to understand the problems in London as a whole and I address my remarks essentially to my own colleagues when I say that Members of Parliament, especially those representing constituencies outside London, regard the capital in terms of its centre. They work in Westminster and go to their flats in Dolphin square or wherever else they can scrounge a bed for the night—all well above board, of course, as I know that there is no hanky-panky from Opposition Members. Non-London Members do not see just how bad the situation is in places like Southwark, Haringey, Islington and Newham. They are showing more understanding, but it is still far from complete. Even in Tory-controlled Brent, the problems are just as bad as those elsewhere.
  Today, there are 30,500 families in temporary accommodation. That represents 62 per cent. of all homeless families in England. London has nearly 500,000 unemployed people—the largest concentration of unemployment in the United Kingdom. Of all refugees, 90 per cent. ultimately settle in London, putting enormous strains on the services of our boroughs, whether Tory, Labour or Liberal.
  I know that my non-London hon. Friends have some understanding of London's problems. We are dealing not just with the Westminster area. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) once talked about the bars and brothels of Westminster, causing considerable offence to those who know where neither the bars nor the brothels are and who, despite assiduous questioning, have not been able to find out. I do not know whether people were offended because no one had told them or because that is not what Opposition Members do. At any rate, it must be understood that the capital city has enormous problems.
  I know that the standard spending assessments with regard to highway maintenance in London have been increased, but they are still woefully inadequate. Have hon. Members—Conservative or Labour—seen the chaos on London's streets at the moment? People are calling it "Polo City" because in the middle of every street there is

  1117
  a bloody great hole. It is appalling. There are almost more cones on the streets of London than there are people walking around. Why are Ministers not able to co-ordinate the way that undertakings are simply digging up the roads willy-nilly? It is probably easier to get out of Sarajevo than the east end of London at present. Someone is working on the Rotherhithe tunnel, so they have decided to work on the highway that links to it, and they have coned off the A13, the Commercial road. People can see this happening all over the place. Albert bridge is closed and Lambeth bridge is about to close.
  Who the hell is co-ordinating all this? The answer is no one. But someone should be doing something about it. If Minsiters had to travel in rush hour in London, whether on a bus or in a private vehicle, they would do something about it. However, they live in their ivory towers with chauffeur-driven cars to take them from one reception to another at most convenient hours, where they drink champagne, eat caviar and show no regard whatever for the people of London.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Doug Henderson: As someone who gets caught on the bridges of London when coming to the House in the morning, I can: not but agree with all the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
  Does not this debate demonstrate again to the British people that the Government have lost their commitment to improving our public services? The Government will be shown to have misled the British people about council tax levels. They are both unwilling and unable to dissociate themselves from malpractice and corruption in Tory-controlled boroughs. They are torn apart internally by their own contradictions. They are devoid of new ideas and direction. As will be shown in May and June this year, the Conservative party has lost the trust of the British people.
  We have had a good debate today. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed strong views about both the system of financing local government and the amount of finance that is available to councils. In a speech of the highest quality, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made a number of important points, the central one being that, even with all the reviews that have taken place, standard spending assessments are not being used for their original purpose. They were originally intended to distribute the amount of local government grant. However, they are now being used to limit the amount of local authority resources, and that offends any sense of democracy.
  Another important point that my hon. Friend made was that there is little use in introducing the capping system because it does not control the level of expenditure. Councils that face a cap inevitably spend up to the capping limit. Therefore, examining the matter from an aggregate point of view, there is little saving. The impact of the capping regulations on constituencies was expressed forcefully by my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) and for Newham, North-West.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) gave considerable emphasis to the potential cuts in his constituency arising from this settlement and to the threat to important local authority public services such as swimming pools and libraries. Although the
  1118
  Government agree with his local authority that more money should be spent on education, money is being diverted from the education budget to meet the council's statutory obligations to the homeless. That is a ridiculous situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said that in his local authority there would be cuts in the discretionary grants available for education because of the impact of the settlement.
  Tory Members made some points with which I think my hon. Friends agree. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) was pleased that the level of unemployment was a more important factor in the calculation of SSAs. It was not a matter of north and south —it was something that could affect the whole of the country. Many of my hon. Friends agree with that and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central said so. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) believed that there should be more openness and transparency in the SSA system. I think that few of my hon. Friends would disagree with that.
  The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said that he supported subsidiarity. There is considerable support for that among my hon. Friends. I am not sure whether my hon. Friends agree with the rest of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I always say that we should be satisfied with the little that is good. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West said, after the hon. Member for Ludlow left the Chamber, that he could not address the hon. Gentleman directly, as he seemed to have gone for a pie and a pint.
  I cannot address the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) as he is not in his place. As the hon. Gentleman was wearing a dinner suit before he left the Chamber, we can only assume that he is having his pie and pint in more salubrious surroundings. I use dinner suits only for official occasions.
  The hon. Member for Ludlow said that teachers had been made redundant in his constituency. If the hon. Gentleman had been in his place now, I would have been able to say that my hon. Friends and I agree that that is damaging to his community.
  The Secretary of State made a lengthy speech and I must congratulate him on being generous in giving way. I cannot extend those congratulations to the generosity of his responses, but I can say that the right hon. Gentleman did try. It was noticeable that he made little mention of the impact of the overall settlement and what it would mean for local authorities throughout. Perhaps that is not surprising, as the House will appreciate the difficulties that the Department of the Environment has in persuading the Treasury each year of the efficacy of its submission on the financial settlement.
  Successive Secretaries of State have trooped along to the Chancellor to make their case. Some have been known to flag up the occasional victory, but that is not the case this year. I have sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman. Not only has he been spurned by the Prime Minister on the local government review, he has now been spurned by the Chancellor on the financial settlement. The only flag flying this year at the Department of the Environment is a white flag.
  It is interesting to compare the approach of the Secretary of State with that of his predecessor. I remind the House that the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and

  1119
  Hythe (Mr. Howard), wrote to the Chief Secretary in May 1993. I am fortunate enough to have a copy of that letter,
  which stated:
  "You asked me to let you have my initial views on the forthcoming Settlement, as a preliminary to this year's Survey discussions … In aggregate, it suggests that an increase of 5·2 per cent. in TSS for 1994–95 is needed in order to protect local authority services."
  The same correspondence contained the Treasury's response, which shows that a level of settlement of around 3·5 per cent. is as far as it was prepared to go.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman showed some skill as a negotiator. He knew when he was beaten and he was prepared to recommend that level of settlement. However, where are we now? In a statement to the House, the present Secretary of State said:
  "my proposal provides for a 2·3 per cent. increase in local authority spending year on year."—[Official Report, 2 December 1993; Vol. 233, column 1173.]
  The settlement that has been accepted by the right hon. Gentleman is less than the Treasury deemed was necessary last May.
  In the correspondence between the right hon. And learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe and the Treasury, the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave a dire warning of the consequences of the settlement falling below 3·5 per cent. He said in the same letter:
  "local government should not be singled out for specially harsh treatment … A TSS settlement for next year which was lower in cash terms than local authority budgets in the current year would, in my view, be impossible to defend."
  Is not that exactly what the Government are asking the House to support tonight? Is not that what is contained in the settlement?
  That is why the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends have been so quiet on the overall impact on local government services of the settlement. Are not we being asked to defend the indefensible? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that he is asking the House to vote through measures that will lead to a 1·2 per cent. cut in local authority resources? Does he understand that those calculations are based on a local authority pay bill freeze and that, if cuts in services are to be avoided, substantial council tax increases could result? If the Secretary of State understands all that, is not his advocacy of this year's settlement abject surrender to the Treasury?
  Perhaps the Secretary of State should listen to the Minister for Local Government and Planning, who seems to be developing a section on the needs of local authorities of all colours. The Minister wrote to all English Members of Parliament on 2 December saying:
  "The Revenue Support Grant Settlement for 1994–95 is necessarily challenging … I recognise that a number of authorities will be disappointed with the outcome."
  It is clear from the debate this evening that more than a small number of authorities are disappointed with the outcome.
  Mr. Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is widely thought by people in local government circles that the settlement is considerably better than they feared and something that they can work with? I refer him to the comments in most of the local government newspapers and magazines, which say clearly that people thought that it was going to be a darn sight worse. In those circumstances, could not the hon. Gentleman be grudgingly generous to us rather than so universal an opponent?
  Mr. Hendersonf: People throughout the local authority world believe that this is a very bad settlement. They expected a dreadful settlement. Once the impact of the pay increase is felt, they will probably revert to their original assessment of the settlement. That takes me rather neatly on to the matter of local authority pay. I am indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for leading me in that direction.
  I am surprised at the apparent complacency of the Government, especially in the light of further statements by the Treasury today on pay. The Treasury says in its announcements that it assumes that public sector pay bills will still be frozen. Yet, at the same time, sources in the Government say that substantial increases will be acknowledged for certain groups of workers. A figure of 4 per cent. has sometimes been mentioned for the police.
  Today the Secretary of State for the Environment said that a teachers' settlement of 2·9 per cent. would be permissible. Is not there a contradiction between the two positions? First, the original financial statement announced in December last year assumed a pay bill freeze, with increases in pay coming only from productivity agreements. Then the settlement compels local authorities to increase the level of remuneration for those categories of workers. Is not there a contradiction, as my hon. Friends the Members for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) suggested? If the settlements become a reality, will they not blow a gaping hole in the assumptions on which the financial statement is based?
  Is there still an expectation that the pay increases can be funded by productivity? If so, do the Government accept that redundancies of police officers and teachers are necessary to pay for the increases? If the Government do not believe that, how else do they think that productivity improvements of the order necessary to finance the pay increases can be achieved? Police and teachers will be made redundant just when the Government are saying that their main priority is to protect the community, fight crime and improve education.
  The Government have to look again at how effective the settlement can be. Do they seriously expect that productivity gains can be achieved? My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to the trouble and pressure that had been put on loyal local authority workers such as school cleaners. If the Secretary of State continues with the settlement, is he prepared to ask school cleaners, home helps and swimming pool attendants to accept a pay cut or to take redundancy to finance an increase for a teacher or a policeman? That would be unacceptable and unjust, and it should be discarded.
  The reason for our difficulty is that the country is in an economic mess. The Government have accepted and, indeed, celebrated a low-capacity economy with high levels of unemployment. The impact of a vicious stop-go cycle, which the Government's economic mismanagement has created and aggravated, means that the economy cannot meet public expenditure obligations because so much money is wasted on financing unemployment. We raise insufficient tax revenue because of under-employed resources. Is not the settlement the price that we have to pay? We cannot meet essential expenditure on improving education, training and capital projects, which could help the recovery and secure our future.
  The settlement is not only about the level of grant and council tax. It is also about the assessment of the needs of communities. There can have been no doubt that the previous system was flawed—it calculated Huntingdon as

  1121
  more deprived than Chester-le-Street and Cambridge as more deprived than Hartlepool. The new system has some improvements. The inclusion of an economic index that includes unemployment and morbidity factors is one improvement—that argument has been advanced by some of my hon. Friends—but there are still many concerns. The reduction in the additional-needs index is one, as that undervalues the link between deprivation and educational under-achievement.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn was right to say that, even with the improvements in the SSA system, there are still many shortcomings in the all-ages social index, which claims that Hove is a region of greater need than Liverpool, and that Runnymede is a region of greater need than Wolverhampton. Anyone who travels in those regions knows that that is not the case.
  Many councils have suffered substantial losses from adjustments in the SSA. The arrangements for lessening the impact are called "dampening". When I first heard that phrase introduced by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, I wondered what it meant. I thought that it was a rare new initiative by the Prime Minister to restructure his Cabinet, but it is the Department of Environment's term for assisting councils that have suffered from a change in their SSA. Those councils that have marginally benefited from the abatement this year will want to know how long the abatement will continue and whether it will be applicable next year.
  The Government claim that the system is fair, but it is no coincidence that the revised system shows that the shire districts have fared best. The Secretary of State may have thought that he was doing himself a political favour when he ensured the achievement of that result, but if last year's county council election results are anything to go by, he is working from an old text book. It did him no good last year and it will not do him any good this year.
  The Minister for Local Government and Planning has also taken a special interest in the SSA system. He said in an interview with the Local Government Chronicle that the system is so sophisticated that he could work out the SSA for Leningrad. Many authorities in this country think that he has worked out the SSA for Leningrad. In this age of perestroika, the system in St. Petersburg, even with all its shortcomings, is probably more democratic than the system in this country and the system that the Minister wants.
  We have the most centralised system of local government finance in the western world. That undemocratic system is based on the draconian practice of capping local authority budgets. Capping denies a local community the right to decide on the level of service that it wants and on how resources should be raised to pay for it. Capping has been condemned as inappropriate in a modern state if the balance of influence and democracy is to be retained between central and local government.
  In justification of the financial settlement, the Secretary of State said that the proposal
  "represents a package which the country can afford."—[Official Report, 2 December 1993; Vol. 233, c. 1176.]
  That is not a widely held view. The country cannot afford a package that ties down resource allocations exclusively to the statistical whims of officials in Marsham street. The country cannot afford its democracy to be undermined by the evils of capping; it cannot afford to accept a capital programme for local authorities that will not rebuild our crumbling schools, repair our leaking roofs or re-equip our
  1122
  aging transport systems and that leaves our roads in decay [Interruption.]—as well as those of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes)—and does nothing to renovate and build homes for rent.
  The country cannot afford a revenue settlement that undermines our teacher-pupil ratios, damages our fire-fighting capacity, threatens our ability to combat crime, puts the vulnerable more at risk and deprives us all of a sound and safe community. The country cannot afford its public services to be endangered any longer by this clapped-out Government. The House should reject the orders. I say to the Government what Oliver Cromwell said to the Long Parliament:
  "You have sat too long here … In the name of God, go!"
  9.40 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) began and ended with a peroration and there was nothing in the middle; it was like a meal which started with a soufflé and went straight on to the meringue.
  The Labour party would like to say that the system is rigged. Labour Members hint at that all the time and occasionally say so. They say that it is the invention of some demonic civil servant, but they should look at the figures and at what the Select Committee said. They know that they cannot sustain that case.
  Let me demonstrate—the local authorities with the highest spending assessments are almost uniformly Labour, with the odd sprinkling of Liberal Democrats. The top 10 authorities with the highest damping grants are predominantly Labour controlled.
  If I wanted to rig a system I am bright enough to be able to do so, but the system is not rigged, it is scrupulously fair. When I am asked where I use my judgment, I answer, "In as few places as possible." In every case where a choice was laid before me in which analysis had demonstrated a clear indicator, I took that indicator. It would have been convenient for me—representing North Yorkshire—to say that we do not want the area cost adjustment because we cannot sustain that.
  Mr. Gummer: We did not do so.
  Mr. Curry: No, we did not take that course because the evidence showed that the opposite was true and Opposition Members should make up their minds whether they like it or not, because they cannot face both ways simultaneously.
  The Select Committee made an interesting and helpful contribution to the debate and its report was studied. It began by saying that the discussion had been open and it was. Throughout, our intention had been to tell everyone —I tell the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North the same—that we can argue about the amount of money available as that is perfectly legitimate and the stuff of political argument, but we ought not to argue about how we distribute the money. We have a common interest in trying to ensure that that is done in a way that is as up to date and fair as possible. Of course, we must make continued improvements and one cannot say that one has reached the definitive point—the system will evolve from year to year. However, I want the argument where it belongs rather than concentrating on the attribution of Machiavellian motives to a genuine attempt to deliver the best possible formula for redistribution.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: In that case, can the Minister explain why there was a further cut after the delegation from Liverpool met him? No one in the city of Liverpool understands why another £100,000 was taken from the support grant.
  Mr. Curry: I do not know whether Liverpool is one of the cities from which the overpayment of previous grant has been clawed back. If that is the case, it has had an interest-free loan for a couple of years and we ought to have had it back.
  Liverpool has some difficulties because of its relatively low ethnic population. Newcastle upon Tyne has a similar characteristic. There is a strong weight for ethnicity in the indicators.
  I know that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) has intervened. Coventry wishes me to use a certain form of sampling to identify children who came from families on income support. We have sampled at 1 per cent. and we have recently changed to 5 per cent. sampling. We now have two quarters at 5 per cent. and two quarters at 1 per cent. sampling. Coventry would have benefited had we moved straight to 5 per cent. sampling. I did not do that, because I do not consider that we can base our sampling on only two quarters.
  Had I exercised the judgment for which people had asked, the consequence would have been a £2·5 million further cut for Liverpool. That shows how the indicators can work and their possible impact.
  Where I have to exercise a judgment, of course I am conscious of particular needs of communities.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Is it not the case that Coventry has pointed out for two years now that the method of counting the children of claimants is absolutely wrong? The Minister's own officials accepted that it cannot be right, yet for two years he refused to do anything about it.
  Mr. Curry: That is not correct. Until recently, the available statistics have been based on a 1 per cent. sample. A 5 per cent. sample will be more accurate and a 50 per cent. sample will be more accurate still. We are now incorporating statistics based on 5 per cent. for two quarters and 1 per cent. for the other two quarters. Next year, the statistics will be based fully on a 5 per cent. sample and I have no doubt that Coventry will benefit. However, the swings and roundabouts of the system mean that Liverpool, because of its characteristics, may be penalised by that methodology. There cannot be winners all the way round.
  Several hon. Members mentioned area cost adjustment. The area cost adjustment is in the index because it is justified and because it stood up to analysis. However, I am not yet satisfied with parts of it, particularly the way in which area cost adjustment plays out towards the borders of the south-east region. Of course there are anomalies at borders. For example, one can find schools within a mile of each other, one each side of a village. We do not yet have the information to consider effectively how it should be tapered, but we will accumulate that. I have asked authorities to join us in carrying out further analysis on area cost adjustment.
  I am already committed to explore with the Department for Education the extent to which we can update the statistical information about children in school. It is collected in January now; therefore, it is 15 months behind the statistics. If we collect it in September we shall bring it much more up-to-date. I want the most up-to-date
  1124
  statistics available. That will give us a more contemporary account and make the figures more relevant. It does not mean that the previous system was not fair; it means that we shall be using more up-to-date figures where they stand up to analysis.
  I should like to say a word about London because there have been some suggestions that we should take it out of the system. I welcome the explanation from my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) of what the Select Committee had in mind when it made those points in its report. The Select Committee asked me to declare where there is a judgment to be made.
  If we were to take London separately, I would have to make an enormous judgment before even beginning the process of how much money to take out of the system to dedicate to London. That would be a political judgment which I do not want to make.
  I should prefer a universally applied system that seeks genuinely to define where councils have to spend money. That would be much better than having a London index, another for the north-east and another for Merseyside, which also has special problems. Before we know where we are, we would have fragmented the system, and it would no longer have the integrity of universal application.
  Mr. Robert B. Jones: I understand the problems that would occur if London is separated out and no arrangements are made scientifically to determine the distribution between London and the rest of the country. My hon. Friend would need a formula for distributing between London and the rest of the country. That does not undermine the case that if we vary any part of the London distribution, we shall end up with huge swings in the rest of non-metropolitan Britain and that is the real problem.
  Mr. Curry: I take my hon. Friend's point. As with all the Select Committee's recommendations, we are willing to examine the options. The Committee identified a number of aspects that, in its view, should be investigated further; it is only fair to add that the Committee itself found it difficult to come up with positive alternatives.
  Work will be necessary on major issues such as the police and the fire authorities this year, as well as on the problem of sparse education provision. The five matters that I have mentioned—along with the counting of pupil numbers and the area cost adjustment—constitute a significant menu. I do not intend to engage in the sort of radical review that has just taken place; people need stability, and they cannot cope if the system is tossed in the air every year. We must, however, ensure that there is a constant process of modernisation.
  A number of Newham Members spoke. It was suggested, for instance, that the capital financing SSA should be based on the actual pre-1990 debt, rather than the notional debte. That, however, would penalise authorities that had used capital receipts to repay the debt, and reward those that had spent those receipts. The system is currently based on the principle of notional amounts, and I think it better for that arrangement to continue.
  Newham's SSA for 1994–95 was £1,143 per head, way above the average for the outer London boroughs: it was the fifth highest in London. Newham also receives £13·3 million of reduction grant. I understood what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said about homelessness, and I am willing to give a detailed

  1125
  explanation of the way in which the homelessness indicators are calculated. That would, I think, be more helpful than an abbreviated explanation now.
  This year, we have introduced indicators relating to unemployment and morbidity, or ill health. I pay tribute to the Webber Craig authorities, which have pressed for such indicators for some years. They convinced me: the case stood up to analysis, and then to further analysis. However, certain people cannot congratulate us on introducing economic indicators, and then complain about adverse effects on other authorities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) made two points, which I think I have answered. I am sure that he will subsequently wish to raise the question of what I understand to be between 12,000 and 13,000 surplus school places in Northamptonshire: he suggested that there was a debate to be had with the county council.
  The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) made a speech that I can only describe as sub-charismatic. He supplied his own excuse, suggesting—if I understood him aright—that Madam Speaker had said that it would help the House if he did not speak for too long. If that is true, it is one of the rare occasions in recent parliamentary history of a mercy killing. This was not a dance of the seven veils—the Liberal Democrats usually have seven policies to correspond with the broad economic regions of the country. Here was not even a single veil, but a gossamer thread. Boiled down, Liberal Democrat policy amounted to adjusting the area cost adjustment for West Berkshire. That is what will be laid before the people of Britain: "We shall adjust the area cost adjustment for West Berkshire, and that will solve our problems." I am grateful for brevity at least.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said that although the housing benefit case-load figures had been adjusted to take account of dwellings owned by another authority, adjustments had been made only for authorities that had made representations. We have made such an adjustment, in response to the strength of arguments advanced during consultation; we did not have enough information to make an accurate adjustment for all authorities, and we therefore produced estimates for the authorities that were most affected. We have, however, said that the issue will be discussed with local authority associations with a view to gleaning better figures for 1995–96.
  Mr. Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Curry: No, I shall not give way because the hon. Gentleman was not listening to the greater part of my remarks.
  I now wish to respond to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) who compared St. Helens with Westminster. The truth is that parts of Westminster are socially deprived. A feature of much of the housing in the north of England is that it is more solid than that in parts of the south so housing conditions are sometimes better in the north. Westminster is fourth on the revised social index and St. Helens is 241st. However, if the economic indexes are included, the figures are turned around and St. Helens becomes 39th whereas Westminster is 83rd. If one takes into account the number of households sharing housing and the number of householders living in rented flats, overcrowding, ethnicity and homelessness, it is clear that there is a very good case for considering Westminster as
  1126
  socially deprived. If that is what the system reveals, we abide by it because we must have an objective system. I am not going to tweak it here, twist it there and bend it the other way.
  I shall,of course, respond to the invitation issued by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and write to him about the Isles of Scilly. As he knows, the Isles of Scilly have an especially high SSA per head. It is £1,231 which is almost double the national average, but I am perfectly willing to discuss specific issues with him in detail.
  The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) mentioned education for the under-fives. The provision of such education is not a statutory duty and it would not be right to base the SSA on the number of places for the under-fives because that would lead local authorities to write their own cheques—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having great difficulty hearing the Minister. Members of all parties are chatting away. I should be grateful if the Hosue would settle down and listen to what the Minister has to say.
  Mr. Curry: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who opened the debate for the Opposition, committed himself to two things on Labour's behalf. We can say that he committed himself because he made his commitments in the House and, according to the dictum of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), they count as pledges, unlike off-the-cuff remarks which I understand constitute the other category of pledges made by the Labour party.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn made two promises. First, he said that he would abolish capping. He did not say over what time scale or for whom. Would it be done all at once in the first year? He was not quite sure whether it was linked to the introduction of elections by a third, a third, a third. I know that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has made that connection. He wants to have that control of a third, a third, a third and he would intervene in the election cycle to obtain it. In any event, the hon. Member for Blackburn would abolish capping. In other words, there would be a series of very large tax increases under Labour. All council tax payers will wish to know that that is what would happen.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Mr. Curry: I have three minutes left. I shall give way when I have dealt with the second pledge.
  The hon. Gentleman's second pledge was to abolish compulsory competitive tendering. Does the House seriously believe that, given the choice between putting services out to tender and building town hall bureaucracies, Labour authorities would opt for CCT? We should soon see local authority employment going through the roof and passing the 2 million mark.
  Mr. Straw: I have two questions for the Minister. First, will he explain where the completely bogus claim that the abolition of capping and CCT would cost £800 million came from? Secondly, why is he rejecting the policy of not having capping and not even counting local authorities' self-financed expenditure which the Prime Minister proposed in a White Paper when he was Chief Secretary? It is still our policy, although he has changed his mind.
  Mr. Curry: Even for someone as mathematically challenged as the hon. Gentleman, the idea that one can liberate capping without tax increases is incomprehensible. I do not think that council tax payers will agree with him. He should consider the impeccably Social Democrat Governments in Scandinavia—in Denmark—and in Holland, where local authorities are being brought under tighter control because local authority expenditure is part of public expenditure.
  We know what the Labour party would do in Government. We will find that Labour's ten commandments are tax, tax, tax, tax, tax and tax again. The taxes will not be collected and the rents will not be collected and the council tax payer will suffer. That is Labour's policy. The hon. Member for Blackburn is the Wilfred Pickles of local Government. "Give 'em the money, Mabel" is his policy —"Give 'em the money and the council tax payer will pay." The council tax payers had better beware if that is what they get.
  I commend the reports to the House.
  Question put.
  The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 261.

  Division No. 107]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cash, William

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Alexander, Richard

  Churchill, Mr

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clappison, James

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Amess, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Colvin, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Congdon, David

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Conway, Derek

  Atkins, Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Couchman, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Cran, James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

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

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bates, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Beggs, Roy

  Day, Stephen

  Bellingham, Henry

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bendall, Vivian

  Devlin, Tim

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dicks, Terry

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Body, Sir Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dover, Den

  Booth, Hartley

  Duncan, Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Eggar, Tim

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Elletson, Harold

  Brazier, Julian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bright, Graham

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Evennett, David

  Burns, Simon

  Faber, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Fabricant, Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Butterfill, John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Forman, Nigel

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Forth, Eric

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  1128

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  MacKay, Andrew

  French, Douglas

  Maclean, David

  Fry, Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  Madel, Sir David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Malone, Gerald

  Garnier, Edward

  Mans, Keith

  Gill, Christopher

  Marland, Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gorst, John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mills, Iain

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Hague, William

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hannam, Sir John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Harris, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hayes, Jerry

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heald, Oliver

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Page, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Paice, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pawsey, James

  Horam, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

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

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

  Jack, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Key, Robert

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Sackville, Tom

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

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

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shersby, Michael

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Sims, Roger

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Legg, Barry

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Leigh, Edward

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lidington, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lightbown, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lord, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Luff, Peter

  Stephen, Michael

  1129

  Stern, Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Stewart, Allan

  Waller, Gary

  Streeter, Gary

  Ward, John

  Sumberg, David

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Sykes, John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Whitney, Ray

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Whittingdale, John

  Thomason, Roy

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Wilkinson, John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Willetts, David

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wilshire, David

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

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Trend, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trimble, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Viggers, Peter

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Mr Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Walden, George

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cox, Tom

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cryer, Bob

  Ainger, Nick

  Cummings, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Darling, Alistair

  Ashton, Joe

  Davidson, Ian

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Barron, Kevin

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

  Battle, John

  Dewar, Donald

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dixon, Don

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dobson, Frank

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Bell, Stuart

  Dowd, Jim

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benton, Joe

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eastham, Ken

  Berry, Dr. Roger

  Enright, Derek

  Betts, Clive

  Etherington, Bill

  Blair, Tony

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Boateng, Paul

  Fatchett, Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bradley, Keith

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Flynn, Paul

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

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Byers, Stephen

  Foulkes, George

  Caborn, Richard

  Fraser, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  George, Bruce

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gerrard, Neil

  Cann, Jamie

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Clapham, Michael

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clelland, David

  Gould, Bryan

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Graham, Thomas

  Coffey, Ann

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cohen, Harry

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Connarty, Michael

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Gunnell, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hain, Peter

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hall, Mike

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hanson, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hardy, Peter

  1130

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Murphy, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Hara, Edward

  Heppell, John

  Olner, William

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hoey, Kate

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Parry, Robert

  Home Robertson, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pike, Peter L.

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Pope, Greg

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Purchase, Ken

  Hutton, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Illsley, Eric

  Radice, Giles

  Ingram, Adam

  Randall, Stuart

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Redmond, Martin

  Jamieson, David

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rogers, Allan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rooker, Jeff

  Keen, Alan

  Rooney, Terry

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Leighton, Ron

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lewis, Terry

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Litherland, Robert

  Short, Clare

  Livingstone, Ken

  Simpson, Alan

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Loyden, Eddie

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Snape, Peter

  McFall, John

  Soley, Clive

  McKelvey, William

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  McLeish, Henry

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stevenson, George

  McMaster, Gordon

  Stott, Roger

  McNamara, Kevin

  Straw, Jack

  McWilliam, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mahon, Alice

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mandelson, Peter

  Turner, Dennis

  Marek, Dr John

  Tyler, Paul

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Walley, Joan

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Martlew, Eric

  Wareing, Robert N

  Meacher, Michael

  Watson, Mike

  Meale, Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Michael, Alun

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Milburn, Alan

  Wilson, Brian

  Miller, Andrew

  Winnick, David

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Wise, Audrey

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Worthington, Tony

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wray, Jimmy

  Morley, Elliot

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Mudie, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1994–95 (House of Commons Paper No. 179), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1994–95 (House of Commons Paper No. 181), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  Resolved,
  That the Special Grant Report (No. 9) (House of Commons Paper No. 180), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

  South Crofty Tin Mine
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: This is my third Adjournment debate on the subject of tin mining. My first, in 1988, started at 2.26 am. The second, in 1991, started at 1.22 am. This one is at a more reasonable hour, and we may get a better attendance than we have had previously for this subject. I notice that the three Adjournment debates come at almost exactly three-year intervals. The object of this debate and of the all-party pressure for further support for what is now Cornwall's last tin mine is to ensure that there is still an industry to debate in another three years—when I hope, if there is an Adjournment debate, it will be to congratulate the mine on record profits.
  I have no doubt that during this debate, the Minister will argue that, over the years, the Government have invested £23 million in Canon Consolidated. That is true, and it is the best reason why Government support should not be cut off now. However, let us remember how we got here.
  When the International Tin Council crashed in October 1985, it plunged the tin industry into crisis. When the tin price fell as stock-piled tin was released on to the market, mines worldwide were threatened, not least our own deep mines in Cornwall. Mines worldwide continue to operate at below the break-even level. Ours are not the only mines threatened by the present low prices.
  The uprising of support in Cornwall was spontaneous. The miners took their case to London. The support of my much-missed predecessor David Penhaligon is still well remembered. Here in Parliament, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry investigated the tin crisis. Its report in March 1986 contained a number of conclusions, of which the most important, contained in the final line of the summary of conclusions, was that it believed that the Cornish tin industry was worth saving. I believe that that view is as correct now as it ever was.
  Moreover, the work force more than ever deserve saving. They have met every target for productivity and cost cutting that was set. They have taken wage cuts and they have even worked without reward at times. Twice, however, the Government have let them down. In February 1991, the Government reneged on a commitment to invest the final £1·6 million of the £25 million originally promised. That was despite the fact that the company had met every target that the Department of Trade and industry had set. Indeed, it had far exceeded the cost reductions originally demanded. The result was the closure of the Wheal Jane mine in my constituency. It is entirely due to the efforts of the management and work force that the South Crofty mine and the Wheal Jane plant are still working.
  I was fortunate enough to win the Adournment debate at that time. I hope the Minister has read it; it contains some points that are relevant now. First, then as now, the costs of support were far less than the costs of closure. I said then:
  "I refuse to accept that it saved the Treasury money in any respect. It may save the Department of Trade and Industry money, but it simply costs the Department of Social Security and other Departments money."—[Official Report, 6 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 432.]

  1133
  The company now employs almost 200 fewer people in what is still one of the worst unemployment black spots in the country. The jobs have just not been replaced.
  Taking into account the costs and benefits and the loss of tax payment to the Treasury, that alone costs about £1·8 million a year—more than the DTI saved overall. The pollution disaster that followed is costing many millions of pounds more. The decision in 1991 broke a promise and wasted taxpayers' money.
  Now that we have reached 1994, the Minister may like to comment once again on the costs of possible closure. We know what the thoughts of the Minister were immediately before refusing the company the £200,000 it believed it needed to keep going. We know that he believed the decision, because the leaked letter from him to another Minister used the words
  "effectively close the last tin mine in Cornwall".
  The Minister believed that he was closing the mine. Not surprisingly, news that he was planning that on the day that the announcement was due, produced the reaction that the Minister predicted in his letter as people sought to change his mind. Presumably the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers thought that that was a sensible decision, since we know that they were consulted.
  I raise that matter because I have a specific question for the Minister. Given that the sum asked for amounted to £800 per employee, it was clearly less than even the short-term cost of the redundancies that the Minister predicted. Taking into acount the knock-on effect on job losses in supplying companies, the Government were being asked only for the equivalent of £400 per job at stake. Do the Government seek a cross-departmental cost-benefit analysis for decisions such as that?
  In 1991, I asked the Minister at the DTI the same question, and I was told that the DTI's job was to manage its own budget. We know that the decision cost the Government far more than the DTI saved. In that case, it seems that the Minister decided to take the same risk. I do not understand why, and I think that the House deserves an explanation.
  In 1991, the former Conservative Member of Parliament for Falmouth and Camborne, David Mudd, made the same point in the Truro Packet when he said:
  "They have committed what in my opinion is the bleakest act of betrayal in the history of industry in Cornwall … The amount involved, £1·6 million, works out at a miserly £3,800 for each of the 420 jobs forfeited. The effect of those skilled jobs on the Cornish economy and on Cornwall's unemployment, which already stands at 13·2 per cent., is too horrendous to visualise."
  Mr. Mudd made the same point then that I am making now, and the question still has not been answered.
  Once again, there is also an environmental impact. While the South Crofty mine is less likely to cause the scale of pollution that arose at Wheal Jane, the Minister's leaked letter suggested that there was room for concern. Has there been an environmental impact study this time on the risks of closure? Has the potential of the environmental costs been assessed?
  Since the continuing Wheal Jane clean-up depends on the tailings at the processing plant, what is the impact on the National Rivers Authority clean-up programme there? I asked the Minister yesterday, and he was not even aware that there was an impact on the NRA clean-up programme at the Wheal Jane plant. Yet today, I contacted the NRA and it confirmed the impact. It said:
  1134
  "If South Crofty closes and the tailing supply is cut off, the NRA's operation at Wheal Jane would continue, but there would be a cost implication caused by the loss of tailings material."
  Has no one in the DTI thought to work that out? Who will make the dam safe when it is no longer used by the NRA? Who will meet the bill? There will be no company for that operation to do it, and the cost will presumably fall on the NRA as a result of the Government's decision.
  I raised similar points about costs in the Adjournment debate in 1991. Then as now, I invited the then hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne, Mr. David Mudd, to take part. He opened his comments by saying of the points that I made:
  "I endorse his every word and sentiment."—[Official Report, 6 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 434.]
  He could not accept the Government's willingness to sacrifice jobs then to save so little. We stood together for the mines and for the work force.
  This time, the DTI's calculation of "savings" is even more ludicrous than last time, as figures that I gave in my opening remarks more than illustrate. Fortunately, the Minister may yet be proved wrong; we may yet have a chance to save the mine and the jobs. I know that the management and the work force will do all they can to achieve that.
  The day was saved by the one thing happening which the Department appeared to predict would not happen, and that was the increase in the price of tin since the company asked for the £200,000. As a result, the crisis point has been postponed. However, it has not gone. As we all know only too well, the company is still losing money, and new sources of funding are still required.
  The company remains on a knife edge. The Government still have the mine's future in their hands. We now have time to work to persuade the Department to offer that help, and, we hope, time for the company to find new sources of investment.
  The Minister will be aware that hon. Members from Cornwall from both sides of the House are in the Chamber today. I hope that he will recognise the united concern for the mine among people in Cornwall, which is reflected in the case that I have made today. That is why I have invited, as I did before, the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne to participate in the debate. The mine is in his constituency while the processing plant is in my constituency.
  The Minister has said no to financial aid. I hope, for the reasons that I have already outlined, that he will reconsider. Although the issue has been raised over many years by the company and by hon. Members, it seems that the Department is finally looking at ways to remove the tremendous burden of Government debt that hangs over the company. That is crucial, because, if the company is not to receive Government investment, it must have private investment to survive for more than months. Who will invest, given that balance sheet? Who will invest if the first call on profits in future will be the Government? Who will give the mine a chance if the Government will not?
  The mine's future rests with the Minister. The miners and Cornwall hold their breath. The Minister told me yesterday that he hoped for a decision by the end of this month. Many in Cornwall will wonder why there should be a delay. After all, if nothing is done, even the Minister does not hold out much hope of the mine staying open. However, if it closes, the Government loans will be lost anyway. By writing them off now, the DTI would be at

  1135
  least no worse off than it would be if the mine were left to close. At best, the mine would be given a real chance of survival. Why the uncertainty?
  At the DTI yesterday, I was told that the Department was worried that it might be held to have acted illegally if it made funds available; that the Public Accounts Committee might be awkward and embarrassing if loans are written off; and—it is rather ironic that the DTI should worry about this—that the company might make it work and actually turn a profit.
  I have already referred to my 1991 speech on this subject. Let me refer the Minister to the speech made by Mr. David Mudd, the former Member for Falmouth and Camborne, in that debate. He referred to the same claims and worries that have been transferred to me. He said:
  For reasons that have still not been explained to my satisfaction or that of many other people, two tin mines, more than 400 jobs, countless small enterprises and the communities that lie between Camborne, Redruth and Truro are under a death threat because, if I am correct, the DTI is scuttling away from what it fears could have been an embarrassing squeeze between the Treasury and the Public Accounts Committee.—[Official Report, 6 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 435.]
  There we have it once again. If that is the case, I hope that Ministers will overcome their fears and that he will address that fear when he replies, so that we can be clear what he believes is happening.
  There are jobs and a traditional industry to be saved. The councils in Cornwall, particularly the county council, are negotiating with the mine to discover whether there are ways in which they can help by buying land around the mine for purposes in which they are already engaged—for example, economic development, the tramways project and other similar projects.
  However, anything that the county is allowed to put in cannot meet the needs of the mine for very long. The Minister can help to save the mine, irrespective of what may have been decided just a week or two ago. The opportunity is there now, because the miners are working hard in the mine, because the management and the people of Cornwall are doing all they can to help, and because politicians on both sides of the House from our part of the country will do what we can to keep the mine open. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some hope to those people who are looking for a response, in the hope that their jobs will be saved.
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Sebastian Coe: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) for his courtesy in allowing me to make a brief contribution to the debate. I also recognise that he has a genuine concern for tailings dam in his constituency, as I do with the nub of the debate: the future of South Crofty in the Falmouth-Camborne division.
  South Crofty is the last working tin mine in the United Kingdom. It is one of only two remaining mines in Europe —there is a similar one in Portugal. The hon. Member for Truro has described the lead-up to the events, particularly the 1985–86 crisis, as well giving a few asides, some of which lacked a little accuracy—I am sure that there could be a debate over that.
  We seem to be talking about previous public money that has been invested in saving jobs and the mine as wasted money, but it is not. I fervently believe that that money has
  1136
  laid the foundations for a commercially viable operation. At the heart of today's debate is the volatility of the international market and of the international price for tin. That is the agenda that management and Department of Trade and Industry officials have set themselves.
  As the hon. Member for Truro said, the main issue on that agenda involves loans. The issue does not merely consist of writing off previous debt: it also involves existing commercial contracts. Writing off Government loans in this case would mean writing off other loans from previous tripartite agreements. Those subjects are not to be debated tonight, but they require detailed discussions. I recognise that Department officials and management are tackling the problems.
  Why do we seek for the loans to be written off? Simply because the price of tin is so volatile. There is no forecaster at the London metal exchange or in the commodities market who is prepared or able to put his finger on whether the price is likely to continue to rise. The price has risen £300 in the past week, but no one is able to say whether it will continue to rise or, as the market finds another level, fall back.
  The importance of the removal of those loans is that it would allow Carnon Consolidated to develop third-party commercial relationships. They could bolster the industry and constitute the foundation of a commercial relationship to see the industry through the volatility that will certainly exist in the market for the next year.
  The mine is a viable business. It has already been said that management, work force and trade unions have all worked extremely hard to reduce overheads and operating costs. It is one of the most economic mines in the world. I recognise the volatility in the international market—Malaysia, China and Brazil are suffering similar problems —but when the price rises, as it will, I want to ensure that we maintain not only a commercial operation, but the strong psychological links that mining has for many of my constituents and on a Cornwall countywide basis.
  The agenda that has been set by management and is being met as quickly as possible by Department of Trade and Industry officials should not be left hanging in the air. A decision has to be made quickly. If the management view is crystallised and it believes that public funding is officially at an end and loans can, at the very least, be reduced or, at best, be taken off the balance sheet, we must ensure that the industry can stand on its own two feet. We must ensure that it has the support of the work force, management and unions and develops fresh relationships in new pastures. We must maintain full-time, meaningful employment in the Falmouth-Camborne district.
  10.34 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): I must first apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, who is in attendance upon the Council of Ministers of the European Community. However, it is not entirely inappropriate that I should answer this debate, as my parents-in-law are constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who is present this evening and in whose constituency I was married.
  I am a frequent visitor to Cornwall and I know the area extremely well. I am aware of the difficulties that the tin mining industry in Cornwall has been going through in

  1137
  recent years, and I have the greatest possible sympathy with those who are currently suffering the turmoil that the changes in international markets for tin have caused.
  Of course I understand the concern that has been expressed by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on behalf of those who work in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe). I am aware of the importance of this mine to the local community. The concern is shared by all my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. I understand also the problems that inevitably arise in close-knit communities when events such as these supervene and cause the difficulties that the tin mining industry in Cornwall has endured in recent years. I know that at the mine and the treatment plant there are workers from all three constituencies—those of my hon. Friends and that of the hon. Member for Truro. It is understandable that all three of them should be here and taking such a keen interest in the debate.
  I was very disappointed at the rather negative approach of the hon. Member for Truro, which contrasted with the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne. I refer in particular to the emphasis that the hon. Gentleman laid on the confidential letter which had been leaked by someone unknown and to which much reference has been made. If the hon. Gentleman were seriously interested in ensuring the survival of this commercial enterprise, he should not have placed such emphasis on gloomy prognostications that were never intended to be made public.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hamilton: No. I am sorry, but time is very limited.
  I hope that, on reflection and in the light of local comment, the hon. Member realises that his comments and the demonstration that was staged outside South Crofty by him and other members of his party, for reasons that may not be too obscure, have been neither helpful nor wise. In fact, it is appalling to play politics with people's jobs, as he has done, and to betray confidences.
  I gather that this was also against the wishes of management and the trade unions, and that it has been the subject of much local comment. I have probably said enough about it.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to make his speech. I am now making mine, and I want to answer the debate. I shall not give way.
  Mr. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very unusual for a Minister to refuse to give way to a Member who has raised a subject on the Adjournment. However, more relevant is the fact that the Minister has made a personal attack on me. Surely that is not acceptable under the rules of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthowe): The hon. Gentleman is fully aware of the fact that it is for the Minister to decide whether to give way.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am not making a personal attack on the hon. Gentleman; I am expressing great regret at the consequences of his actions in respect of those whose interests he purports to represent in this debate.
  1138
  Regrettably, the gradual exhaustion of Cornish tin and the discovery of new deposits across the world—often in alluvial deposits rather than higher-cost deep hard-rock mines—has seen a decline in the industry, so that today, whereas Cornwall was once supreme, Brazil, China, Indonesia and Malaysia now dominate.
  Even as recently as the mid-1980s, there were three functioning tin mines in Cornwall—at South Crofty, Wheal Jane and Geevor. Regrettably, the last two have now closed. As the last working mine, South Crofty remains as the inheritor of the long tradition of tin mining in the county.
  The importance of tin mining to the Cornish economy has always been recognised by the Government. This recognition can be highlighted by the assistance given to tin mining projects in Cornwall over the years. I regret the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which were intended to give the impression that, over the years, the Government had failed to give proper recognition of tin mining in Cornwall.
  South Crofty is a case in point. It is worth spending a few minutes on the history of DTI support for South Crofty. In 1986, assistance was offered under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 to Carnon Consolidated Ltd, a subsidiary of RTZ Corporation which then owned two mines in Cornwall—Wheal Jane and South Crofty.
  Assistance was offered in the form of an interest-free loan of up to £15 million, together with Government guarantees of commercial loans of up to £10 million. That finance was to assist RTZ in undertaking a £30 million capital development project over the years until 1991, with the object of reducing costs at the mines, and without it the company's future would have been in doubt. The commercial loan and the Government loan were to be repaid from the profits generated by Carnon Consolidated if the project was fully successful.
  During 1987–88, Carnon Consolidated Ltd again faced serious difficulties because of the severely depressed tin price. As my hon. Friend said, that is the problem today. Agreement was reached in March 1988 for RTZ to sell Canon Consolidated to a new company, Canon Holdings Ltd, owned by the management and employees. RTZ made an interest-free loan of £10 million.
  For their part, the Government agreed to convert their guarantee of £10 million commercial loans under the 1986 assistance into an interest-free loan to Cannon Holdings Ltd, in addition to their original £15 million interest-free loan, which remained in place. This finance, together with RTZ's finance, was to help to secure the continuation of tin mining and employment in Cornwall and enable the main elements of the modernisation programme begun in 1986 to be completed. As before, the loans were to be repaid from profits generated by the company if the project was fully successful.
  The form and amount of the assistance reflected the risks inherent in embarking on the project in the market circumstances prevailing at that time, the serious consequences for west Cornwall if the mines closed—640 jobs were then secured by Government assistance—and the difficulties in the wake of the collapse of the International Tin Council to which the hon. Member for Truro referred.
  During the period 1986 to 1990, the Department of Trade and Industry advanced loan instalments to the value of £23·4 million to Canon out of the total of £25 million which had been offered—a significant sum relative to the

  1139
  size of the company. However, in 1990, because of the continuing very low price of tin, the Department formed the view that the project was in jeopardy, and no further drawings of the loans were permitted.
  Under the terms of our offer letter, we would have been within our rights to ask for our loans to be repaid immediately. The fact that we have not done so fully reflects our desire to help the company as far as possible.
  At this point I pay due credit to the management and work force at South Crofty, who have made strenuous efforts recently to improve productivity and reduce the costs of production. Those involved in the management buy-out in 1988 prevented the closure of the mine then and have kept it going since. The company has been successful in reducing its break-even figure significantly since Government assistance was first given to it. Nevertheless, there is no escaping the fact that it is unrealistic to expect the company to be able to reduce its production costs much lower than the current level.
  The ultimate success of tin mining in Cornwall—and, indeed, anywhere in the world—is predicated upon two factors which are outside the control of any mining company. First, tin is a globally traded commodity, the price for which is set by the London metal exchange and in Malaysia. As with all commodities, the price fluctuates on a daily, or even hourly, basis.
  Because of its use as a raw material for industry, the tin market, like other metals and commodities, moves in response to the forces of supply and demand, and the associated economic situation in the main producing and consuming countries. Prices are also affected by speculative activity. As a consequence, prices are notoriously difficult to predict with any certainty.
  The second key factor is prevailing exchange rates. Because tin is priced in United States dollars, the dollar-sterling exchange rate is also a vital factor for tin mining in the United Kingdom. A rise in the tin price can
  1140
  be negated by a change in the exchange rate. Exchange rates are similarly difficult to forecast, so tin mining has a double dose of uncertainty to contend with.
  The tin price has yet to recover from the tin crisis of 1986 when the price dropped from over £9,000 per tonne to just over £4,000 per tonne. Although there was a brief rally in 1989, when the price climbed above £5,000 per tonne, prices have remained around £3,500 per tonne, and last year the price reached a 20-year low.
  Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman must know that I have only seconds to go as a result of a spurious point of order which delayed my response to the debate.
  At the end of 1993, the directors of the company approached my Department with a request for new Government funding for the mine. After considerable thought, we regretfully had to conclude that we could not properly advance any further public money to the company.
  Although the company believes that the tin price will rise significantly, it is by no means certain when that will happen—or, indeed, whether it will happen at all. The Government cannot get into a position where they are spending taxpayers' money on a continuing basis—a point to which the hon. Member for Truro did not allude—to fund the running of the mine until such time, whenever and if ever that might be, as the tin price and exchange rate factors meant that the mine no longer operated at a loss. It is not proper to continue to risk taxpayers' money on the assumption that the price of tin will increase in this manner.
  Looking to the future, I am pleased to see that the company is still trading. I note that the directors believe that the mine still has a future, and that they are continuing to strive to ensure its survival.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the latest expenditure forecast for the legal aid budget in the financial year 1993–94.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on 20 January at columns 719–20. Based on the latest information available it seems likely that total net expenditure on legal aid in the financial year 1993–94 will be £1,225 million compared with a provision of £1,283·2 million. The actual outturn will depend on the bills presented and paid between now and the end of the financial year.

  Paintings and Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to buy or borrow photographs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have no plans to buy or borrow any photographs.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) paintings and (b) photographs there are on the walls of his rooms.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are no paintings and three photographs on the walls of my room.

  "Small Personal Injury Claims"
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he received during the consultation over his document "Small Personal Injury Claims"; and when he expects to announce the results of his consultations.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department has received approximately 150 responses to our recent consultation paper on small personal injury claims. Consultees cover the full spectrum of interests and include solicitors, doctors, insurance companies and consumer groups. Many of their letters deal with the proposals in great detail and provide us with much valuable input and information.

  We are currently considering the points made by consultees and will be taking all arguments they put forward into account when finalising the detail of new procedures. The Lord Chancellor expects to issue draft rules of court and draft forms for consultation by the autumn.
  810

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will strengthen consumer representation covering the electricity industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  I am satisfied that the electricity consumers' committees represent consumer interest effectively and have no plans to change the structure or the scope of their remit. The Director General of Electricity Supply is responsible for the appointment of the committees' members.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the change in electricity prices since 1989.

  Mr. Eggar
  The latest figures available show that domestic electricity prices fell by 0·4 per cent. in real terms between the third quarter of 1989 and the third quarter of 1993. Over the same period, average industrial electricity prices fell by about 4 per cent. in real terms.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will commission a report on the impact of electricity price rises on low-income consumers.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have no plans to commission such a report. Domestic electricity prices have broadly remained stable since privatisation.

  Touche Ross
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his Department or any agencies for which he is responsible has engaged the services of the firm Touche Ross or any of its partners since 1 July 1993.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has engaged the services of Touche Ross for new contracts on three occasions since 1 July 1993. During the same period two contracts previously issued were extended.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set out the basis for the statement at paragraph 19.16 of the report on sustainable development, page 133, that nuclear power provides a source of energy free from the pollutants that contribute towards global warming.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  An analysis of the effect on global warming of nuclear power as well as other fuels is set out in the report "The Impact of UK Electricity, Gas and Oil Use on Global Warming" by N. J. Eyre and L. A. Michaelis of the energy technology support unit, published in 1991.

  This report sets out greenhouse gas emissions for a range of fuel cycles including different forms of electricity generation. The report covers for the electricity fuel cycles the extraction, processing, transport, generation, distribution and utilisation by final user. Even taking into account these aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, the emissions of greenhouse gases are very low.

  I have arranged for copies of this report to be placed in the Library of the House.
  811

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what ways he intends to explore within the European Community alternatives to a command and control approach to environmental protection as set out in the letter by the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology to Lord Ezra of 17 June 1993.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The United Kingdom national sustainable development strategy, published on 25 January, restates the Government's commitment to using economic instruments, where appropriate, as an alternative to a command and control approach to environmental protection.

  The European Commission has also made clear its wish to use such instruments—most recently in its communication to the Council, "Making the most of the Internal Market: Strategic Programme" (COM (93) 632 final). Officials are in touch with the Commission as specific proposals for action are developed.

  In addition the Government have invited the Advisory Committee on Business and the Environment to advise, from the business perspective, on the circumstances in which economic instruments, regulation or other policy instruments would be the most appropriate means for achieving environmental goals. This work will help to inform our examination of future EC proposals for environmental protection measures.

  Oil Sales
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the aggregate sale of oil from the United Kingdom to all recipient countries in(a) monetary values and (b) tonnage for each month since January 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  Monthly exports of oil from the United Kingdom since January 1992 are as follows:

  United Kingdom oil1 exports

  Value (£ million)

  Volume (thousand tonnes)

  1992

  January

  539

  6,572

  February

  427

  5,217

  March

  511

  6,248

  April

  542

  6,263

  May

  510

  5,862

  June

  493

  5,387

  July

  525

  5,957

  August

  588

  7,069

  September

  515

  6,201

  October

  667

  7,519

  November

  621

  6,531

  December

  628

  6,471

  Total

  6,566

  75,297

  19932

  January

  483

  5,810

  February

  617

  6,500

  March

  629

  5,970

  April

  602

  5,920

  May

  635

  6,300

  June

  579

  6,130

  July

  729

  7,690

  August

  709

  7,800

  September

  622

  7,220

  October

  717

  8,190

  1 Petroleum, petroleum products, and related materials; i.e. Division 33 of the Standard International Trade Classification.

  812
  2 It should be noted that these figures remain provisional subject to greater revisions than usual. Data on exports to other EC countries are only available up to October.

  Source: Central Statistical Office.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the monthly sale of oil in tonnes from the United Kingdom to Cyprus in each month since July 1992.

  Mr. Eggar
  Monthly exports of oil by the United Kingdom to Cyprus since July 1992 are as follows:

  Volume of United Kingdom oil1 exports to Cyprus

  Tonnes

  1992

  July

  364

  August

  256

  September

  240

  October

  415

  November

  259

  December

  177

  Total

  1,711

  1993

  January

  148

  February

  375

  March

  165

  April

  255

  May

  294

  June

  119

  July

  291

  August

  267

  September

  212

  October

  257

  November

  233

  Total to November

  2,616

  1 Petroleum, petroleum products, and related materials; i.e. Division 33 of the Standard International Trade Classification.

  Source: Her Majesty's Customs and Excise.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure compliance with minimum legislative requirements within the framework of his deregulation policy at car boot sales.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There is no legislation relating specifically to car boot sales. In so far as car boot sales raise questions of planning law, this is a matter for local authorities and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. In so far as they raise questions of compliance with such legislation as the Trade Descriptions Act or consumer safety regulations, they are a matter for local authority trading standards departments.

  Children (Accident)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many accidents to children were recorded in each year since 1987.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Statistics on home and leisure accidents to children are published by the Department in the home accident surveillance system annual reports for the years 1987 to 1991—the latest figures available—copies of which are held in the Library of the House. It should be noted that the national figures are extrapolated from a sample of accident cases treated in hospitals.
  813
  Statistics on road traffic and work accidents are a matter for my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Employment.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the recorded numbers of accidents that children had(a) in the home, (b) on the roads, (c) in school and (d) in playgrounds, in each year since 1987.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The statistics requested in sections(a), (c) and (d) are published by the Department in the home accident surveillance system annual reports for the years 1987 to 1991—the latest available figures—copies of which are held in the Library of the House. It should be noted that the national figure is extrapolated from a sample of accident cases treated in hospitals.

  The answer to section (b) is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Nightwear Safety Regulations
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further representations he has received from business, medical or consumer organisations about deregulation of the nightwear safety regulations.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Consultation on the Nightwear Safety Regulations 1985, under the deregulation initiative, was concluded on 29 October 1993. Since then my Department has received a further 22 letters from business, medical and consumer interests which added to the general support for the retention of the regulations.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he has given to the experience of T. S. Industrial Development Ltd. based in the Norwich, North constituency in failing to secure lending under the provisions of the loan guarantee scheme; if he will review the current qualification rules on the level of turnover and the number of employees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There appears to have been no correspondence with DTI about the loan guarantee scheme and T. S. Industrial Development Ltd. Neither has any application for loan guarantee scheme assistance, from this company, been rejected by DTI. No comment on the individual case can, therefore, be made.

  However, all applications for the loan guarantee scheme are reviewed by participating scheme lenders in the first instance and may be rejected by them.

  The qualification rules on level of turnover and the number of employees were reviewed in 1993 and regular reviews are undertaken.

  Parcelforce
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost to the Post Office of establishing Parcelforce as a separate business(a) in total, (b) for its Milton Keynes headquarters and (c) for new distribution and sorting depots.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The establishment of a separate parcels operating unit within the Post Office has been taking place gradually since 1986, to improve efficiency and allow each of the main businesses to focus on its 814
  particular market. Details of the costs involved are commercially confidential; however, all Parcelforce investment projects are required to meet standard public sector investment criteria.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes have been agreed to the regulation on opencast mining since the publication of the first report of session 1992–93 from the Trade and Industry Committee on British energy policy and the market for coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government have published their proposals for amendments to the Opencast Coal Act 1958 in the Coal Industry Bill published on 2 December.

  Regional Assistance
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) of 3 December 1993,Official Report, column 765, what was the total amount spent on (a) regional enterprise grants, (b) enterprise initiative schemes, (c) regional development grants and (d) regional selective assistance in 1992–93 in (i) the United Kingdom as a whole and (ii) each of the regions.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 25 January 1994]: Expenditure in 1992–93 on regional enterprise grants—REG; enterprise initiative schemes—EI; regional development grants—RDG; regional selective assistance—RSA is as follows.

  £ million

  REG

  1EI

  RDG

  RSA

  South East

  —

  6·0

  —

  —

  East

  —

  11·0

  —

  —

  Northern

  1·5

  22·0

  8·3

  28·1

  North West

  1·3

  38·0

  1·3

  18·2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1·8

  6·3

  1·1

  8·4

  South West

  0·8

  4·7

  —

  5·1

  East Midlands

  0·3

  4·0

  0·3

  0·6

  West Midlands

  0·1

  6·5

  —

  10·7

  England

  5·8

  48·5

  11·0

  71·1

  Wales

  1·1

  3·8

  5·5

  58·8

  Scotland

  2·8

  5·4

  8·9

  59·2

  Great Britain

  9·7

  57·7

  25·4

  189·1

  Northern Ireland

  —

  0·4

  —

  —

  United Kingdom5

  9·7

  458·6

  25·4

  189·1

  1Expenditure relates to the Consultancy Initiative and the SMART and SPUR schemes.

  2Northern region excluding Cumbria.

  3North West region including Cumbria.

  4Includes £0·5 million not allocated regionally.

  5REG; RDG and RSA schemes operate only in Great Britain. Northern Ireland schemes are not directly comparable.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had from the British Standards Institute on the abolition of import licences for fireworks.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 1 February 19941: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has had no representations from the British Standards Institution relating to abolition of import licences for fireworks.
  815
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what further representations he has had from the British Pyrotechnists Association on his proposals to abolish import licences for fireworks with particular reference to category 4;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to amend the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to exclude category 4 fireworks from retail sales.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: On 27 January the British Pyrotechnists Association met my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde, the Minister for Consumer Affairs and Small Firms, to discuss the position of category 4 fireworks under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 following the recent changes by the Health and Safety Executive to the legislation relating to the import of fireworks.

  The powers available in sections 10 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 are adequate to deal with the sale of category devices to the general public. The association has, however, promised to put forward suggestions for reinforcing the present arrangements for limiting the availability of category 4 fireworks to members of the general public and these will be considered.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what will be the cost to the Exchequer of the review of the Patent Office being carried out by consultants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: The fees paid to the consultants carrying out the review of the Patent Office are confidential for commercial reasons.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to raise(a) the environmental implications of the new GATT and (b) the economic implications of the international trade in nuclear materials between Europe and other economic areas at the forthcoming world economic summit in Davos.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor attended an informal gathering of world economic leaders in Davos on 28–30 January as part of the World Economic Forum's annual meeting. This meeting was not an intergovernmental summit to discuss specific issues; it was an opportunity for international economic policy makers to discuss longer-term trends in the world economy on an informal basis.

  Petrol Stations
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimates have been made of the cost of implementation of the draft county councils directive 8348/92, stage 1, to petrol stations in rural and urban areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is currently under negotiation a proposed European Community directive which will introduce a system of petrol vapour recovery during the distribution of petrol. Following consultation with industry and a report
  816
  from independent consultants, the Government have concluded that typical costs for service stations in the United Kingdom are likely to be in the range of £2,000 to £3,000. There will be variations in individual cases, dependent for example on existing equipment layout.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Goosanders
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will reconsider her decision to allow goosanders to be shot on the River Wharfe; and if she will ensure that this decision will not be used as a precedent for the destruction of goosanders and similar species as a matter of routine.

  Mr. Soames
  The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides for the issue of licences to kill or take protected wild bird species for the purpose of preventing serious damage to fisheries. The Agriculture Departments—in England, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food —are responsible for the issue of these licences and they must not be unreasonably withheld.

  Applications for licences are judged on a case by case basis and the issue of any one licence does not set a precedent. Licences to allow shooting, as an aid to scaring, will not be issued unless the applicant has provided sufficient evidence of serious damage to the fishery and where other methods of scaring are shown to be ineffective or impractical and not just difficult to implement. Each applicant is visited by Agricultural Development Advisory Service, the Ministry's wildlife advisers, before a decision is taken on whether or not to issue a licence. All licences issued are to shoot only a restricted number of birds, over a specific site, during the time of year when the serious damage is occurring.

  The licence to shoot goosanders on the River Wharfe was issued only after sufficient evidence of serious damage to the fishery was presented to the Ministry.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what considerations led her to license the Bolton Abbey Estate to kill 14 goosanders on the River Wharfe and on the estate fish farm; what representations and advice she received from English Nature; if she will make it her policy that all species listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 will be guaranteed protection in future; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides for the issue of licences to kill or take protected wild bird species for the purpose of preventing serious damage to fisheries. The Agriculture Departments—in England, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food —are responsible for the issue of these licences and they must not be unreasonably withheld.

  Applications for licences are judged on a case-by-case basis. Licences to allow shooting, as an aid to scaring, will not be issued unless the applicant has provided sufficient evidence of serious damage to the fishery and where other methods of scaring are shown to be ineffective or impractical and not just difficult to implement.

  The Agricultural Development Advisory Service, the Ministry's wildlife advisers, visit each applicant to assess the case before reporting back to the Ministry. English Nature is consulted locally and its representations are taken

  817
  into account in making the licensing decision. Nevertheless, the responsibility for the issue of such licences must remain with the Ministry. All licences issued are to shoot only a restricted number of birds, over a specific site, during the time of year when the serious damage is occurring.

  The licences to shoot goosanders on the River Wharfe and on the estate fish farm were issued only after sufficient evidence of serious damage was presented to the Ministry.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current policy of her Department on the use of bovine somatotropin to increase the milk yield of cows.

  Mr. Soames
  It remains our view that any final Community decision on the marketing and use of bovine somatotropin—BST—should be based firmly on the scientific principles of safety, quality and efficacy, but should take into account the need to avoid international trading problems, to encourage Community-based research industries, and to maintain the competitiveness of the Community's agriculture and food industries.

  BST has been cleared by all advisory bodies, and the European Commission itself has accepted that milk produced from BST-treated cattle is safe. In those circumstances it should be for the market place to determine whether BST has a role to play, and it is inappropriate to introduce fresh criteria. Nevertheless, the Community should benefit from the experience of other countries where BST is available, in particular the United States of America, where approval was recently given and took effect from the beginning of February 1994.

  On that basis, therefore, my right hon. Friend the Minister accepted at the December meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers that it was sensible to extend the current moratorium for not more than one year, until December 1994, so that the Council could consider these new developments and experience overseas.

  National Poisons Unit
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what resources have been made available to the national poisons unit for the assessment of(a) pesticides and (b) dietary supplements in 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry has a specific research contract with the national poisons unit—NPU—to investigate possible cases of poisoning due to dietary supplements and traditional remedies. Payments to the NPU under this contract in the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94 were £109,000 and £117,000 respectively. MAFF is not funding any work on pesticides at the NPU.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she plans to set up a panel to evaluate research into reports of long-term health effects arising from exposure to organophosphorus sheep dips; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  Dr. D. N. Bateman BSc, MBBS, MRCS, MD, FRCP, consultant physician of Freeman hospital,818
  Newcastle upon Tyne; reader in therapeutics; and medical director of the northern region drug and therapeutics centre, has agreed to chair a panel to look into reports of long-term health effects claimed to arise from organophosphorus—OP—sheep dip exposure. In its recent advice, the Veterinary Products Committee pointed to a lack of firm scientific evidence to support any such link, but nevertheless considered that knowledge of potential toxicity should be enhanced. The committee went on to recommend the setting up of a panel of independent medical and scientific experts to address this question, and the Government accepted the recommendation.

  The terms of reference of the panel, which will act as a sub-committee to the Veterinary Products Committee, will be:

  to evaluate research currently available, and in progress, on OP sheep dip products in relation to possible human exposure:

  to advise on any additional work that may be needed to elucidate the potential long term effects on humans of OP sheep dips;

  to advise on the suitability of any projects submitted for research; and

  to report findings to the Veterinary Products Committee, as its sub-committee.

  Prospective members of the panel are now being approached and invited to serve. A further announcement will be made once the panel's composition has been finalised.

  The Government treat with the utmost seriousness any suggestion of potential harm to human health. I am sure that the panel's work will make a valuable contribution in adding to our state of knowledge in this field.

  Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the moneys allocated to decommissioning fishing vessels in the current financial year has been taken up; how many tenders accepted by her Department have not been taken up; how much is left; and what she proposes to do with the remaining moneys.

  Mr. Jack
  As explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) on 14 December, fishermen whose bids have been accepted will receive their grants provided they comply with the rules. Some vessel owners who were successful in the tender have since decided not to go ahead with decommissioning and there may be others who in the event do not submit valid claims. The final position will not be clear until the 1 March closing date for the submission of claims. Any shortfall in the extent of decommissioning flowing from this round will have to be taken into account in future decisions about how the United Kingdom is to meet the targets laid down in its multi-annual guidance programme, which provides that 55 per cent. of the total reduction has to be met by cuts in fishing capacity.

  Currently a shortfall of about £¾ million is expected. In the context of the overall management of the Department's budgets I would expect that expenditure on any subsequent decommissioning schemes could be correspondingly adjusted. A total of £25 million remains available for expenditure on decommissioning in the present and future financial years.
  819

  Coppicing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new proposals she has to extend coppicing.

  Mr. Jack
  In 1993 we secured agreement in the EC Council of Ministers that short rotation coppice could be grown on non-rotational set-aside land. On land outside the Arable area payments scheme, short rotation coppice is eligible for grants under the woodland grant scheme. Also electricity generated using coppice as a fuel may benefit from the provisions of the President of the Board of Trade's third Renewables Order imposing a non-fossil fuel obligation on public electricity supply licensees. We are considering whether any further measures to encourage coppice might be necessary, against the background of the common agricultural policy and our own forestry review.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new proposals she has to increase organic farming production.

  Mr. Jack
  The Government's efforts to encourage British farmers to respond to demand for organic food include a substantial research and development programme and on 10 August 1993 my hon. Friend the Minister announced a proposed organic aid scheme, designed to increase the area under organic production in England threefold.

  My right hon. Friend also met representatives of the organic farming movement recently. It was agreed that there should be further discussions with officials, and another ministerial meeting in the spring concentrating on the role of organic farming in relation to reform of the Community's common agricultural policy.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Inflation
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of inflation rates in 1994.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I expect underlying inflation in 1994 to remain safely within its 1 to 4 per cent. target range.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the target rate of inflation.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government announced in October 1992 that they would aim to keep underlying inflation—as measured by the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments—in the range 1 to 4 per cent. and to bring it down to the lower half of this range by the end of the present Parliament. This objective was confirmed in the March and November 1993 Budgets. Underlying inflation has been within the target range in each month since October 1992. The most recent figure, for December 1993, showed underlying inflation of 2·7 per cent.

  Public Spending
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement about public spending levels.
  820
  Mr. Portillo
  The Government are committed to firm control of public spending to ensure that spending falls as a proportion of national income while value for money is constantly improved.

  Family Tax Burden
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he estimates the cumulative tax increases since March 1993 will cost the average family from(a) April 1994 and (b) April 1995.

  Mr. Dorrell
  On average, the main tax-related changes will cost households around £5·30 a week from April 1994, and an additional £3·30 a week from April 1995.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of gross earnings value added tax took up for a one-earner family on average male earnings with two children in 1978–79; and what is the latest estimate.

  Sir John Cope
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on 19 January 1994 at columns 635–42.

  Tax Evasion and Avoidance
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he plans to reduce tax evasion and avoidance.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government are determined to do all they can to curb both tax evasion and avoidance. In line with every budget over the last 14 years, the current Finance Bill includes a substantial package of measures to tackle avoidance. And both the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise will continue under their existing powers to combat tax evasion.

  Demand Level
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the level of total demand in the economy.

  Mr. Portillo
  For domestic demand, the most recent figures available are for the third quarter of 1993. By then, it had risen for six successive quarters, to a level over 2¼ per cent. above its trough in the first quarter of 1992. Its growth is forecast to strengthen in 1994.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the total income tax take(a) is currently being contributed by top rate tax payers and (b) was contributed in 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Higher rate taxpayers currently pay 40 per cent. of total income tax compared with 20 per cent. in 1978–79.

  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will set out for each year between 1979–80 and 1988–89(a) the total income, both earned and unearned, (b) the total national insurance contributions and (c) the total income tax paid by (i) the top 1 per cent., (ii) the top 5 per cent., (iii) the top 10 per cent., (iv) the bottom 50 per cent. and (v) all taxpayers;
  821
  (2) if he will publish tables showing the change in income tax in each year between 1979–80 and 1988–89 as against the 1978–79 indexed regime, broken down into the top one per cent., five per cent., 10 per cent. and bottom 70 per cent. 50 per cent. and 30 per cent., and all taxpayers, giving the number of taxpayers in each category.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 27 January 1994]: This information cannot be provided since the relevant surveys of personal incomes do not include the necessary data on national insurance contributions and these analyses of income tax could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many additional income tax payers there will be in 194–95 as a result of his proposal to freeze the value of personal allowances.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 27 January 1994]: About 180,000 more people will pay tax in 1994–95 under the Budget proposals than if income tax allowances had been increased in line with statutory indexation. About 1·2 million more people would pay income tax in 1994–95 if all tax allowances had been increased in line with statutory indexation since 1978–79.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many more income tax payers will be paying tax at the margin of the higher rather than the basic rate in 1994–95

  Increase (+)/decrease (-) in income tax and national insurance contributions for a single person and a married man (£ per week)

  Multiples of average earnings

  ½

  ¾

  1

  1½

  2

  5

  10

  1994–95

  Relative to 1993–94 tax system

  Single person

  Income tax

  -0·48

  -0·48

  -0·48

  -0·48

  -0·48

  -0·48

  -0·48

  NICs

  1·23

  2·17

  3·10

  4·56

  4·56

  4·56

  4·56

  Married man

  Income tax

  1·17

  1·17

  1·17

  6·13

  6·13

  6·13

  6·13

  NICs

  1·23

  2·17

  3·10

  4·56

  4·56

  4·56

  4·56

  Relative to indexed 1993–94 tax system

  Single person

  Income tax

  -0·05

  -0·05

  -0·05

  1·60

  1·60

  1·60

  1·60

  NICs

  1·30

  2·24

  3·17

  4·18

  4·18

  4·18

  4·18

  Married man

  Income tax

  1·80

  1·80

  1·80

  7·71

  8·52

  8·52

  8·52

  NICs

  1·30

  2·24

  3·17

  4·18

  4·18

  4·18

  4·18

  1993–94

  Relative to 1992–93 tax system

  Single person

  Income tax

  -0·48

  -0·48

  -0·48

  -0·48

  -0·48

  -0·48

  -0·48

  NICs

  -0·14

  -0·14

  -0·14

  1·21

  1·21

  1·21

  1·21

  Married man

  Income tax

  -0·48

  -0·48

  -0·48

  -0·48

  -0·48

  -0·48

  -0·48

  NICs

  -0·14

  -0·14

  -0·14

  1·21

  1·21

  1·21

  1·21

  Relative to indexed 1992–93 tax system

  Single person

  Income tax

  0·05

  0·05

  0·05

  2·33

  2·33

  2·33

  2·33

  NICs

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  Married man

  Income tax

  0·29

  0·29

  0·29

  0·29

  2·71

  2·71

  2·71

  NICs

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  0·00

  Note:

  1. Average earnings are assumed to be £359·90 per week in 1993–94 and £374·30 per week in 1994–95. Taxpayers are assumed to have no reliefs other than the standard tax allowances, to have no sources of income other than earnings and to pay national insurance contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow,
  822
  (a) as a result of his proposal to freeze the pesonal allowance and (b) in addition to those under (a), as a result of his proposal to freeze the higher rate threshold.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 27 January 1994]: Compared with statutory indexation of the personal allowance, about 20,000 more people will pay some tax at the higher rate in 1994–95. A further 100,000 more people will pay higher rate tax compared with statutory indexation of the basic rate limit.

  Taxation
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in taxation per individual arising from each relevant component of the 1994 Budget, both at current prices and net of indexation, for those at one half and three quarters of average earnings, average earnings, and one and a half, two, five and 10 times average earnings; and if he will provide comparable figures for last year.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: Figures for the effects of income tax and national insurance contributions changes taking effect in 1994–95 and similar figures for 1993–94 are given in the table. The effects of indirect tax changes will vary with the spending pattern of the individual.

  Garscadden of 3 November, Official Report, column 257,

  823
  how many of the estimated 1·9 million families with children below the income tax threshold in 1993–94 are in paid work.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: Approximately 0·7 million families with children below the income tax threshold in 1993–94 had some earnings from employment or self-employment.

  Taxation (Proportion of GDP)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the percentage of gross national product taken in all forms of taxation; and what were comparable figures for 1979, 1974, 1970 and 1966.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Taxes and social security contributions are forecast to be equivalent to 34 per cent. of GDP in 1993–94. The comparable figure in 1978–79 was 34¼ per cent.; in 1973–74, 33¾ per cent.; in 1969–70, 37½ per cent.; and in 1965–66, 31¾ per cent.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate what the nation's tax burden as a percentage of GDP will be in 1998–99; and what this figure was in 1978–79.

  Mr. Dorrell
  On the basis of the medium term fiscal projections shown in the latest "Financial Statement and Budget Report", non-North sea taxes and social security contributions would be 38½ per cent. of non-oil GDP in 1998–99, when the PSBR is projected to represent a ¼ per cent. of GDP. The comparable figure for 1978–79, when the PSBR represented 5½ per cent. of GDP, was 34¾ per cent.

  Budget Representations
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the most recent representations he has received over the effect of the Budget on families.

  Sir John Cope
  A number of letters have been received about the impact of the Budget on family finances.

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has now received about his proposals to impose value added tax on domestic fuel and power.

  Sir John Cope
  I have received a large number of representations.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review his Department's relationship with police authorities in the combating of illegal drug importation.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs and the police co-operate closely and successfully through frequent joint operations and their joint staffing of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. The distinct responsibilities of Customs and police, and the arrangements for cooperation, are kept under regular review.
  824

  Insurance Tax
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had concerning his plans to impose taxation on all domestic insurance premiums.

  Sir John Cope
  Treasury Ministers have received a number of representations about the introduction of insurance premium tax. These have been primarily from the insurance industry about the practical implementation of the tax. There have also been some more general representations concerning the scope of the tax.

  Tax Levels
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of income for those on average wages was taken in taxation in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Barrow in Furness (Mr. Hutton).

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the latest manufacturing output figures.

  Mr. Portillo
  Manufacturing output in the three months to November was up 0·8 per cent. on the previous three months and up 1·8 per cent. on a year earlier. Business surveys point to further increases in the months ahead.

  Car Industry
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what economic factors he attributes the performance of the British car manufacturing industry; and what comparison he has made with the performance of similar manufacturers elsewhere in Europe.

  Mr. Portillo
  Car production in the United Kingdom rose by 6½ per cent. in 1993 despite depressed car markets in continental Europe, the fastest growth in any calendar year since 1988. By contrast car production has fallen very sharply in France, Germany and Italy. The United Kingdom car industry's performance has benefited from the Government's policies of low inflation and sound public finances, and by its own efforts to control costs.

  Government Debt
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what growth in the budget deficit would occur if growth in gross domestic product was only 2 per cent. per annum after 1994; what would be the total level of Government debt as a proportion of gross domestic product in each of the next five years on that assumption; and what proportion of the budget deficit in each of the next five years will be incurred by revenue spending at current prices;

  (2) what changes there would be in the budget deficit at a rate of growth in gross domestic product after 1994 of (a) zero per cent., (b) 1 per cent., (c) 2 per cent., (d) 3 per cent. and (e) 4 per cent.; what would be the total level of Government debt as a proportion of gross domestic product in each of the next five years on these assumptions; and what proportion of the budget deficit in each of the next five years would be incurred by revenue spending at current prices.
  825
  Mr. Portillo
  Table 2.5 of the 1994–95 "Financial Statement and Budget Report" shows projections to illustrate the effects on the public sector borrowing requirement of higher or lower growth than the main growth projection in the medium term financial strategy, assuming unchanged policies. On those assumptions public sector net debt would fall to around 36½ per cent. of GDP by 1998–99 in the higher growth case illustrated in the FSBR, and it would rise to around 47¼ per cent. of GDP in the lower growth case. Tables 2.2 and 2.3 of the FSBR set out the main projections and show details of Government revenues and spending, and the current balance of the public sector, over the next five years.

  Cash Dispensers and Credit Cards
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the protection of the rights of individuals and companies in cases of disputes involving automatic cash dispensers or credit cards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government believe that the code of banking practice and the banking ombudsman scheme provide an adequate framework in which disputes about banking services can be resolved.

  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions his Department has had with the joint stock banks over the problems of phantom withdrawals from cash dispensers.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury has had no recent discussions with the banks on this issue, but officials do keep in regular contact with the Association of Payment Clearing Services who keep them informed about what the banks are doing to improve further the security and reliability of their systems.

  Touche Ross
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department or any agencies for which he is responsible has engaged the services of the firm Touche Ross or any of its partners since 1 July 1993.

  Sir John Cope
  Once.

  Incomes
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentages of earnings, plus child benefit where appropriate, were taken in income tax and national insurance contributions from each of(a) a single person, (b) a single wage married couple with two children and (c) a single wage married couple with four children at (i) half average male manual earnings, (ii) three quarters male manual earnings, (iii) average male manual earnings and (iv) twice male manual earnings, in the tax years 1990–91 and 1992–93; and what the comparable figures are expected to be for 1993–94.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is in the tables:826

  Income tax and national insurance contributions1 as a percentage of gross earnings plus child benefit

  2Multiple of average earnings

  Single

  Married, one earner, with two children

  Married, one earner, with four children

  1990–91

  ½

  19·5

  11·4

  10·3

  ¾

  24·4

  18·4

  17·1

  1

  26·8

  22·1

  20·9

  2

  28·8

  25·4

  24·7

  1992–93

  ½

  17·6

  10·3

  9·3

  ¾

  23·1

  17·5

  16·4

  1

  25·8

  21·4

  20·3

  2

  28·2

  25·3

  24·6

  1993–94

  ½

  17·7

  10·7

  9·7

  ¾

  23·2

  17·7

  16·6

  1

  25·9

  21·5

  20·4

  2

  28·7

  25·6

  24·9

  1 National Insurance contributions are at the standard class 1 rate for employees not contracted-out of the state additional (earnings related) pension scheme. Tax is calculated assuming no allowances or reliefs are available other than the standard allowance.

  2 Average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly manual earnings of full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. These are £244·50 and £272·00 in 1990£91 and 1992£93 respectively. In 1993£94 these are estimated to be £281·50 using an illustrative growth rate of 3·5 per cent.

  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing tax--free incomes, defined as income tax thresholds plus child benefits, as percentages of average male manual earnings for single wage families with one, two, three and four children in each year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The figures in the table give the levels of income at which there is no net deduction from income, after allowing for the effect of tax allowances, tax rates and child benefit.

  Break-even point1 for a married man expressed as a percentage of average male manual earnings2

  With one child

  With two children

  With three children

  With four children

  31978–79

  49·2

  61·8

  74·1

  87·0

  1979–80

  50·8

  64·2

  77·5

  90·9

  1980–81

  48·2

  60·6

  73·0

  85·4

  1981–82

  45·5

  58·5

  71·4

  84·4

  1982–83

  47·9

  61·3

  74·7

  88·1

  1983–84

  50·5

  64·3

  78·2

  92·0

  1984–85

  52·5

  66·5

  80·5

  94·5

  1985–86

  53·2

  67·0

  80·6

  94·3

  1986–87

  5·30

  66·7

  80·3

  93·9

  1987–88

  51·9

  65·9

  79·9

  93·9

  1988–89

  51·8

  65·7

  79·6

  93·5

  1989–90

  50·1

  63·0

  75·9

  88·7

  1990–91

  49·0

  60·9

  72·7

  84·6

  1991–92

  50·5

  61·9

  73·2

  84·6

  1992–93

  53·5

  65·0

  76·5

  87·9

  41993–94

  52·9

  64·4

  75·9

  87·4

  1 The level of earnings at which income tax paid is equal to the money received through child benefit.

  2 Full-time males paid at adult rates working a full week.

  3 First two children aged under 11; third aged between 11 and 15 and fourth aged 16 or over.

  4 Assuming that the husband receives the full married couple's allowance. Provisional.

  827

  Africa (Structural Adjustment Programmes)
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those African countries currently participating in International Monetary Fund and/or World bank structural adjustment programmes.

  Mr. Nelson
  Twenty-five African countries currently have IMF and/or World bank structural adjustment programmes. Sixteen have IMF programmes: Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, The Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Ethopia, Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe. In addition, Sierra Leone and Zambia have rights accumulation programmes of structural adjustment which earn rights towards IMF resources. Twenty have World bank programmes: Algeria, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Egypt, Ethopia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Malawi, Morocco, Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide figures for the amount his Department has been reimbursed by the Department of Social Security in respect of statutory sick pay provision for each of the past three years.

  Mr. Nelson
  That amount reimbursed by the Department of Social Security to the Treasury in respect of statutory sick pay is £39,335·25 in 1993–94 to date, and £53,964·41 in 1992–93. Figures for earlier years are not available.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), of 26 November 1992,Official Report, column 750, what further inquiry he has made into the BCCI accounts to ascertain whether they facilitated arms deals with Iraq.

  Mr. Nelson
  None. The examination of the facts relating to the export to Iraq of defence equipment and dual use goods is a matter for Lord Justice Scott's inquiry.

  Cheque Clearing
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to investigate the cheque-clearing practices of high street banks.

  Mr. Nelson
  None. The cheque-clearing practices of the high street banks are a matter of contract between banks and their customers.

  Total income tax liabilities, by range of total income tax

  Percentages

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Range of total income lax (lower limit)

  Taxpayers

  Tax

  Taxpayers

  Tax

  Taxpayers

  Tax

  Taxpayers

  Tax

  Taxpayers

  Tax

  1

  4·1

  0·1

  4·0

  0·1

  4·7

  0·1

  4·7

  0·1

  4·3

  0·1

  100

  14·6

  1·9

  14·6

  1·8

  16·2

  1·8

  16·9

  1·9

  15·2

  1·6

  500

  17·2

  5·6

  15·7

  4·8

  14·9

  4·4

  14·2

  4·1

  14·1

  3·8

  828

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total number of recipients of mortgage interest tax relief is expected to be in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96; and if he will make a statement of the effects on them of the reductions in the rate of relief announced in the March and November 1993 Budgets.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: Working assumptions based on recent trends are shown in the table. Also shown as the average reduction in the relief as well as the saving on an average mortgage as a result of interest rate reductions since October 1990.

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Numbers of single people and married couples with mortgages (millions)

  9·9

  10·0

  10·1

  Average reduction in mortgage interest relief (£ per month)

  —

  7·16

  14·89

  Benefit on an average mortgage from interest reduction since October 1990 (£ per month)

  160

  160

  160

  Personal Allowance
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value of the personal allowance against income tax in 1978–79 prices in 1978–79, 1984–85 and 1988–89; and what are his estimates for 1993–94 and under his Budget proposal for 1994–95.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 27 January 1994]The information is as follows:

  Personal allowance for a single person at 1978–79prices (£)

  1978–79

  985

  1984–85

  1,135

  1988–89

  1,225

  1993–941

  1,245

  1994–951

  1,205

  1 Assuming that prices increase by 2 per cent, in 1993–94 and 3·25 per cent, in 1994–95 in line with the illustrative assumptions in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1994–95.

  Inland Revenue Statistics
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update table 2.4 of Inland Revenue Statistics 1993 with data for 1994–95 on the basis of his budget proposals for income tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 27 January 1994]: The information is given in the table. Estimates for 1992–93 onwards are based on a projection of the 1991–92 survey of personal incomes.
  829

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Range of total income tax (lower limit)

  Taxpayers

  Tax

  Taxpayers

  Tax

  Taxpayers

  Tax

  Taxpayers

  Tax

  Taxpayers

  Tax

  1,000

  15·9

  8·6

  14·9

  7·6

  13·8

  6·8

  13·3

  6·4

  13·0

  5·8

  1,500

  12·2

  9·2

  13·0

  9·2

  12·3

  8·6

  11·5

  7·8

  10·8

  6·8

  2,000

  9·4

  9·2

  9·4

  8·6

  8·8

  7·9

  9·2

  8·0

  9·4

  7·6

  2,500

  6·6

  7·8

  6·8

  7·6

  6·6

  7·3

  6·8

  7·3

  7·1

  7·0

  3,000

  8·0

  12·1

  9·1

  12·8

  9·1

  12·6

  9·4

  12·6

  10·2

  12·8

  4,000

  4·9

  9·5

  4·5

  8·1

  5·0

  8·8

  5·2

  9·0

  5·7

  9·2

  5,000

  4·7

  13·9

  5·4

  14·7

  5·8

  15·6

  6·0

  15·8

  6·7

  16·6

  10,000

  2·3

  22·2

  2·6

  24·7

  2·8

  26·0

  3·0

  27·0

  3·5

  28·7

  TOTAL

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  Total income tax liabilities, all taxpayers

  Numbers (Millions)

  Amounts (£ billion)

  1990–91

  26·3

  60·4

  1991–92

  25·9

  63·5

  1992–93

  25–3

  63–2

  1993–94

  25·3

  65·0

  1994–95

  25·5

  70·7

  Tax Changes
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update, to take account of the 1994 Budget, the information on tax changes contained in his answer to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) of 21 October 1986,Official Report, columns 812–14.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: Readily available information on the annual reduction in income tax liability, compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime is given in the tables. The 1978–79 regime has been indexed by reference to the statutory formula and allowing for independent taxation. For the purpose of these calculations the indexed regime of 1978–79 is applied directly to the later income base. In practice, retention of the regime, indexed as appropriate, for the intervening year would have led to changes in the income base.

  Average reduction in income tax per individual1 in 1993–94 compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime

  Range of individual income in 1993–94 (£)

  Number of individuals 1993–941 (million)

  Total reduction (£ million)

  Average reduction (£ per annum)

  Under 5,000

  3·30

  460

  140

  5,000 to 10,000

  8·20

  3,100

  380

  10,000 to 15,000

  6·10

  4,600

  740

  15,000 to 20,000

  3·90

  4,300

  1,080

  20,000 to 30,000

  3·20

  5,200

  1,600

  30,000 to 50,000

  1·30

  3,400

  2,540

  50,000 to 80,000

  0·31

  2,500

  7,910

  Over 80,000

  0·18

  8,400

  47,700

  Total

  26·70

  31,800

  1,200

  1 Individuals liable to income tax under the 1978–79 indexed regime.

  830

  Average reduction in income tax per individual1 in 1994–95 compared with the 1978–79 indexed regime

  Range of individual's income in 1994–95 (£)

  Number of individuals 1994–951 (million)

  Total reduction (£ million)

  Average reduction (£ per annum)

  Under 5,000

  3·10

  390

  130

  5,000 to 10,000

  8·10

  2,900

  360

  10,000 to 15,000

  6·10

  4,100

  680

  15,000 to 20,000

  4·00

  4,000

  1,000

  20,000 to 30,000

  3·50

  5,100

  1,470

  30,000 to 50,000

  1·50

  3,200

  2,160

  50,000 to 80,000

  0·34

  2,400

  7,190

  Over 80,000

  0·20

  9,300

  47,500

  Total

  26·80

  31,400

  1,200

  1 Individuals liable to income tax under the 1978–79 indexed regime.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update to 1994–95 the information on real net earnings provided in his answer to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) of 10 April 1986,Official Report, columns 193–94.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: Estimates for 1994–95 are as follows:

  Income Tax and Income Tax + NIC—1 as percentages of gross earnings

  ⅔

  1

  2

  5

  10

  Multiples of average earnings2

  Single

  Tax

  17·2

  19·8

  26·9

  34·8

  37·4

  Tax + NIC

  25·4

  28·6

  32·1

  36·8

  38·4

  Married without children

  Tax

  14·6

  18·0

  26·1

  34·4

  37·2

  Tax + NIC

  22·7

  26·8

  31·2

  36·5

  38·2

  Real net earnings after Income Tax and NIC (1956–57=100)

  Multiples of average earnings2

  Single

  181·0

  183·9

  191·4

  223·2

  288·3

  Married without children

  176·5

  176·6

  186·8

  218·6

  282·8

  1 At the contracted-in rate.

  2 Full time adult males (all occupations).

  Payroll Giving
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees have registered with the Inland Revenue payroll giving schemes run by employers, pursuant to section 202 of the Taxes act 1988; how many employees
  831
  contributed to charities via a payroll giving scheme; and what was the total amount contributed in the tax year 1992–93.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is as follows:

  1992–93

  Schemes in force at end of period

  6,638

  Donors (thousands)

  1280

  Gross amounts donated (£ million)

  13

  1 The figure includes only the number of donors at the end of the period.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many appeals against council tax valuations in each London borough have been(a) received and (b) settled; and how many of those settled resulted in a reduced council tax valuation;

  (2) how many appeals against council tax valuations in each London borough have been settled in the last six months; and what was the average cost of settling each appeal.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: The number of appeals received in each of the London boroughs during the initial appeal period up to 30 November 1993 and the numbers settled in the six month period to 31 December 1993 are as shown.

  The estimated average cost of processing a council tax appeal in the current financial year in England is £115. This estimate includes Valuation Office Agency and valuation tribunal costs.
  832
  Statistics relating to settlements which have resulted in a lower council tax band are not available centrally.

  Received

  Settled

  Barking and Dagenham

  652

  78

  Havering

  3,015

  552

  Bromley

  8,056

  1,214

  Croydon

  5,695

  1,020

  Sutton

  2,862

  523

  City of London

  200

  15

  Ealing

  5,480

  1,234

  Hounslow

  3,716

  805

  Barnet

  7,214

  1,214

  Enfield

  5,532

  721

  Haringey

  5,768

  1,127

  Bexley

  3,906

  653

  Greenwich

  3,745

  301

  Lewisham

  3,056

  402

  Brent

  3,484

  578

  Harrow

  2,634

  480

  Hillingdon

  2,777

  577

  Hackney

  3,213

  564

  Islington

  4,943

  894

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5,220

  1,255

  Kensington and Chelsea

  10,093

  1,924

  Lambeth

  6,733

  797

  Southwark

  5,168

  684

  Camden

  7,322

  1,302

  City of Westminster

  8,095

  1,672

  Redbridge

  3,730

  550

  Waltham Forest

  1,943

  287

  Newham

  1,511

  395

  Tower Hamlets

  1,961

  289

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,304

  439

  Merton

  2,236

  318

  Richmond upon Thames

  4,642

  897

  Wandsworth

  2,436

  354

  833

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to buy or borrow photographs; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service is obtaining copies of photographs of three former Directors of Public Prosecutions to complete a set of former directors in their headquarters office.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificate
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report, column 640, if he will list the leading authorities concerning the duty of a Minister to sign a public interest immunity certificate.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the following publications for a consideration of the leading authorities: The "Supreme Court Practice 1993" vol. 1. paragraph 24/5/15 at pages 451–453, and "Archbold Criminal Pleading Evidence and Practice 1993" vol. 1 chapter 12 paragraphs 12–22 to 12–33 at pages 1/1579 to 1/1587. Copies of these extracts have been placed in the Library.

  Paintings and Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Attorney-General how many(a) paintings and (b) photographs there are on the walls of his rooms.

  The Attorney-General
  There are eight paintings, and 156 photographs mainly of former Law Officers, on the walls of the Attorney-General's chambers.

  West Midlands Serious Crime Squad
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list(a) the cases in which charges have been dropped and (b) the convictions quashed since the decision by the chief constable of the West Midlands to disband the West Midlands serious crime squad.

  The Attorney-General
  There is no central record of cases involving officers of the West Midlands serious crime squad. Inquiries amongst relevant CPS staff have identified no such cases which have been dropped by the prosecution, but have identified 23 appellants whose appeals have been allowed by the Court of Appeal. The inquiries covered the period from 15 August 1989.

  Police Officers (Criminal Conduct)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases involving allegations of criminal misconduct against police officers were considered by the Attorney-General; and how many of these resulted in prosecutions being brought, in the last three years.

  The Attorney-General
  Allegations that police officers have committed criminal offences are ordinarily reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions in accordance with section 90 of the Police and Criminal 834
  Evidence Act 1984 and not to myself. The DPP consults me where she considers it appropriate to do so having regard to the difficulty or importance of the particular case. In addition, the DPP submits papers in any case where proceedings are considered appropriate for an offence subject to a statutory requirement that my consent be obtained.

  Statistics are not maintained either in the Crown Prosecution Service or my Department as to the number of cases referred to me which relate to police officers The number is very small but precise information could be obtained only by a trawl of all departmental files involving disproportionate expense.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will hold a public inquiry into the activities and performance of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of the Child Support Agency collection enforcement manual.

  Mr. Burt
  There are no plans to do so.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library the departmental guidelines issued to the Child Support Agency specialist tracing section.

  Mr. Burt
  The guidance on specialist tracing is contained within the "Child Support Manual", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) in how many cases in the latest period for which figures are available there has been a refusal by the parent with care to supply information about the absent parent; and in how many of these cases the Child Support Agency accepted that co-operation had been refused with good cause;

  (2) what is his estimate of the arrears outstanding on maintenance payments set by the Child Support Agency both in total and as a percentage of the total amount to be paid;

  (3) in how many cases in the latest period for which figures are available the Child Support Agency has adjusted a maintenance assessment to allow for the recovery of arrears under paragraph 10 of the arrears regulations;

  (4) what estimate he has made of the average weekly maintenance assessment set by the Child Support Agency at the latest date for which figures are available;

  (5) what is the average time between the issue of the inquiry form, and the maintenance assessment, at the latest date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.
  835
  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 2 February 1994.

  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security, asking various questions about the Child Support Agency's operations.

  At 31 December 1993, 35,600 cases had been received where the requirement to co-operate with the Agency was an issue. In 20,500 of these the Agency accepted that the parent with care had good cause not to co-operate in pursuing a maintenance application.

  Initial estimates were that average weekly maimtenance assessments would be approximately £45–50. Information gathered on assessments completed to date is consistent with these estimates.

  The Agency is not yet in a position to estimate the arrears outstanding on maintenance payments. I regret, also, that information on cases in which Regulation 10 of the Arrears Regulations has been applied is not collected.

  Information on the length of time between the return of the maintenance enquiry form and the completion of the maintenance assessment is not regularly collected in the form requested. From a small sample of cases it is estimated that the average time between the issue of the maintenance enquiry form and the maintenance assessment is approximately 7 weeks.

  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what savings the Child Support Agency has made to date.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 2 February 1994:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security asking how much of the Child Support Agency's target has been collected to date.

  For the period from April 1993 to December 1993, benefit savings of £214·5 million have so far been reported. This figure does not represent the total amount of savings achieved because some will be scored retrospectively.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Income Support
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of(a) income support or (b) other benefits have been informed by Benefits Agency staff that they would lose their entitlement to benefit if they pursued an educational course; and how many have lost benefit following a decision to study.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Maternity Pay
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which organisations have responded to the consultative document, "Changes in Maternity Pay", published in August 1993.

  Mr. Hague
  The following organisations have responded.

  Association of British Chambers of Commerce

  Association of Local Authorities of Northern Ireland

  Mr. R. E. B. Atkinson

  Bairdwear

  Barclays Bank

  Beck Electronics Ltd.

  Boots

  836

  Bradford and Bingley Building Society

  British Payroll Managers' Association

  British Payroll Managers' Association-conference

  British Railways Board

  British Computer Society-payroll specialists

  British Merchant Banking and Security Houses Federation

  British Apparel and Textile Confederation

  British Association of Professional Hairdressing Employers

  British Bankers' Association

  British Printing Industries Association

  Mr. S. D. Bryant

  BT

  Chemical Industries Federation

  Chessington Computer Centre

  Child Poverty Action Group

  City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

  Clares Dickies

  Clydeside Federation

  Confederation of British Industry

  Co-operative Union

  Committee on the Administration of Justice

  Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of Great Britain

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Crest Nicholson plc

  Dairy Trade Federation

  Daycare Trust

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  Electrical Association

  Empire Paper LTD

  Engineering Employers' Federation

  Engineering Employers' Federation (Northern Ireland Association)

  Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Federation of Small Businesses

  Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors

  Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services LTD

  Field, Fisher, Waterhouse

  Food and Drink Federation

  General Federation of Trades Unions

  GMB—Britain's general union

  GPMU—graphical, paper and media union

  Greater Manchester Low Pay Unit

  Guild of Hairdressers

  Hair and Beauty Studio

  Health Visitors' Association

  Herdman GW Mr.

  Huntingdonshire District Council

  IBM

  ICL

  Institute of Personnel Management

  Labour Relations Agency

  Leeds City Council—equal opportunities unit

  Legal and General

  Local Government Management Board

  Low Pay Unit

  Mail Order Traders Association

  Manchester City Council—welfare rights unit

  Maternity Alliance

  Medical Women's Federation

  Middlesex Area Probation Service

  Millar, Boyd and Reid LTD

  MPG—federation of managerial, professional and general associations

  MSF—the union for skilled and professional people

  NASUWT—the career teachers' organisation

  National Council of Women of Great Britain

  National Childbirth Trust

  National Metal Trades Federation

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux

  National Childminding Association

  National Hairdressers' Federation

  National Farmers' Union

  Nationwide Group—staff association

  New Forest DC

  Newcastle on Tyne University

  North British Housing Association

  North-East Derbyshire DC

  Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry

  Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions

  837

  Northumberland County Council

  Panache—Ladies hair and beauty salon

  Paskins Hotel

  Pay Equity Project

  Payroll Solutions

  Payroll Alliance

  Peterborough Software

  Peugeot

  Police Federation

  Polytechnic and Colleges Employers' Forum

  Post Office

  RJM Business Analysts

  Royal College of Nursing (Northern Ireland Board)

  Royal College of Nursing

  Royal College of Midwives

  Royal College of Midwives (Northern Ireland Board)

  Sainsburys

  Scottish Low Pay Unit

  Shell

  Southcombe Brothers Ltd.

  The Brewers' Society

  The Staffordshire Association of Registered Care Homes

  The Newspaper Society

  The Royal Society

  The Law Society

  The Labour Party

  The Bookshop, Chipping Norton

  Trade Union Council

  UK Federation of Business and Professional Women

  UK Baby Friendly Initiative

  Ulster Unionist Council

  UNISON—the public service union

  University of Glasgow

  University of Strathclyde

  Wandsworth Borough Council

  Waterfront Partnership (for Unigate)

  Whitbread Inns

  Woking Borough Council

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the total number of tenants who received housing benefit in(a) local authority housing, (b) housing association housing and (c) the private rented sector in (i) London and (ii) Great Britain at the latest available date;

  (2) what was the average level of housing benefit paid to tenants in (a) local authority housing (b) housing association housing and (c) the private rented sector in (i) London and (ii) Great Britain at the latest available date.

  Mr. Burt
  Details for May 1992, the latest date for which information is available, are in the table.

  Number of Housing Benefit Cases (Thousands) and Average Amount of Benefit (£/Week) in London and Great Britain in May 1992

  London

  Great Britain

  Local Authority

  Number of cases

  404

  3,030

  Average amount

  39·53

  26·45

  Housing Association

  Number of cases

  72

  341

  Average amount

  40·10

  32·24

  Other private rented

  Number of cases

  187

  948

  Average amount

  52·46

  40·69

  All cases

  Number of cases

  663

  4,318

  Average amount

  43·24

  30·04

  Sources: The Housing Benefit and Community Charge Benefit Management Information System 1 per cent. inquiry for May 1992 and the Income Support Annual Statistical 1 per cent. inquiry for May 1992.
  838
  Notes:

  1. The figures are in benefit units and are rounded to the nearest thousand. A benefit unit may be a single person or a couple.

  2. The information for "Other Private Tenants" excludes that of Housing Association tenants.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible have been(a) abolished or (b) created since 1979.

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 1 February at column 611.

  Child Support Act 1991
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made as to the effects of the Child Support Act 1991 on the number of families entitled to(a) family credit and (b) income support, distinguishing between lone-parent families and the families paying maintenance.

  Mr. Burt
  In the long run it is estimated that increased payments of child maintenance under the Child Support Act will result in some 60,000 to 80,000 lone parent families no longer needing to rely on income support. It is expected that the majority of these will start work and be entitled to family credit. It is further estimated that around 10,000 lone parents already in receipt of family credit will move off this benefit. These estimates are based on data from the family expenditure survey for 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  The Act should not have any significant effect on the number of absent parents entitled to income support or family credit.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the expected saving, in real cash terms, of delaying entitlement to the age allowance component of incapacity benefit by six months.

  Mr. Scott
  Estimated savings are around £10 million per year.

  Note:

  Estimates expressed in constant 1993–94 prices, are rounded to nearest £5 million and are net of offsetting changes in income-related benefit expenditure.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which of the public appointments for which he is responsible require advance notice to, and consultation with, the Chief Whip's Office; and which appointments made since 1979 have been so notified and consulted upon.

  Mr. Hague
  It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to answer parliamentary questions about discussions and consultations between Departments and offices of Government relating to public appointments.

  Departmental Finance Limits
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes there have been in the cash limits or running cost limits of his Department.
  839
  Mr. Scott
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate the cash limit for class XIII vote 4 will be increased by £1,870,000 from £2,558,124,000 to £2,559,994,000. The revision takes account of an increase of £1,806,000—running costs—offset by a corresponding reduction on Department of the Environment: Property Holdings and other services to Government, class VII, vote 6, an increase of £493,000 —of which £484,000 is running costs—offset by a corresponding reduction on Department of Health: administration, miscellaneous health services and personal services, England, class XII vote 3, an increase of £6,000 running costs—offset by a corresponding reduction on Cabinet Office: other services, class XIX vote 1, a reduction of £348,000—running costs—offset by a corresponding increase on Department of Health: administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England, class XII vote 3, a reduction of £47,000 offset by a corresponding increase in Foreign and Commonwealth office: overseas representation, class II vote 1, a reduction of £40,000 offset by a corresponding increase on Department of Employment: programmes and central services, class V vote 1.

  Further running cost changes arise from a reduction of £99,000 for services provided by Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) on a repayment basis, an increase of £692,000 in value added tax refunds and a reduction of £6,920,000 as a result of a reallocation to capital expenditure.

  As a result of these changes the running cost limit of the Department of Social Security will be reduced by £5,850,000 from £2,921,010,000 to £2,915,160,000.

  The additional requirements are offset by reductions elsewhere and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Family Credit
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the research by the social policy research unit on the assessment of self-employed earnings in family credit to be published.

  Mr. Burt
  I have today placed in the Library copies of the report "Measuring Low Incomes: Self-Employment and Family Credit" by the social policy research unit at the University of York.

  We welcome this detailed review and plan to introduce a package of measures from April 1994 to improve the family credit service to self-employed families. The fast-track service for people who have recently started work will be extended to self-employed families. Currently the fast track for families of employees clears 95 per cent. of claims received within one week. At the same time the family credit claim pack will enable self-employed people to provide information about their earnings straightaway rather than later. These measures should speed up awards of family credit and make it as simple as possible to get the benefits due to them.

  Within the next few weeks the Department will be issuing a consultative document to interested professional associations and bodies representing self-employed customers to seek their opinions on the issues raised by the report.
  840

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the annual cost to the Exchequer of paying unemployment benefit.

  Mr. Burt
  The cost in 1991–92 was £1,604 million. The estimated out-turn for 1992–93 was £1,838 million and the plans for 1993–94 account for £1,886 million. These figures are recorded in table 1 of the Department's third annual report—Cm 2213—a copy of which is in the Library.

  Community Care Grants
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women were given community care grants in respect of the purchase of essential furnishings when they were re-housed from Women's Aid refuges in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland in each of the past three years; what was the average amount paid to such claimants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for 1 Social Security (1) if he will set out his reasons for and the intended effect of his proposal to change the war pensions scheme by amending the Service Pensions Order to exclude diseases caused by the use or effects of tobacco, or the consumption of alcohol, from the definition of injury in schedule 4 to the order; what representations his Department has received from the Royal British Legion about the proposal; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what responses he has had from members of the central advisory committee on war pensions to his proposal to change the war pensions scheme by amending the Service Pensions Order to exclude diseases caused by the use or effects of tobacco, or the consumption of alcohol, from the definition of injury in schedule 4 to the order.

  Mr. Hague
  The war pensions scheme provides compensation for disablement or death suffered as a result of service in the Armed Forces. The long-standing policy of successive Governments has been that the decision to smoke or drink is a personal one, and that smoking and the consumption of alcohol should be regarded as attributable to service in the Armed Forces only where a severely disabling mental condition itself attributable to service renders the individual incapable of exercising personal choice.

  The proposed amendments follow a recent decision in the High Court and would ensure that the legislation reflects the policy intention.

  Nineteen representations from members of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions, including three from representatives of the Royal British Legion, have been received.

  Careful consideration is being given to all the representations, which have been both for and against the proposed change. Members of the committee will be advised when a decision has been reached.
  841

  Touche Ross
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department or any agencies for which he is responsible has engaged the services of the firm Touche Ross or any of its partners since 1 July 1993.

  Mr. Hague
  The Department of Social Security has engaged the services of Touche Ross on the following occasions since 1 July 1993:12 July 1993—Extension of contract let on 16 February 1993 to provide consultancy support to the Benefits Agency Accommodation and Office Services market testing projects.
  July 1993—Consultancy support to the Contributions Agency's Information Systems Strategy.
  August 1993—Quality assurance of the Contributions Agency's management information system.
  August 1993—Consultancy support to the Contributions Agency's market test of data entry activity.
  6 September 1993—Consultancy support for the development and preparation of an outplacement counselling contingency plan for the Benefits Agency Personnel Directorate.

  Pensions
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether married women in receipt of small graduated pensions will be eligible to receive the increase in pension directly attributable to the imposition of VAT on domestic heating fuel.

  Mr. Hague
  The extra help for VAT on domestic fuel will be paid as an addition to the rate of basic retirement pension or income-related benefit. Married women who receive graduated retirement benefit with either a basic retirement pension or an income-related benefit will receive the extra help. Those receiving graduated retirement benefit only will receive no increase beyond normal price indexation.

EDUCATION

  Surplus Places
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has of the number of surplus places that exist in the primary, secondary and special places sectors in Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire; and what percentage this represents of the total number of places in each sector.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) on 31 January 1994,Official Report, columns 517–21.

  LEAs (Spending)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the estimated amount being spent by each shire local education authority on primary education and secondary education in 1993–94 and the likely amounts for 1994–95 if the 1994–95 total is increased or reduced by the proposed standard spending assessment and reduced or increased by any increase or reduction in the numbers entering schools in 1993–94, assuming that such increases or reductions were spread proportionately between the primary and secondary sectors.
  842
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is not available in the form in which it has been requested. I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Teacher Numbers
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list, for each local education authority, how many full-time equivalent teachers were employed in January 1993.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows the full-time equivalent number of teachers employed in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools sector, including self-governing—grant-maintained—schools, in each local education authority in England at January 1993.

  Teacher numbers (FTE) in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector in England, including self-governing (GM) schools, as at January 1993

  FTE of teachers

  Corporation of London

  15

  Camden

  1,273

  Greenwich

  2,033

  Hackney

  1,550

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,024

  Islington

  1,533

  Kensington and Chelsea

  696

  Lambeth

  1,549

  Lewisham

  1,777

  Southwark

  1,705

  Tower Hamlets

  2,232

  Wandsworth

  1,754

  City of Westminster

  1,188

  Barking

  1,353

  Barnet

  2,597

  Bexley

  1,753

  Brent

  2,030

  Bromley

  2,080

  Croydon

  2,397

  Ealing

  2,130

  Enfield

  2,324

  Haringey

  1,589

  Harrow

  1,581

  Havering

  2,009

  Hillingdon

  1,843

  Hounslow

  1,869

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,051

  Merton

  1,297

  Newham

  1,972

  Redbridge

  1,858

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,029

  Sutton

  1,266

  Waltham Forest

  1,903

  Birmingham

  9,548

  Coventry

  2,752

  Dudley

  2,670

  Sandwell

  2,959

  Solihull

  1,857

  Walsall

  2,575

  Wolverhampton

  2,467

  Knowsley

  1,351

  Liverpool

  4,185

  St. Helens

  1,679

  Sefton

  2,515

  Wirral

  2,963

  Bolton

  2,517

  Bury

  1,467

  Manchester

  4,044

  Oldham

  2,256

  Rochdale

  1,851

  Salford

  2,000

  Stockport

  2,362

  Tameside

  2,036

  Trafford

  1,616

  Wigan

  3,096

  843

  FTE of teachers

  Barnsley

  1,696

  Doncaster

  2,760

  Rotherham

  2,335

  Sheffield

  3,866

  Bradford

  5,004

  Calderdale

  1,827

  Kirklees

  3,632

  Leeds

  6,010

  Wakefield

  2,741

  Gateshead

  1,707

  Newcastle

  2,212

  North Tyneside

  1,765

  South Tyneside

  1,325

  Sunderland

  2,651

  Isles of Scilly

  28

  Avon

  7,612

  Bedfordshire

  4,983

  Berkshire

  6,080

  Buckinghamshire

  5,215

  Cambridgeshire

  5,667

  Cheshire

  8,072

  Cleveland

  5,560

  Cornwall

  3,647

  Cumbria

  4,211

  Derbyshire

  8,098

  Devon

  7,229

  Dorset

  4,389

  Durham

  5,239

  East Sussex

  4,908

  Essex

  12,033

  Gloucestershire

  4,090

  Hampshire

  12,037

  Hereford and Worcester

  5,441

  Hertfordshire

  8,280

  Humberside

  7,740

  Isle of Wight

  997

  Kent

  11,980

  Lancashire

  11,922

  Leicestershire

  7,570

  Lincolnshire

  4,808

  Norfolk

  5,791

  North Yorkshire

  5,954

  Northamptonshire

  5,466

  Northumberland

  2,677

  Nottinghamshire

  8,508

  Oxfordshire

  4,206

  Shropshire

  3,563

  Somerset

  3,595

  Staffordshire

  8,357

  Suffolk

  5,276

  Surrey

  6,677

  Warwickshire

  3,961

  West Sussex

  5,319

  Wiltshire

  4,596

  England

  396,331

  Genetic Screening
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what response he has made to the Nuffield report on genetic screening in relation to the aspects which affect his department.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend welcomes the initiatives of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in producing this report. He regards it as essential that through the combination of science, religious and health education pupils are equipped to tackle the ethical issues which they will encounter at the various stages of their lives, including those resulting from advances in genetic science.
  844

  Touche Ross
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if his Department or any agencies for which he is responsible has engaged the services of the firm Touche Ross or any of its partners since 1 July 1993.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department has placed one contract with Touche Ross since 1 July 1993, for a financial management and policy review of the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges.

  Education Charters
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the companies commissioned by his Department in 1992–93 to carry out polling and market research in the course of preparing(a) the further education charter and (b) the higher education charter; and if he will list the areas of research, the questionnaires used and the groups questioned.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department for Education commissioned The British Market Research Bureau—BMRB—and Research Services Limited—RSL—for both the further education charter and the higher education charter. BMRB undertook research among students, parents and the wider community and RSL specifically consulted employers. All areas of research undertaken are reflected in both charters.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Brass Bands
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action he is taking to seek to ensure the continuation of the tradition of civilian brass bands.

  Mr. Sproat
  I am keen to find ways to encourage and help civilian brass bands to flourish. I regard such bands as an important element in our British cultural traditions.

  I have recently received a number of representations about difficulties confronting some of our most prestigious brass bands. I am aware of the wider economic and social factors that might have contributed to specific instances of difficulty; for example, for colliery bands.

  I am also keen to see the brass band tradition strengthened in schools. I shall be raising these subjects with other Government Departments. In order to gain a better understanding of the position from an arts funding perspective, and of the current state of the brass band movement, I am consulting the Arts Council and the British Federation of Brass Bands.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will provide figures for the amount his Department or the Office of Arts and Libraries has been reimbursed by the Department of Social Security in respect of statutory sick pay provision for each of the past three years.

  Mr. Sproat
  The amount of statutory sick pay reimbursed by the Department of Social Security to the Department of National Heritage, excluding its executive agencies, the Historic Royal Palaces Agency and the royal
  845
  parks, from 1 April 1993 to 31 December 1993 was £7,572·73. Reimbursement to the Office of Arts and Libraries in the financial year 1992–93 was £1,393·93. No figures are available for the financial year 1991–92

  Touche Ross
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if his Department or any agencies for which he is responsible have engaged the services of the firm Touche Ross or any of its partners since 1 July 1993.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has engaged the services of Touche Ross on two occasions since 1 July 1993. Neither of the agencies for which I am responsible has engaged Touche Ross's services during the same period.

  Broadcasting Restrictions
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will take account in his review of broadcasting restrictions applying in the United Kingdom of the guidelines, issued on 20 January to Radio Telefis Eireann staff, and now applying to broadcasting in the Irish Republic; when he expects to complete his review of broadcasting restrictions; and if he will list the individuals and organisations which he has invited to submit views to him and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  The outcome of the review will be announced very shortly. I do not propose to take special account of guidelines issued by RTE. I have taken account of the views of the broadcasting regulatory authorities in the United Kingdom, of all the main broadcasters themselves, and of those organisations including the NUJ which have directly approached my Department. I have not invited any individuals to submit views.

  Tourism
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much central Government money was spent per head of the population on encouraging tourism in Cornwall in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sproat
  The information is not available in this form. National and regional programmes funded by the British tourist authority and the English tourist board from grant-in-aid help to support tourism in all areas of the country, but it is not possible to say that a certain proportion of the grant-in-aid is specifically targeted on one particular area. However, the level of English tourist board support for the West Country tourist board, which covers Cornwall, were as follows:

  Financial year

  Amount in £

  1979–80

  82,895

  1980–81

  99,100

  1981–82

  106,600

  1982–83

  114,400

  1983–84

  124,140

  1984–85

  135,850

  1985–86

  141,962

  1986–87

  252,732

  1987–88

  273,911

  1988–89

  288,000

  1989–90

  334,500

  1990–91

  580,570

  1991–92

  582,766

  1992–93

  561,638

  846
  In the current financial year, in addition to the funds allocated by the English tourist board to the West Country tourist board, £400,000 has been allocated to the Cornwall renewal programme.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish details of all those who have applied to run the national lottery; when he expects to issue a licence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  The names and addresses of those organisations which have publicly announced their intention to apply for the main licence to run the national lottery are set out in my response to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) on 31 January,Official Report, columns 516–17). The director general of the national lottery will publish a full list of all those who apply after 14 February, which is the closing date for applications. The timing of the issue of the licence to run the national lottery is a matter for the director general.

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the cost of refurbishment of each of the royal apartments in each of the occupied royal palaces in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: The total cost of refurbishment of each of the royal apartments in each of the occupied royal palaces in each of the last three years was:

  £000s

  1991–92

  Apartment occupied by THR The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester at Kensington Palace

  4

  Apartment occupied by TRH The Duke and Duchess of Kent at St. James's Palace

  10

  Clarence House private apartments, occupied by HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

  45

  TOTAL

  59

  1992–93

  Apartment occupied by HRH The Prince of Wales at St. James's Palace

  6

  Clarence House, private apartments

  35

  Total

  41

  1993–94

  The forecast expenditure is:—

  Apartment occupied by TRH Prince and Princess Michael of Kent at. Kensington Palace

  6

  Apartment occupied by HRH The Princess of Wales at Kensington Palace

  1

  Apartment occupied by HRH The Prince of Wales at St. James's Palace

  43

  Clarence House, private apartments

  2

  Total

  52

  Information on expenditure prior to 1991–92 is not held in the form required.
  847

  Fraud
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his Department's policy for dealing with employees found guilty of fraud.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: Where an employee is found guilty of fraud the circumstances of the case would be thoroughly investigated and an appropriate disciplinary penalty, which might include dismissal, would be invoked.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many employees were judged to be guilty of fraud in his Department in each year since 1989; and how many were dismissed.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: The Department of National Heritage was established in April 1992, since when no employees have been found guilty of fraud.

  Department (Set-up Costs)
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what were the total costs, including the acquisition of office premises, of setting up his Department.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: The total non-recurrent cost of establishing my Department was £8·2 milion plus value added tax. My Department occupies leased premises on the Government estate under an inter-departmental agreement with DoE/Property Holdings. The terms of the leases are commercial-in-confidence.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 February.

  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.

  Review Body Reports
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, if he will make a statement on the review body reports.

  The Prime Minister
  The 1994 reports of the review bodies on the pay of school teachers, senior civil servants, the senior military, the judiciary, the armed forces, doctors and dentists, nursing staff, midwives and health vistors and the professions allied to medicine have now been published. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. The Government are grateful to the members of the review bodies for the time and care which they have put into the preparation of the reports.

  The Government's policy is that increases in pay must be fully met from existing budgets. Pay increases for
  848
  public sector staff therefore have to be paid for by greater efficiency, or by savings in the cost of running Government itself. This position was made clear in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on public sector pay on 14 September, and reaffirmed in his Budget statement and in the Government's evidence to the review bodies. It is fundamental to the Government's response to their recommendations.

  The review bodies have made the following recommendations:
  The School Teachers' Review Body has recommended a 2·9 per cent. increase in teachers' pay.
  The Senior Salaries Review Body has recommended:

  (i) an increase of 2·75 per cent. in the budget for performance-related pay for civil servants at grades 2 and 3, and a 2·75 per cent. increase in the pay of Permanent Secretaries.

  (ii) A 2·75 per cent. increase in the pay of most of the senior armed forces officers in its remit.

  (iii) A 2·75 per cent. increase in the pay of the judiciary.

  The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has recommended a range of increases between 3·0 and 4·4 per cent. averaging 3·6 per cent, for the various ranks in its remit group.
  The Doctors and Dentists Review Body has recommended a 3·0 per cent. increase in salaries, fees and allowances for doctors and dentists and the same increase in intended average net remuneration for general medical practitioners.
  The Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine has recommended a 3·0 per cent. increase in national salary rates and a 2·0 per cent. increase in most leads and allowances.

  The Government have taken its decisions on these recommendations on the basis of its policy on public sector pay. Except in the case of the armed forces, the Government accept the above increases and propose to implement them from the due date of 1 April. The costs will be met from the public expenditure totals published at Budget time. There will be no new money to finance these pay increases, and for the second year running there will be no call on the reserve.

  In the case of the armed forces, the Government believe that the recommendations of the armed forces pay review body are too high to be implemented in full from 1 April. All ranks will receive pay increases of 2·7 per cent. from 1 April 1994, with the blance of the recommended awards paid from 1 January 1995.

  The review body for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine commented that, if the trusts had been ready to implement local pay, it would have recommended an increase in national pay rates for its remit groups of only 2 per cent. rather than 3 per cent., with further increases to be determined locally. The doctors and dentists review body similarly expressed support for moves towards local pay determination. The Government welcome and support these comments and intend to ensure that pay arrangements in both trusts and directly managed units in the NHS provide for a significant measure of local pay determination from next year. The necessary details will be discussed with the trusts and with the professions and with the staff sides in the coming months.

  The senior salaries review body has restated its 1992 recommendation that possible future problems in maintaining its remit groups, particularly the judiciary, should be avoided by raising their pay levels over time. The review body has now recommended that the Government should seek to implement its 1992 recommendations for the judiciary plus annual uprating by 1 April 1999. The Government have already acknowledged the different position of the judiciary amongst the review

  849
  body's remit groups and accepts this recommendation. The Government are currently considering a number of issues relating to the management of the senior civil service and the military. In that context it will take a view on the SSRB's recommendations on pay ranges for senior civil servants and the differential between one and two star officers.

  The review body reports point the way to making further progress in extending performance-related pay in the public services. The doctors and dentists review body and the review body for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine expressed support for developing performance pay at local level and urged that high priority should be given to establishing suitable arrangements in the coming year. The performance pay arrangements recommended last year by the school teachers review body have now been implemented and the review body intends to return to the issue of relating the pay of teachers still more closely to their performance. The senior salaries review body recommends reform of the performance pay scheme for grades 2 and 3 in the civil service through abolition of a standard pay increase, a larger performance pay budget and an increase in the width of pay ranges. The armed forces pay review body has appointed management consultants to assist it in addressing the issue of performance pay in its future work.

  The Government support the review body recommendations on the development of performance-related pay and believe that they represent a valuable and effective contribution to the further development of remuneration in the public services.

  1994 Review body recommendations

  Cost1

  Range of pay increases Per cent.

  £ million

  Per cent.

  Schoolteachers (STRB)

  2·9

  309

  2·9

  Senior Civil Servants, Military and Judiciary (SSRB)

  CS Grades 1–3

  2·75

  1·3

  2·75

  Senior military

  2·75

  0·3

  2·75

  Judiciary

  2·75

  3·6

  2·75

  Total SSRB groups

  2·75

  5·2

  2·75

  Armed Forces

  3·0–4·4

  206

  3·6

  Doctors and dentists (DDRB)

  3·0

  158

  3·0

  Nurses and allied professions (NAPRB)

  Nurses and midwives

  3·0

  234

  3·0

  PAMs

  3·0

  26

  3·0

  Total NAPRB groups

  3·0

  260

  3·0

  1Costs include employers national insurance and superannuation payments to funded schemes.

HEALTH

  General Practitioners
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that GPs will not charge fees to persons on benefits for evidence in support of claims.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Under their terms of service—schedule 2 to the National Health Service (General 850
  Medical Services) Regulations 1992,—general practitioners are required to issue a defined list of certificates to their patients free of charge, including those needed to support claims for a number of social security benefits. The list of certificates is kept under review.

  Breast Feeding
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the figures for mothers breast feeding for each year from 1983.

  (2) what efforts her Department has made to promote breast feeding in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  A survey of infant feeding practices is carried out every five years on behalf of the Department of Health. The results of the latest of these surveys were set out in the report "Infant Feeding 1990", a copy of which is available in the Library. In 1985 the percentage of mothers who breast fed was 65 per cent.; in 1990 it was 64 per cent.

  Based on unequivocal medical advice the Government have consistently supported breast feeding as the best means of feeding a baby. Measures have included the implementation of a voluntary code of practice for the marketing of infant formula and the banning of free or subsidised infant formula in national health service hospitals and clinics. The Government have also provided £265,000 in funding for the three voluntary organisations supporting breast feeding and the joint breast feeding initiative—from 1988–1992. In December 1992 it was announced that a national breast feeding working group was to be set up under the "Health of the Nation" initiative to
  "co-ordinate the next stages in a programme of action to promote and facilitate breast feeding, building on the work of the joint breast feeding initiative".

  Dementia
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that multidisciplinary assessment of people with dementia is available in every district health authority area.

  Mr. Bowis
  Since 1990 general practitioners have been required to offer an annual health check to patients aged 75 and over, and if evidence of severe cognitive impairment is found the GP will refer to the old age psychiatrist. It is for district health authorities to ensure that multi-disciplinary terms are in place to support the assessment of such patients.

  Paediatric and Neo-natal Units
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines apply in relation to minimum nursing and medical staffing levels in paediatric and neo-natal units.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The "Welfare of Children and Young People in Hospital", issued by the Department in July 1991 set the objective that a consultant paediatrician and at least two children's trained nurses should be available 24 hours a day to supervise the care of sick children and newborn babies and that provision of additional specially trained medical, midwifery and nursing staff should be commensurate to the degree of dependency of these children. The guide also commended additional guidance
  851
  available from the English National Board for Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting and the British Paediatric Association.

  Residential Accommodation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether she will amend existing guidance on charges for residential accommodation to allow spouses without an occupational pension of their own, to retain 50 per cent. of their partner's occupational pensions when he or she enters long-term care in a residential or nursing home;

  (2) what steps she is taking to ensure that social services departments increase the personal expenses allowance of people in residential or nursing homes where this is necessary to support their spouse at home;

  (3) what provision her Department has made for the continued financial well-being of carers when their relative or spouse with dementia enters long-term care in a residential nursing home.

  Mr. Bowis
  Guidance was sent to local authorities last month in LAC(94)1 reminding them that they have discretion to vary the personal expenses allowance to allow the resident to retain sufficient money to enable him or her to support his or her partner remaining at home where the partner has little or no income or capital of his or her own. This discretion could be extended to allow the resident to support a carer. Additionally, local authorities have discretion to ignore the value of property where a third party—such as someone who was caring for the resident at home—continues to live there. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Population Statistics
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the estimated population of each NHS region in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest population estimates, shown in the table, relate to mid-1991 and mid-1992. These take into account the results of the 1991 census of population. Retrospectively revised estimates for 1982–1990 will be published shortly in the "Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Monitor PP1/94/1", copies of which will be placed in the Library. The original annual estimates for 1981–1990 are available in the PP1 series of OPCS publications, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Estimated mid-year resident population, persons all ages, thousands

  Area

  1991

  1992

  England and Wales

  51,099·5

  51,276·9

  England

  48,208·1

  48,378·3

  Northern RHA

  3,091·7

  3,098·9

  Yorkshire RHA

  3,680·9

  3,698·0

  Trent RHA

  4,719·8

  4,745·0

  East Anglian RHA

  2,082·7

  2,089·4

  North West Thames RHA

  3,579·5

  3,594·2

  North East Thames RHA

  3,786·0

  3,798·5

  South East Thames RHA

  3,704·0

  3,712·9

  South West Thames RHA

  3,033·0

  3,042·7

  Wessex RHA

  2,979·4

  2,993·3

  Oxford RHA

  2,560·0

  2,581·4

  South Western RHA

  3,298·6

  3,315·9

  West Midlands RHA

  5,265·6

  5,277·6

  Mersey RHA

  2,415·8

  2,412·5

  North Western RHA

  4,011·2

  4,018·0

  Wales

  2,891·5

  2,898·5

  Notes: Figures may not add exactly due to rounding.

  Source: Population estimates unit, OPCS.
  852

  Dentists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists there are in Lancashire; and how many and what percentage undertake private treatment only.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of dentists in the general dental service practising in Lancashire family health services authority area on 30 September 1993 was 460. The number of dentists undertaking private treatment only is not available.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which of the public appointments for which she is responsible require advance notice to and consultation with the Chief Whip's office; and which appointments made since 1979 have been so notified and consulted upon.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to answer parliamentary questions about discussions and consultations between Departments and offices of Government relating to public appointments.

  Children's Accidents
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the costs to the NHS for children's accidents(a) on the roads, (b) in the home, (c) in schools, and (d) in playgrounds for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information available is from a study conducted by the Child Accident Prevention Trust with financial support from the Department. The trust estimated that in 1990–91 the cost to national health service hospitals and the ambulance service in treating accidental injuries to children under age 16 was some £230 million. Full information of the location of the accidents was not available, but mortality statistics collected by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys shows that, of the 480 accidental deaths among children in 1991, 283—59 per cent.—were caused by motor vehicle traffic accidents.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much her Department has spent on measures designed to prevent children's accidents for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Bowis
  Within the overall commitment of national health service staff and the Health Education Authority devoted to promoting children's health, a significant but unquantifiable proportion of their time is aimed at accident prevention. The Department has paid the following sums in grant aid to the Child Accident Prevention Trust under section 64 of the Public Health Act 1968:

  Financial Year

  Grant

  1987–88

  71,325

  1988–89

  93,500

  1989–90

  93,500

  1990–91

  106,050

  1991–92

  108,514

  1992–93

  103,000

  1993–94

  113,000

  853

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide figures for the amount her Department has been reimbursed by the Department of Social Security in respect of statutory sick pay provision for each of the past three years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The following amounts of statutory sick pay provision have been reimbursed by the Department of Social Security: 1990–91 £256,874; 1991–92£266,121 and 1992–93 £226,777.

  Independent Schools (Inspection)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to publish the revised guidance note to social services departments on the inspection of independent schools under section 87 of the Children Act 1989.

  Mr. Bowis
  We shall issue draft revised guidance for consultation shortly.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what current plans she has to change the capital or savings limit of £8,000 over which a person must pay the full cost of a place in residential care.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 21 June 1993 at column 39.

  Folic Acid
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has conducted to establish whether the taking of preparations containing folic acid by pregnant women reduces the likelihood of the birth of babies with spina bifida; what steps she has taken to publicise this information; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  In October 1991 an expert advisory group was set up in response to the publication of the final results from the Medical Research Council vitamin study group. Its report, "Folic Acid and the Prevention of Neural Tube Defects", published in December 1992, confirmed that women who increase their intake of folic acid before pregnancy can significantly reduce the risk of having a baby with neural tube defects. A copy of the report is available in the Library.

  This advice was disseminated to doctors, senior nurses, midwives, health visitors and pharmacists and the Health Education Authority updated its publications to include the new guidance. The Department of Health has conducted a campaign to publicise findings in the press and media. Posters and complementary leaflets have been widely distributed within the national health service and to professional and voluntary bodies.

  Special Hospitals
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a breakdown by race on the most convenient date, of the inmates held in each special hospital.
  854
  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of the Special Hospitals Service Authority, Mrs. Nelson, for details.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many suspected cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease have been identified since 31 May 1992.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many individuals have been found to have suffered from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the United Kingdom; how many current suspects there are; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Suspected cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease—CJD—in the United Kingdom are reported to Dr. R. G. Will, consultant neurologist, at the national CJD surveillance unit in Edinburgh.

  One hundred and twenty suspected cases were referred to the CJD unit between 1 June 1992 and 1 January 1994. Following investigation, 69 have been classified as definite or probable cases of CJD.

  Figures for the total number of definite and probable cases of CJD in the United Kingdom each year from 1985 are shown in the table.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the United Kingdom, definite and probable cases by year of death 1985–1993

  Year

  Total

  1985

  28

  1986

  26

  1987

  22

  1988

  22

  1989

  28

  1990

  30

  1991

  36

  1992

  53

  1993

  126

  1 Provisional total.

  Source: CJD Surveillance Unit.

  Note: The final figure for 1993 is likely to show some increase over the provisional total as diagnoses of people dying in 1993 are confirmed retrospectively. It is unlikely, however, to reach the 1992 figure.

  Medical Treatment
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received identifying instances in which it is alleged that medical treatment is allocated according to the purchaser's ability to pay; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  District health authorities are responsible for purchasing services based on their assessment of the health needs of their local population. It is for clinicians and not managers to decide who needs treatment immediately and who is put on a waiting list.

  Prostate Cancer
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new diagnoses of cancer of the prostate were made in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest available information is shown in the table:
  855

  Registrations of newly diagnosed cases of cancer of the prostate (ICD 185)1 for England and Wales. 1983–1987

  Number

  1983

  9,127

  1984

  9,524

  1985

  9,513

  1986

  10,180

  1987

  10,837

  1 International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on screening for prostatic cancer.

  Mr. Sackville
  The key aim of any screening programme must be to secure a demonstrable improvement in health by increasing length of life and enhancing quality of life. There is, as yet, no evidence to suggest that this would be achieved in relation to prostate cancer. The Department of Health is pursuing research in screening through its own centrally commissioned programme and through the new national health service research and development programme. A copy of the Chief Medical Officer's speech to a recent British Medical Journal conference setting out current policy implementation issues for screening in the NHS will be placed in the Library.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average five year survival rate after diagnosis of prostatic cancer.

  Mr. Sackville
  The average survival rate after diagnosis of prostatic cancer in England and wales is 43 per cent. —based on cancers registered in 1981, the latest year for which a five-year span is available.

  Operating Lease Arrangements
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she has(a) instructed the NHS management executive and (b) notified NHS directors of finance that the provision for capital charge neutrality should no longer be applied when operating lease arrangements are submitted to the management executive for approval as part of the private finance initiative.

  Mr. Sackville
  Yes. Guidance on this matter was included in a letter sent by the director of finance of the National Health Service Management Executive to regional general managers and directors of finance on 7 December 1993, copies of the letter are available in the Library. The relevant passages are:"Regional allocations for capital charges reflect an initial move towards weighted capitation. The capital charges allocation is recurrent, and will be the starting point for further redistribution in 1995/96. The intention is that no distinction should be made between the allocation for capital charges and the allocation for other revenue, and they are used as a single revenue resource.
  "Where they have not already done so, RHAs are expected to start the process of redistribution of capital charges subregionally. The changes detailed above should remove a reported impediment to pursuing private finance options. The allocation a health authority receives will not be affected by changes in the asset base of its providers. Decisions on whether to pursue private finance (eg leasing) or direct purchase options should be based on value for money and transfer of risk criteria. RHAs and Outposts should ensure that this point is clearly understood by DHAs and Trusts".
  856

  GP Fundholders
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 21 January,Official Report, column 888, what reports she has received of breaches of the provisions of the regulations covering the uses to which the earnings of general practitioners in fundholding prctices may be put.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the management fee paid to(a) second wave (b) third wave and (c) fourth wave general practitioner fundholders in each (i) family health services authority, (ii) regional health authority and (iii) nationally in 1992 and 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 26 January at column 298. The figures for 1993–94 will not be available until this time next year.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to investigate the use to which general practitioner fundholders have put surplus funds from 1991–92.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The uses to which savings may be put are set out in The National Health Service (Fundholding Practices) Regulations 1993, a copy of which is in the Library. Family health services authorities are responsible for authorising general practitioner fundholders' use of savings in accordance with the regulations.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fundholding practices there are in the area of the Bexley and Greenwich family health services authority; and if she will list them with the amount of financial surplus for each practice in 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Regional health authorities are responsible for managing the general practitioner fundholding scheme in their areas and only regional level information is available centrally. For local information —in the South East Thames region—the hon. Member may wish to contact Peter Barker, chairman of the South East Thames regional health authority.

  Hospital Activity Statistics
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the total cost of producing hospial activity figures; what are the benefits to patients resulting from these figures; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Hospital activity statistics are produced largely as a by-product of operational systems in the health service. This ensures that costs are kept to a minimum, but as a result the extra cost of producing the figures is impossible to quantify.

  The statistics are used at all levels in the national health service and the Department of Health for contracting, monitoring performance and for planning health care. Central statistics are used for—inter alia—monitoring efficiency, securing and distributing NHS funds, accountability to Parliament and the public, support for policy initiatives such as the inquiry into London's health services, and for feeding back comparative performance measures to the NHS in health service indicators.
  857

  Accident and Emergency Ambulance Services
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research she has commissioned into the benefits of running accident and emergency ambulance services closely integrated to patient and contract services.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have commissioned no such research.

  Ambulance Response Times
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the response times by ambulances to 999 calls within the mid-Essex area for each of the last five years; what was the national average time for England as a whole for the same period; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on ambulance emergency response times is not collected centrally on an individual health authority basis. Information on the Essex ambulance service for each of the last five years is shown in the table.

  Ambulance service emergency response times Percentage of calls responded to within 20 minutes (1988–89 to 1990–91) and 19 minutes (1990–91 onwards)

  Essex Ambulance Service

  1988–89

  87·0

  1989–90

  79·1

  1990–91

  93·7

  1991–92

  96·5

  1992–93

  98·6

  In 1990, following the acceptance of a report from the independent consultants ORH, a tighter response time for rural ambulance services was adopted. The response time target—now the patients charter standard—was changed from 20 to 19 minutes.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce measures to enable lone parents living on low incomes but not in receipt of benefits to claim free prescriptions, free school meals, free dental treatment and free spectacles; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Help with national health service prescription and dental charges and with the cost of optical services is already available to lone parents under the national health service low income scheme. The scheme ensures that no one need be detered from obtaining necessary medication and treatment on financial grounds. The arrangements for this help and, the legislation governing entitlement to free school meals in Scotland are matters for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland. The legislation governing entitlement to free school meals in England and Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education.

  Greenwich Healthcare Trust
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the people working in hospitals run by Greenwich healthcare trust who telephoned the Under-Secretary of State for Health in the week beginning Monday 24 January.
  858
  Mr. Bowis
  A number of calls were received in my office. We have no intention of releasing such information as the conversations remain private between myself and the individuals concerned.

  Management Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost by region of employing management consultants in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 14 December 1993, at column 558.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible have been(a) abolished or (b) created since 1979.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 1 February,Official Report, column 611.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commowealth Affairs if he will support moves initiated by other Governments to establish a moratorium on the manufacture and export of antipersonnel land mines.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The initiative was proposed by the United States, and was tabled as a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly, calling for a moratorium on the export of anti-personnel land mines that pose grave dangers to civilian populations. The United Kingdom supported this resolution; however, in doing so, we stated our view that anti-personnel land mines directed at military targets are legitimate defensive weapons when used in compliance with the 1981 United Nations weaponry convention. If they are used in accordance with protocol II of the convention, and particularly if they are fitted with a self-destructing or self-neutralising mechanism, they do not pose grave dangers to civilian populations. We therefore think it would be wrong if the possession of self-destructing or self-neutralising anti-personnel mines were restricted to countries with the capacity to manufacture them. We already adhere to the provisions of the 1981 United Nations weaponry convention, and expect to be able to ratify it later this year.

  There was no call for a moratorium on the manufacture of land mines. The United Kingdom has not manufactured or exported conventional anti-personnel land mines since 1982.

  Yugoslavia
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet Lord Owen to discuss developments in the former Yugoslavia.
  859
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs expects to meet Lord Owen on 7 February at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Letterboard
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many letters hon. Members may place on the letterboard; when such regulations were agreed; and what proposals the Committee is considering to improve the ability of hon. Members to contact each other through the letterboard.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The letterboard is intended to receive letters and messages of an urgent nature. For this reason, regulations have been in place for a number of years to limit to a maximum of six the number of letters placed by Members on the letterboard on any one sitting day. Increased demand for this service in recent years has placed further burdens on the letterboard; I have therefore asked the Serjeant at Arms to consider what further short and longer-term measures are needed to improve the system. His proposals will be considered by the Administration Committee and recommendations made to the appropriate authorities.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice he has given to the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising regarding a prioritisation review of rail routes earmarked for early sale; what form such advice took; on what date such advice was issued; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, announced on 2 February 1993 the first seven service groups to be prepared for franchising. On 24 May the Secretary of State announced the remaining 18 groupings to be prepared for franchising, subject to some further work which resulted in a further announcement confirming all 25 groupings on 4 August.

  It will be for the franchising director to decide the order in which franchises are offered for sale, taking into account both their readiness and market interest in bidding. We shall be asking the franchising director to prepare a programme for franchising all passenger services.

  Touche Ross
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department or any agencies for which he is responsible has engaged the services of the firm Touche Ross or any of its partners since 1 July 1993.

  Mr. Norris
  This firm was awarded an accountancy commission in connection with the channel tunnel rail link on 21 January 1994.
  860

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which special advisers in his Department are seconded from other organisations; and what are the organisations and the lengths and terms of the secondments.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Neither of my current special advisers, Sir Idris Pearce and Mrs. Laing, is seconded from other organisations.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) men and (b) women were employed by DVLA in 1992–93; and how many sick days were taken by (i) men and (ii) women.

  Mr. Key
  The number of staff employed by DVLA at its Swansea headquarters on 31 March 1993 was 2,997—2,232 females and 765 males. Working days lost due to sick absence during 1992–93 were 22,887 for females and 15,905 for males.

  On the same date, DVLA employed a further 1,566 staff—1,026 females and 540 males—in its network of local offices. Working days lost due to sick absences in these offices during 1992–93 were 17,135 but a breakdown by gender is not immediately available. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the information is to hand.

  Channel Tunnel Concession
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 76, what is his Department's broad estimate of the revenue forgone; and what are the estimated parameters of the estimated costs.

  Mr. Freeman
  Since competition for the services provided by the channel tunnel in 2042 cannot be predicted now, and since the requirements for repair and updating of the tunnel nearly 50 years ahead are equally difficult to predict, I am unable to judge either the revenue or the costs flowing from the concession in that year. It follows that I am equally unable to say with any precision what the net present value of the extension which the British and French Governments have granted might be.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations were consulted by his Department, on each of the recommendations of the business deregulation task forces before they were agreed and action proposed in the DTI document, "Deregulation: Cutting the Red Tape".

  Mr. Norris
  Each of the task force recommendations agreed or agreed in principle by the Government has been or will be the subject of appropriate consultation with interested parties.

  Oil Pollution
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet Care for the Wild and other charitable organisations involved to discuss costs incurred in their clean up operation of marine diesel fuel pollutants recently found off the coasts of Scotland and Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
  861
  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: No. While I recognise the value of the work done by charitable organisations in this field, when they decide to help in clean-up operations they bear the costs themselves. They may have a claim for compensation from the polluter if he can be identified. Beach samples from the affected areas of coastline in Scotland and Northern Ireland have been sent to the Laboratory of the Government Chemist for analysis, and the results are awaited. If it proves possible to trace the polluter, the Department of Transport would consider submitting a combined claim from all those organisations including Care for the Wild who have been involved in clean up activity as a result of these recent incidents.

WALES

  Paintings and Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to buy or borrow photographs; and if he will make a statement.

  Local Education Authority

  Number1 of primary schools

  Number of primary schools that have held ballots

  Outcome of ballot

  Number1 of secondary schools

  Number of secondary schools that have held ballots

  Outcome of ballot

  for GM

  against GM

  for GM

  against GM

  Clwyd

  243

  3

  2

  1

  29

  27

  4

  3

  Dyfed

  313

  1

  0

  1

  31

  0

  0

  0

  Gwenl

  213

  1

  1

  0

  31

  4

  4

  0

  Gwynedd

  190

  1

  1

  0

  23

  0

  0

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  305

  1

  1

  0

  42

  0

  0

  0

  Powys

  107

  1

  1

  0

  13

  1

  0

  1

  South Glamorgan

  158

  1

  0

  1

  25

  3

  3

  0

  Wesl Glamorgan

  164

  0

  0

  0

  26

  3

  1

  2

  1 The information in these columns relates to September 1993

  2This figure includes one school which has balloted twice

  Farmers Charter
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to set up a farmers charter, with particular reference to the late payment of debts to small business.

  Mr. Redwood
  I intend to publish targets for dealing with grant, subsidy and licence applications in the next financial year.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the question of organophosphate sheep dips; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Veterinary Products Committee has recommended the introduction as soon as possible of a new certificate of competence for sheep dipping, which the Government have accepted. Interested parties have been consulted formally on the proposed order, in accordance with the Medicines Act 1968. Five responses have been received to date. We shall be considering all comments carefully before proceeding.
  862
  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans to buy or borrow any photographs.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) paintings and (b) photographs there are on the walls of his rooms.

  Mr. Redwood
  There are seven on my walls in London and six in Cardiff.

  Schools (Ballots)
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools there were in each local authority in Wales by 1 January; how many in each case had held ballots under section 61 of the Education Act 1988; how many ballots in each case resulted in votes in favour of seeking grant-maintained status; and how many ballots in each case resulted in votes against seeking grant-maintained status.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is as follows:

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the subject of the Welsh Office planning guidelines relating to wind farms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Since the publication of planning policy guidance note No. 22, "Renewable Energy", my right hon. Friend has received two representations about its application to wind energy.

  Beaches
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many beaches in Wales were accorded the EC blue flag in each year since 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The numbers of EC blue flag awards in Wales were as follows:

  Year

  Number of awards

  1990

  1

  1991

  3

  1992

  2

  1993

  3

  863

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the question of increasing weekly animal slaughter units in small and medium-sized abattoirs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The EC fresh meat directive contains arrangements for small slaughterhouses, which can benefit from a special list of structural requirements. They have to comply in full with the EC hygiene rules. Following discussions in the Council of Agriculture Ministers, the Council agreed to increase the throughput limit for small slaughterhouses for which operators wish to take advantage of those arrangements from 12 to 20 units per week until 31 December 1994. During this period the Commission will review the implications of the meat hygiene directives for traditional small businesses. The Government will work closely with the Commission as it carries out this review. No representations have been received recently on this matter.

  Drws y Nant Improvement Scheme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the Drws y Nant improvement scheme on the Dolgallatt to Bala road will commence; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Draft orders for that scheme are due to be published this spring. Commencement of the work is dependent on the satisfactory completion of those statutory procedures.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what the closing date was for the submission of Welsh language sheep annual premium forms in 1993; and what it is for 1994;

  (2) what the closing date was for the submission of sheep annual premium forms in 1993; and what it is for 1994.

  Mr. Redwood
  The dates for both types of forms are identical and are:

  1993 scheme

  First application period—15 December 1992

  Second application period—20 February 1993

  Claims received within 10 working days after those dates were also accepted, subject to a 30 per cent. penalty reduction.

  1994 scheme

  First application period—15 December 1993

  Second application period—20 February 1994

  Claims received during the 20 calendar days immediately following these dates will still be accepted subject to a 1 per cent. penalty reduction for each working day which has elapsed.

  House Renovation Grants
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to collect information on the waiting lists for approval of house renovation grants for each district council in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I do not propose to hold such information. It is for local councils to make decisions on grants within six months of receipt of an application and they must determine their own local priorities.
  864

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to relax for a further period the rules regarding use of capital receipts from the sale of council houses.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much additional funding will be available for each district council in Wales, and for Wales as a whole, as a result of relaxation in the budget of rules regarding the use of capital receipts from the sale of council houses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information is being compiled on the estimated levels of additional usable receipts available to local authorities during the relaxation period. I shall write to the hon. Member when figures are available and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the specific effects on Wales of the sustainable development action plan launched on 25 January.

  Mr. Redwood
  The United Kingdom strategy for sustainable development examines important environment and development issues at the national level over a 20-year period, and considers the role that central and local government, business, the voluntary sector and individual citizens might play in moving the country towards sustainable development. Some important measures are already under way in Wales in support of sustainability, for example the Welsh Development Agency's major land reclamation programme. The Welsh Office will be seeking to ensure that Welsh interests are properly catered for in the follow-up action planned on the strategy.

  Cancer, Gwynedd
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research has been conducted on the incidence of cancer in Gwynedd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In 1987 the Welsh Office commissioned Professor Hubert Campbell to undertake an investigation into cancer rates along the north Wales coast for the period 1974–83. Professor Campbell's report was published in 1988 and a copy was placed in the Library of the House.

  The following reports included sites in Gwynedd within a more general study:
  "Cancer incidence and mortality in the vicinity of nuclear installations in England and Wales 1959–80". Office of Population Censuses and Surveys: Studies on Medical and Population Subjects No. 51. Published by HMSO ISBN 0 11 6910682.
  "Geographical variation in mortality from leukaemia and other cancers in England and Wales in relation to proximity to nuclear installations 1969–78". P. J. Cook-Mozzafari, S. C. Dargy, R. Dell, D. Fomman, C. Herman, M. C. Pike and T. Vincent. British Journal of Cancer (1989) 59, 476–485.

  The Welsh Office is currently investigating the incidence of certain types of cancer around Trawsfynydd and Wylfa nuclear installations. The results will be made available in due course.
  865

  Press Releases
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes have been agreed since his answer of 5 February 1993,Official Report, column 562, on proposals to issue departmental press releases by electronic mail.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  THORP
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of representations received from county district and borough councils in Wales on the subject of the proposed thermal oxide reprocessing plant; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made a full statement to the House on 15 December about the outcome of extensive public consultation in connection with the authorisation of radioactive discharges from the whole Sellafield site. Seventeen of the representations considered received were from Welsh local authorities, six being from county councils.

  Welsh Economic Model
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has agreed to contribute to the funding of a model of the Welsh economy by the Cardiff Business School Welsh economic research unit.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office has made no contribution.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funding the Welsh Development Agency received and from what sources in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is set out in the following table:

  £million

  Grant in aid

  1'Total gross expenditure

  1979–80

  45·1

  62·6

  1980–81

  65·1

  88·0

  1981–82

  74·0

  88·1

  1982–83

  53·7

  78·2

  1983–84

  37·1

  67·9

  1984–85

  32·1

  70·0

  1985–86

  30·3

  63·5

  1986–87

  31·7

  72·0

  1987–88

  52·3

  98·6

  1988–89

  61·9

  115·1

  1989–90

  69·8

  133·4

  1990–91

  81·2

  149·2

  1991–92

  87·2

  158·3

  1992–93

  78·4

  165·2

  1993–94

  269·6

  2160·6

  1 Gross expenditure is funded from grant in aid, receipts, public dividend capital and borrowings.

  2 Forecast outturns.

  866

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide figures for the amount his Department has been reimbursed by the Department of Social Security in respect of statutory sick pay provision for each of the past three years.

  Mr. Redwood
  The amounts reimbursed were:

  £

  1992–93

  91,153·57

  11993–94

  84,661·12

  1April to December.

  Figures for previous years are not available.

  Milk
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dairy farmers in Wales have already signed and returned contracts to Milk Marque.

  Mr. Redwood
  The number of producers signed up by Milk Marque and other potential buyers is a matter for those concerned.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current timetable for the introduction of the Milk Marque scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Milk Marketing Board has said that it intends to submit amendments to its scheme of reorganisation. One of these is to propose 1 November 1994 as vesting day for Milk Marque. In order for this to be possible, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I would need to make an order extending the present deadline of 1 October for the revocation of the current milk marketing scheme.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he has granted nature conservation orders for the protection of sites of special scientific interest under section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; how many are still in operation; how many he has refused in Wales since 1982; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Since 1982, five orders have been made of which two are still in operation. Two have been refused.

  Wales in Europe
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in relation to the publicity material of the Welsh Development Agency, in respect of the Wales in Europe campaign, the Wales European Centre in Brussels and the accords signed with Catalonia, Baden-Würtemberg, Lombardy and Rhône-Alpes.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy were reported on farms in Clwyd in 1992
  867
  and 1993; and if he will give the number of beasts affected, indicating the local authority district/borough area.

  Mr. Redwood
  The number of reported cases of suspected bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the county of Clwyd in 1992 was 752, of which 570 cases were subsequently confirmed. In 1993, 730 suspected cases were reported and 542 subsequently confirmed. The figures for 1993 are necessarily incomplete as the basis of the statistics is confirmed cases by report in the appropriate period. It is not possible to indicate the local authority except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of whether every precaution is taken to ensure that the human food chain remains free of infection by BSE.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government are advised on matters relating to spongiform encephalopathies by the spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee. The Government are advised that the measures introduced since BSE was identified, which are based on independent scientific advice, prevent any risk of transmission to humans.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research he has initiated into the potential link between BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  A wide-ranging research programme on BSE is in place, based on the recommendations of the consultative committee on research into spongiform encephalopathies. This committee was reconstituted as the spongiform encephalopathies advisory committee, which reports regularly to the Government. Its last report was issued in June 1992.

  Doctors are asked to report every suspected case of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease to the national CJD surveillance unit in Edinburgh. The circumstances of each case are recorded fully and in particular all cases are examined for possible sources of transmission and any occupational factor. The unit was established in 1990 and provided reports in 1992 and 1993.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning BSE and the human food chain, including his advice concerning meat by-products.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Chief Medical Officer at the Department of Health in May 1990 advised:"Beef can be safely eaten by anyone, both adults and children, including patients in hospital".
  This has been repeated by his successor, Dr. Calman. Dr. Calman further stated that he was confident that all necessary action is being taken to safeguard public health.

  Touche Ross
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his Department or any agencies for which he is responsible has engaged the services of the firm Touche Ross or any of its partners since 1 July 1993.

  Mr. Redwood
  Yes.
  868

  Health Promotion Authority for Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the level and frequency of participation in overseas conferences and seminars of the director and staff of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The chief executive and staff of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales may take part in overseas conferences and visits to the extent that this assists their work in promoting better health in Wales and in generating income for this purpose. The former chief executive of the authority was also professor of health promotion and health education and head of the institute of health promotion at the university of Wales college of medicine and undertook overseas visits in that connection until 2 February 1994.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales concerning the value and volume of consultation work carried out in Brazil; and what evaluation he has carried out or will carry out in relation to such work.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Health Promotion Authority for Wales has not carried out or funded any consultation work in Brazil.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in relation to the Health Promotion Authority for Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In recent weeks, I have received two letters from the hon. Member.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the duties of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales in relation to the promotion of better health in Latin America.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The primary function of the Health Promotion Authority for Wales is to undertake health promotion activity in Wales. It may only engage in international work where there is a tangible benefit to Wales from that activity. Such activity has not so far included South America.

  Epidemiological Research
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for extensive epidemiological research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office will continue to support United Kingdom-wide epidemiological research in collaboration with other Government Departments—notably the Department of Health—and the research councils.

  Teachers
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each local education authority how many full-time equivalent teachers were employed in January 1993.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is contained in "Statistics of Education and Training in Wales: Schools", No. 2, 1994—table 6.02—published on 2 February 1994.
  869

  Right-to-repair Scheme
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of Wales whether the new right-to-repair scheme for council tenants will apply in Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, laid before the House on Monday 31 January the Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities (Right to Repair) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/133) which will introduce the new right-to-repair scheme in both England and Wales.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction on 31 January 1994, Official Report, column 477.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Senior Science Posts (Women)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how many female applicants there have been for senior science posts in the public service, Government Departments, agencies and the research councils at civil service grades 3, 4 and 5 and above in the period 1 January 1993 to 18 January 1994; how many female appointments have been made to these grades, by grade; and what assessment he has made as to the consistency of these figures with the policy outlined in the White Paper "Realising our Potential;"

  (2) how many females have been appointed to grade 3 science posts in Government Departments, agencies and the research councils in the past 12 months; and what steps the Chancellor will be making to encourage the appointment of women to these senior posts following the publication of the White Paper. "Realising our Potential".

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Over the last 12 months, there have been six senior science posts—grade 5 and above—within the civil service advertised through open competition and 10 such posts within the research councils.

  For the six posts filled through open competition, there were 21 female applicants—out of a total of 317—none of whom were successful. For the 10 research council posts, there were only two female applicants, and again neither was successful.

  For the 12 months to the end of September 1993, there were 24 senior science posts at grades 3, 4 or 5 filled by internal appointees; no females were appointed. In December, Mrs. Helen Williams was appointed to a grade 3 post as head of the Transdepartmental S and T group in the Office of Science and Technology—OST.

  The White Paper on science, engineering and technology describes women as the country's biggest single most under-valued and therefore under-used human resource. The Office of Science and Technology will shortly be publishing a report by an independent working group of eminent scientists on how to make greater use of the talents of women in science, engineering and technology.
  870

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list each executive agency which has been established since the "Next Steps" initiative commenced; and if he will list any which existed before this initiative.

  Mr. David Davis
  The executive agencies established under the next steps initiative are as follows. No executive agencies existed previously.

  Next Steps Agencies established to date

  Agency

  Launch date

  Accounts Services Agency

  1 October 1991

  ADAS

  1 April 1992

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  1 April 1993

  Building Research Establishment

  2 April 1990

  Cadw (Welsh Historic Monuments)

  2 April 1991

  Central Office of Information

  5 April 1990

  Central Science Laboratory

  1 April 1992

  Central Statistical Office

  19 November 1991

  Central Veterinary Laboratory

  2 April 1990

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment

  1 April 1991

  Chessington Computer Centre

  1 April 1993

  Civil Service College

  6 June 1989

  Companies House

  3 October 1988

  Compensation Agency

  1 April 1992

  Defence Accounts Agency

  1 April 1991

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  1 July 1992

  Defence Animal Centre

  1 June 1993

  Defence Operational Analysis Centre

  1 July 1992

  Defence Postal and Courier Services

  1 July 1992

  Defence Research Agency

  2 April 1991

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  2 April 1990

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing (Nl)

  2 August 1993

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  1 April 1992

  Driving Standards Agency

  2 April 1990

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  1 April 1992

  DVOlT

  1 April 1992

  Employment Service

  2 April 1990

  Fire Service College

  1 April 1992

  Forensic Science Service

  1 April 1991

  Government Property Lawyers

  1 April 1993

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  1 October 1989

  Historic Scotland

  2 April 1991

  Her Majesty's Prison Service

  1 April 1993

  HMSO

  14 December 1988

  Hydrographic Office

  6 April 1990

  Insolvency Service

  21 March 1990

  Intervention Board

  2 April 1990

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  30 October 1989

  Land Registry

  2 July 1990

  Medicines Control Agency

  11 July 1991

  Meteorological Office

  2 April 1990

  Military Survey

  2 April 1991

  National Physical Laboratory

  3 July 1990

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  18 April 1989

  Natural Resources Institute

  2 April 1990

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation

  1 April 1992

  NEL

  5 October 1990

  NHS Estates

  1 April 1991

  NHS Pensions Agency

  20 November 1992

  Northern Ireland Child Support Agency

  5 April 1993

  Occupational Health Service

  2 April 1990

  Ordnance Survey

  1 May 1990

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  1 April 1992

  Patent Office

  1 March 1990

  Paymaster

  1 April 1993

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  1 April 1993

  Planning Inspectorate

  1 April 1992

  Public Record Office

  1 April 1992

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  6 July 1989

  Queen Victoria School

  1 April 1992

  Radiocommunications Agency

  2 April 1990

  RAF Maintenance

  2 April 1991

  Rate Collection Agency

  1 April 1991

  871

  Agency

  Launch date

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

  2 April 1991

  Registers of Scotland

  6 April 1990

  Royal Mint

  2 April 1990

  Royal Parks Agency

  1 April 1993

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  1 April 1992

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  12 April 1991

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  1 April 1993

  Scottish Prison Service

  1 April 1993

  Scottish Record Office

  1 April 1993

  Security Facilities Executive

  15 October 1993

  Service Children's Schools (North West Europe)

  24 April 1991

  Social Security Agency

  1 July 1991

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  2 April 1991

  Social Security Child Support Agency

  5 April 1993

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  2 April 1991

  Social Security Information Technology Services Agency

  2 April 1990

  Social Security Resettlement Agency

  24 May 1989

  Teachers' Pensions Agency

  1 April 1992

  The Buying Agency

  31 October 1991

  Training and Employment Agency

  2 April 1990

  Transport Research Laboratory

  2 April 1992

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  2 April 1991

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  1 April 1993

  Valuation Office

  30 September 1991

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  2 April 1990

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  1 August 1988

  Veterinary Medicine Directorate

  2 April 1990

  Warren Spring Laboratory

  20 April 1989

  Wilton Park

  1 September 1991

  Customs and Excise (31 Executive Units)2

  1 April 1991

  Inland Revenue (31 Executive Offices)2

  1 April 1992

  1Subsequently privatised on 17 December 1993.

  2 Departments operating fully on Next Steps lines.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Illegal Immigrants (Employment)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what report he has received at his Queen Anne's gate office concerning the employment of suspected illegal immigrants; when his authority was sought to apprehend such employees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend is routinely advised of proposed enforcement operations of a major or sensitive nature, but his authority has not been sought to apprehend suspected immigration offenders employed at the Home Office, Queen Anne's gate.

  Gatwick Passengers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for a nationwide operation this week to track down passengers who arrived at Gatwick on 21 December and who were given leave to enter the United Kingdom as visitors; how many such operations he has authorised over the past year, to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Where there is reason to believe that a passenger from the flight is in breach of the immigration laws, the case will be followed up in the usual way. No nationwide operation is planned, nor was such an operation conducted in 1993.
  872
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, columns 329–30, what is the total cost, to date, of removing passengers on flight ULE966, which landed at Gatwick on 21 December, who were refused entry to the United Kingdom, or granted temporary admission pending removal and removed including the costs of flights and escorts; what was the total cost of detention; where they were detained; if any third party is liable for meeting all or part of the costs of removal or detention; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 25 January, Official Report, columns 162–63, what has been the total cost, to date, of removing from the United Kingdom passengers on flight BA1262 (KT310) which arrived at Gatwick on 15 December, including the costs of flights and escorts; what was the total cost of detaining other of those passengers; where they were detained; if any third party is liable for meeting all or part of the costs of removal or detention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Those passengers refused entry from flights ULE966 and BAl262 and not removed on the charter flight on 15 December were removed under arrangements made directly by the inbound carrier or its agents and the costs are a matter for them. The total detention cost is still being calculated. Those detained were held in detention accommodation at Gatwick, Newhaven and Campsfield house. Police and Prison Service accommodation was also used.

  Where the carrying company or its agents are given directions under paragraph 8 of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 to remove a passenger or to make arrangements to do so, they are responsible for all the costs involved, including those of any necessary in-flight escorts.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received, to date, from the Jamaican high commission in London concerning flight BA1262 (KT310) arriving at Gatwick on 15 December and flight ULE966 arriving at Gatwick on 21 December; what was the nature of those representations; what discussions have taken place between him and his officials and representatives of the high commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Immigration Service at Gatwick was in touch with the Jamaican high commission on the days of arrival of both flights.

  As I stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 11 January at column 147 the high commission has maintained a close interest in the treatment of its nationals who were refused entry. A representative of the high commission was among a delegation I met on 18 January.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 329–30, what are (a) the names, (b) the ages and (c) the sex of the passengers on flight ULE966 arriving at Gatwick on 21 December who have absconded from temporary admission; what were the terms of the temporary admission which they were granted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is normal practice not to disclose the names of individual passengers. Of the six referred to in my earlier reply, five are females aged 14,16,
  873
  20, 23 and 25 and one is a male aged 16. One further female refused entry, aged 33, failed to report back from temporary admission on 26 January. A woman aged 25 also absconded from temporary admission before a decision was reached in her case.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what period those Jamaican citizens who arrived at Gatwick on 21 December on flight ULE966 and were given leave to enter the United Kingdom were allowed to enter.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The majority sought entry as visitors and were given leave to enter for six months; 20 were given leave to enter until 17 January 1994.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 329–30, what were the ages and sex of the children aged 16 years or under who arrived on flight ULE966 who were refused entry; if any were travelling unaccompanied; were any of the 10 who were removed from the United Kingdom were travelling unaccompanied; what is the age and sex of the child who has absconded from temporary admission; and if the child was accompanied.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Of the 14 children referred to in my earlier reply seven are male and seven are female. Details of their ages are as follows:

  3 aged 16

  1 aged 14

  2 aged 13

  1 aged 12

  3 aged 11

  1 aged 9

  1 aged 8

  1 aged 4

  1 aged 3.

  Four were unaccompanied. Four of the 10 children so far removed were unaccompanied. Three children have now absconded, a male aged 16 and two females aged 16 and 14, one of whom arrived unaccompanied.

  Disclosure of Information
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 331, what was the nature of the disclosure of information to a newspaper which may have taken place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The investigation relates to the possibility of unauthorised disclosure to a newspaper of information about an operation conducted by the police and the Immigration Service enforcement directorate.

  Immigration Officers (Powers)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discretion immigration officers may exercise in deciding what period of leave to grant; and for how long those granted leave to enter may lawfully remain in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The immigration rules provide certain periods for which a person seeking entry in various categories should normally be admitted. A person who has lawfully obtained leave to enter will normally be allowed to remain, provided he or she complies with any conditions attached to the leave, until the end of the period granted or the expiry of any variation of that leave.
  874

  Touche Ross
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department or any agencies for which he is responsible has engaged the services of the firm Touche Ross or any of its partners since 1 July 1993.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Home Office has let five contracts to Touche Ross since 1 July 1993.

  Telemillion Scheme
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations have been carried out into the status in terms of the Lottery and Amusements Act 1976 of the telemillion scheme operated by Interactive Telephone Services Group plc.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Any investigation of allegations of criminal offences under the 1976 Act would be a matter for the police.

  Immigration Powers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 329, under what powers, apart from the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987, he can demand any third party to defray all or part of the costs of (a) detention, (b) escorting and (c) removing from the United Kingdom (i) any person refused entry to visit the United Kingdom and (ii) any person granted temporary admission pending removal who is removed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Those contained in paragraph 19 of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971.

  Exclusion Order (Withdrawal)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now arrange for the exclusion order issued against the president of Sinn Fein to be withdrawn; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  No.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the planned expenditure on the criminal injuries compensation scheme for each future financial year to 1997–98 at 1993–94 prices.

  Mr. Maclean
  Forecast expenditure on criminal injuries compensation, including the costs of administration, in the next three financial years is currently as follows:

  In cash terms

  At 1993–94 prices

  £ million

  £ million

  1994–95

  212

  204

  1995–96

  223

  206

  1996–97

  170

  153

  No estimate has yet been made in respect of 1997–98.
  875

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to introduce legislation to facilitate drug testing in prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government believe it is essential to take action to deal with the problem of illicit drug use in our prisons. I therefore intend to bring forward a clause for inclusion in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill which will allow the Prison Service to test prisoners for drug abuse. In addition to this a new prison rule will be made by statutory instrument under the Prisons Act 1952 which will make the use of illicit drugs a disciplinary offence. I understand my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, will bring forward a similar measure.

  We believe that these measures will play a significant part in tackling illicit drug use and its deleterious effect on the maintenance of good order and discipline in our prisons.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he has set a minimum standard of education for prisoners to reach before leaving prison; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the curriculum for prison education for specified prisoners throughout the prison system; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will make a policy statement on standards of prison education;

  (4) what is (a) the target and (b) average actual number of education hours per week for prisoners in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  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 front A. J. Butler to Mr. Martyn Jones, dated 3 February 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the provision of education in penal establishments in England and Wales.

  The policies and standards for prison education are set out in the White Paper "Custody, Care and Justice" (Cm 1647), in Prison and Young Offender Institution Rules, in Prison Standing Orders and in supplementary guidance.

  Education programmes should enable prisoners to learn effectively, should particularly identify and provide help for those prisoners who have difficulty reading or writing and who are unable to do simple arithmetic, and should provide appropriate help to those prisoners who have inadequate social skills. Over and above fulfilling these basic needs, programmes aim to develop a broad based educational experience for people in custody.

  Education in prison is provided under contract by Further Education Colleges and other direct education providers in the community and to comparable standards. The curriculum at any individual prison establishment is agreed between the governor and the education provider and will take account of the assessed learning needs of the inmate population. The capabilities and needs of individual prisoners vary, but programmes encourage prisoners to acquire not only worthwhile qualifications but also wider exposure to the arts and handicrafts. Education, other than for young offenders under the age of 17, is not compulsory and setting a minimum educational standard for all prisoners to reach before release would not be appropriate.
  876
  The Prison Service sets overall targets for the number of hours each prisoner should spend on a range of purposeful activities, including work, education and training, but not for individual regime activities. The number of hours that prisoners are engaged in education has, however, increased in recent years from 5·56 million in 1987–88 to 7·57 million in 1992–93.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions were agreed on the post election review on arrangements for inspecting marked registers after elections in their home electoral district rather than in London.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 20 January at column 747. Home Office officials are in consultation with officials in the Lord Chancellor's Department about the suggestion.

  Prison Building
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons have completed all the design, town planning and public inquiry stages and are ready to commence building in the next financial year; and how many new prisons are in the course of construction.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  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 front A. J. Butler to Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, dated 3 February 1994.

  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the new prison building programme.

  There is one new prison currently under construction at Doncaster. This is due to open in the summer this year and will be the twenty-first prison to be built under the current programme.

  A further six new prisons have been announced but it is not planned to begin construction of any of these in the next financial year, 1994–95.

  Sites at Fazakerley in Merseyside and at Bridgend in South Wales have been identified for the first two prisons. The proposal to build a prison on the Fazakerley site was the subject of a non-statutory public local inquiry held between 26 October and 10 November 1993 and we are awaiting the outcome. We have outline planning clearance to build a prison on the site at Bridgend.

  Prostitutes
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women who were engaged in prostitution activities were murdered or severely assaulted in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information available relates to homicide offences in which the relationship between the victim and the suspect has been recorded as prostitute and client, and is set out in the table.

  Similar information on assaults is not recorded centrally.

  Recorded homicides where relationship was prostitute/client

  Year

  Number

  1983

  2

  1984

  —

  1985

  2

  877

  Year

  Number

  1986

  3

  1987

  —

  1988

  3

  1989

  2

  1990

  2

  1991

  —

  1992

  —

  Probation and Bail Hostels
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the past three years and estimate for the next three years, the number of probation and bail hostels, the number of places and the occupancy rates; if he will estimate the cost for each place and for each used place; and what are the comparable figures for the cost of gaol.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is as follows:

  1. Numbers

  Year

  Number of hostels

  Number of places

  Average occupancy per cent.

  1990–91

  108

  2,190

  79

  1991–92

  111

  2,444

  74

  1992–93

  114

  2,656

  64

  1993–94

  115

  2,690

  70

  1994–95

  107

  2,560

  83

  1995–96

  107

  2,680

  83

  Accidents by Police Force area: 1979–1992

  Rate per Police Officer

  Year of Accident

  Lancashire

  Thames Valley

  Hampshire

  Kent

  Avon and Somerset

  South Wales

  1979

  1·9

  2·8

  2·5

  2·4

  1·9

  1·6

  1980

  1·9

  2·2

  2·4

  2·4

  1·9

  1·5

  1981

  1·8

  2·5

  2·4

  2·4

  1·8

  1·5

  1982

  1·9

  2·6

  2·5

  2·4

  1·9

  1·5

  1983

  1·8

  2·6

  2·4

  2·4

  1·8

  1·4

  1984

  1·9

  2·8

  2·7

  2·4

  1·8

  1·4

  1985

  1·9

  2·6

  2·6

  2·2

  1·7

  1·4

  1986

  1·8

  2·6

  2·5

  2·2

  1·7

  1·5

  1987

  1·7

  2·4

  2·4

  2·1

  1·6

  1·5

  1988

  1·7

  2·4

  2·6

  2·0

  1·7

  1·6

  1989

  1·9

  2·4

  2·6

  2·1

  1·6

  1·7

  1990

  1·9

  2·3

  2·5

  2·1

  1·6

  1·7

  1991

  1·8

  2·0

  2·2

  2·0

  1·5

  1·5

  1992

  1·9

  2·1

  2·1

  2·0

  1·4

  1·5

  Accidents by Police Force area: 1979–1992

  Rate per 100,000 population

  Year of Accident

  Lancashire

  Thames Valley

  Hampshire

  Kent

  A von and Somerset

  South Wales

  1979

  430·3

  438·8

  507·2

  465·0

  410·6

  371·4

  1980

  425·1

  380·0

  496·1

  466·4

  406·9

  363·6

  1981

  415·7

  433·4

  493·7

  468·3

  407·7

  361·3

  1982

  430·2

  446·4

  519·9

  472·9

  416·8

  366·4

  1983

  405·8

  449·2

  496·1

  455·7

  389·5

  342·8

  1984

  430·2

  499·4

  536·4

  465·1

  378·7

  346·6

  1985

  434·1

  459·3

  514·2

  426·4

  364·8

  340·9

  1986

  404·4

  467·5

  508·9

  428·2

  360·6

  355·0

  1987

  391·5

  432·4

  486·5

  405·8

  344·9

  356·0

  1988

  395·3

  438·9

  507·9

  388·7

  357·1

  379·8

  1989

  426·6

  448·8

  520·5

  414·3

  342·6

  409·9

  1990

  435·1

  434·8

  501·8

  407·1

  337·2

  394·0

  1991

  413·0

  383·0

  449·8

  387·3

  317·3

  349·4

  1992

  428·6

  395·0

  445·0

  402·1

  296·7

  346·9

  878

  2. Costs (expressed annually in terms of HO per cent. Home Office grant towards running costs)

  Year

  Cost per place (£)

  Cost per used place (£)

  1990–91

  7,352

  9,306

  1991–92

  7,447

  10,061

  1992–93

  9,130

  14,265

  1993–94

  9,803

  14,005

  1994–95

  9,887

  11,912

  1995–96

  9,974

  12,019

  Figures for the cost of prison places are not readily available in a comparable form.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the number of road accidents(a) per police officer and (b) per 100,000 population for each year since 1979 for the South Wales, Thames Valley, Kent, Lancashire, Avon and Somerset and Hampshire police authority areas; and what were the comparable totals for all non-metropolitan and Welsh non-metropolitan police authority areas.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is shown in the following two tables.
  879

  Accidents in non-metropolitan areas 1979–92

  Rate per police officer

  Rate per 100,000 population

  Year of accident

  England—non metropolitan areas

  Wales—non metropolitan areas

  England—non metropolitan areas

  Wales—non metropolitan areas

  1979

  2·3

  1·8

  452

  403

  1980

  2·2

  1·8

  442

  391

  1981

  2·2

  1·7

  441

  386

  1982

  2·3

  1·8

  454

  394

  1983

  2·2

  1·6

  432

  367

  1984

  2·3

  1·7

  454

  375

  1985

  2·2

  1·6

  439

  362

  1986

  2·3

  1·7

  443

  373

  1987

  2·1

  1·7

  424

  371

  1988

  2·2

  1·8

  436

  391

  1989

  2·3

  1·8

  454

  411

  1990

  2·2

  1·8

  446

  411

  1991

  2·0

  1·7

  399

  375

  1992

  1·9

  1·6

  393

  361

ENVIRONMENT

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evaluation he has made of the use of management agreements as a means of protecting sites of special scientific interest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend considers that the United Kingdom's existing system for preventing damage to notified sites under the SSSI provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the land-use planning system together provide effective safeguards. The financial guidelines, which provide a basis for calculating payments in management agreements, are currently under review. The revised guidelines will be the subject of public consultation before they come into force.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times he has granted nature conservation orders for the protection of sites of special scientific interest under section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; how many are still in operation; how many he has refused in England since 1982; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  At 31 December 1993, 29 orders had been made. Of these, 10 have been revoked after satisfactory protection for the site was agreed with the owners, one was revoked after a local inquiry as the site did not meet the legal requirements for an order and 18 are in place. In the majority of these, negotiations towards a management agreement are continuing. Orders have been refused on three occasions. It is a measure of the success of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and of the voluntary principle policy that the Secretary of State has used his powers on so few occasions.

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the Government's intentions for the local government review following the High Court judgment of the Lancashire challenge.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking in response to the 880
  High Court judgment in the action brought by Lancashire and Derbyshire county councils which deletes as unlawful a sentence from the November 1993 policy guidance to the local government commission.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional guidance he intends to give to the Local Government Commission on the conduct of the review following the High Court decision on Lancashire and Derbyshire on 28 January.

  Mr. Gummer
  The review of local government in England and the work of the Local Government Commission will continue. The Government are not appealing against the court ruling, which makes it clear that the Local Government Commission exercises its own judgment—something that has never been in dispute. The commission's reviews will continue on the basis of the policy guidance issued in November 1993 with the omission of the final sentence of paragraph 3. The aim of the local government review continues to be to provide effective and convenient local government which takes account of community identities. The Government believe that unitary authorities will often be the best way of achieving these objectives. In those cases they will be able to reduce costs and improve the quality and co-ordination of services. They will therefore often provide the best form of local government. Decisions will be taken on commission recommendations in that light. However, there is no national blueprint and the Government do not rule out consideration of two tiers in particular cirumstances, with or without changes to the status quo, where a strong case for that is made.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance he proposes to make available to London boroughs and the common council during 1994–95 in respect of extra costs which those authorities may face as a result of decisions on housing revenue account subsidy in respect of debt inherited from the former Greater London council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  For 1993–94 my right hon. Friend announced a scheme of special assistance for London boroughs and the common council facing extra costs that year as a result of his decision that housing revenue account subsidy and housing subsidy is not payable under the statute in respect of certain debts inherited from the former Greater London council. Should the House of Lords uphold the judgments of the divisional court and the Court of Appeal in respect of his decision, he proposes to make similar arrangements for 1994–95.

  Betterment Levy
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the collection of betterment levy imposed by the Land Commission Act 1967.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is no longer cost effective to continue pursuing collection of betterment levy. In the 1992–93 financial year, £232,595 has been written off. There remain 52 outstanding cases in England and Wales, totalling £85,676·53. Against this background, I have decided that these cases should also be written off.
  881

  Hydrofluorocarbons
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he will make a statement about the production of HFCs.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government have no plans to ban the production of HFCs because we regard them as important alternatives for some uses of CFCs and HCFCs, particularly in refrigeration. Their production is bound to increase as those substances are phased out. They are, however, greenhouse gases and, subject to the decisions of next year's conference of parties, the climate change convention requires developed countries to take actions aimed at returning their emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. Such actions must not damage our efforts to phase out CFCs and HCFCs as quickly as possible. The United Kingdom's climate change programme, published last week, therefore commits the Government to explore with HFC producers and consumers the scope for agreements to ensure that, where HFCs are used, emissions to the atmosphere are minimised, and that HFCs are not used where emissions are unavoidable if safe, practical and more environmentally acceptable alternatives are available.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implication for the operation of local authority waste disposal companies of the recent Court of Appeal judgment on Avon county council's award of a waste disposal contract under the statutory tendering process.

  Mr. Atkins
  The formation of local authority waste disposal companies to which waste disposal authorities transfer the relevant part of their undertakings is envisaged in part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Act also obliges waste disposal authorities to let waste disposal contracts through competitive tender to waste disposal contractors, which may include local authority waste disposal companies. Where a contractor believes that a waste disposal authority has not followed the competitive tendering provisions contained in the Act, the contractor may take action through the courts. The contractor has exercised that option in this instance. There is still the possibility of further legal process, and therefore it would not be appropriate for me to comment more fully on this specific case.

  Housing (Publicity Expenditure)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide details of the breakdown of expenditure on departmental publicity relating to housing matters for 1993–94.

  Sir George Young
  As at 2 February 1993, my Department has committed £767,361.88 for publicity expenditure on housing policies. The breakdown is as follows:

  £

  Advertising

  356,340·99

  Printing

  293,643·77

  Exhibitions

  26,587·13

  Audio Visual

  2,120·88

  882

  £

  Promotions

  3,841·54

  Fulfilment

  33,710·34

  Conferences

  12,014·28

  Distribution

  8,435·45

  Research

  30,667·50

  Living Over the Shop Project
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what effect his consideration of the report by the housing consultants, Chapman Hendy Associates, on "Living Over the Shop", has had on the Government's policy on the living over the shop project.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: In considering applications for funding under the Department's special grants programme, which was again this year oversubscribed, we took into account all supporting information provided. Unfortunately, the application by the living over the shop project was not successful. The project has previously received grants of £113,000 over three years from the Department and the Housing Corporation.

  The Government remain committed to encouraging the use of empty residential space above shops. Some £10 million of supplementary credit approvals will be available to local authorities for 1994–95: bids amounting to about £40 million have been received and allocations will be announced shortly. In addition, the Housing Corporation will be supporting schemes by housing associations.

  Vacant Properties
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many vacant properties he wishes to bring back into the affordable rented housing sector; and if he will provide a breakdown by(a) Government properties, (b) private sector properties and (c) local authority properties.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: On 1 April 1993 there were around 900,000 empty dwellings in England, of which 26,683 were owned by housing associations, 70,909 were owned by local authorities, around 12,400 were owned by the Government and other public sector bodies, and around 765,000 were in private sector ownership, according to statistical returns from local authorities and housing associations. My answer of 24 January to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), Official Report, columns 23–26, gives further details. The Government wish to see the best possible use made of empty property, regardless of its ownership. They offer encouragement to local authorities and private owners to do so, and have set up a task force on Government Departments' empty homes to help to bring residential property back into housing use. The task force is expected to present its final report to Ministers shortly.

  Building Management
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out(a) by region the proceeds from the sale of the constituent parts of Building

  883
  Management, (b) the amount of money set aside to cover possible redundancy costs and (c) the total number of redundancies and the cost involved.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right

  Building Management Scotland

  Building Management Manchester

  Building Management South East

  Building Management South and West

  (a)Proceeds from the sale including some phased payments (£ million)

  3·5

  -11·5

  Net 10·4

  (b)Agreed limit to the Department's liability for severance costs for those made redundant in the first five years post sale, including staff who did not transfer with the business (£ million)

  15·0

  26·0

  30·0

  25·0

  (c) (i)Total numbers of redundancies to date

  125

  139

  191

  97

  (ii)Of these, total number of staff made redundant by the Purchasers

  0

  0

  2

  1

  (iii)Estimated cost of redundancies to date (£ million)

  4·5

  4·5

  6·0

  3·5

EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much funding has been made available to each TEC in 1992–93 and 1993–94, expressed in cash terms and real terms, and giving a real-terms percentage change from the previous year, for(a) youth training and credits,(b) training for work and the programmes it replaced and (c) business start-up allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Funding made available to each training and enterprise council in 1992–93 and 1993–94 for

  YT and Credits

  1992–93 Cash terms £ million

  Cash terms £ million

  1993–94 1992–93 prices £ million

  1992–93 prices Percent. +/-

  Hampshire

  17·54

  16·05

  15·54

  -11·38

  Heart of England

  5·70

  5·24

  5·08

  -10·96

  Isle of Wight

  1·86

  1·74

  1·69

  -9·40

  Kent

  18·00

  18·06

  17·49

  -2·82

  Milton Keynes and North Bucks.

  3·99

  51·4

  4·98

  24·77

  Surrey

  4·40

  4·41

  4·27

  -2·93

  Sussex

  11·26

  10·29

  9·97

  -11·49

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  9·23

  12·60

  12·20

  32·21

  AZTEC

  3·62

  3·69

  3·57

  -1·27

  CENTEC

  6·54

  7·43

  7·20

  10·03

  CILNTEC

  7·25

  8·04

  7·79

  7·41

  LETEC

  12·54

  14·17

  13·72

  9·44

  North London

  4·14

  3·89

  3·77

  -9·00

  North West London

  2·46

  2·90

  2·81

  14·18

  SOLOTEC

  9·09

  8·51

  8·24

  -9·33

  South Thames

  9·15

  11·76

  11·39

  24·48

  West London

  6·56

  7·41

  7·18

  9·40

  Bedfordshire

  5·30

  5·60

  5·42

  2·33

  CAMBSTEC

  2·64

  3·20

  3·10

  17·40

  Essex

  16·02

  16·53

  16·01

  -0·06

  Greater Peterborough

  4·50

  4·69

  4·54

  0·94

  Hertfordshire

  13·19

  13·13

  12·72

  -3·59

  Norfolk/Waveney

  10·73

  10·30

  9·98

  -7·03

  Suffolk

  9·53

  9·45

  9·15

  -3·96

  Avon

  11·81

  11·99

  11·61

  -1·67

  Devon/Cornwall

  26·31

  23·83

  23·08

  -12·28

  Dorset

  7·30

  6·66

  6·45

  -11·64

  Gloucestershire

  6·58

  6·41

  6·21

  -5·65

  Somerset

  6·39

  5·79

  5·61

  -12·24

  884
  hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction on 19 January Office Report column 675, in respect of the Noreast Building Management business.The information on the remaining four businesses is set out in the table.

  (a) youth training and credits, (b) training for work and the programmes it replaced, and (c) business start-up schemes are given in the following tables. Figures for 1993–94 are also shown in 1992–93 prices.

  TEC budgets shown for employment training, employment action and higher technology national training in 1992–93 exclude allowances paid to participants, while budgets for training for work in 1993–94 include these allowances. TEC budgets for the BSUS in 1992–93 include an element for business enterprise training. This is funded through the Department of Trade and Industry in 1993–94.

  In addition to the budgets shown in the following tables additional funding has been made available in 1993–94 to TECs to extend BSUS and to provide special measures in coal closure areas. Details by TEC are not yet available.
  885

  1992–93 Cash terms £ million

  Cash terms £ million

  1993–94 1992–93 prices £ million

  1992–93 prices Percent. +/-

  Wiltshire

  6·76

  5·93

  5·74

  -15·04

  Birmingham

  20·64

  18·56

  17·98

  -12·91

  Central England

  5·11

  4·16

  4·03

  -21·15

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  11·86

  11·85

  11·48

  -3·23

  Dudley

  5·20

  4·96

  4·80

  -7·62

  HAWTEC

  5·47

  5·57

  5·39

  -1·38

  Sandwell

  5·46

  5·01

  4·85

  -11·13

  Shropshire

  7·66

  6·30

  6·10

  -20·34

  Staffordshire

  20·57

  20·62

  19·97

  -2·91

  Walsall

  4·32

  3·78

  3·66

  -15·25

  Wolverhampton

  5·24

  5·06

  4·90

  -6·47

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  9·66

  9·26

  8·97

  -7·16

  Leicester

  13·34

  12·98

  12·57

  -5·76

  Lincolnshire

  10·19

  10·73

  10·39

  1·98

  North Derby

  5·09

  4·96

  4·80

  -5·62

  North Nottinghamshire

  7·37

  7·42

  7·19

  -2·49

  Northamptonshire

  6·75

  7·48

  7·24

  7·33

  South Derby

  8·63

  8·42

  8·15

  -5·50

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  12·90

  12·83

  12·43

  -3·67

  Bradford and District

  10·60

  10·69

  10·35

  -2·33

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  9·70

  12·54

  12·15

  25·21

  Humbcrside

  17·90

  16·23

  15·72

  -12·18

  Leeds

  8·80

  7·65

  7·41

  -15·80

  North Yorkshire

  8·00

  7·26

  7·03

  -12·11

  Rotherham

  5·60

  5·71

  5·53

  -1·25

  Sheffield

  9·50

  9·56

  9·26

  -2·54

  Wakefield

  5·30

  4·89

  4·74

  -10·64

  Bolton/Bury

  6·88

  6·86

  6·64

  -3·43

  Manchester

  16·41

  16·21

  15·70

  -4·33

  METROTEC

  5·31

  5·35

  5·18

  -2·42

  Oldham

  4·83

  4·71

  4·56

  -5·55

  Rochdale

  3·77

  4·04

  3·91

  3·79

  South and East Cheshire

  6·48

  7·28

  7·05

  8·81

  Stockport

  4·73

  5·30

  5·13

  8·52

  CEWTEC

  9·46

  9·25

  8·96

  -5·30

  Cumbria

  9·65

  9·74

  9·43

  -2·24

  ELTEC

  9·31

  9·62

  9·32

  0·08

  LAWTEC

  12·79

  13·25

  12·83

  0·34

  Merseyside

  22·75

  27·64

  26·77

  17·67

  NORMID

  7·17

  7·72

  7·48

  4·28

  QUALITEC

  5·07

  5·62

  5·44

  7·36

  Durham

  12·99

  12·86

  12·46

  -4·12

  Northumberland

  7·75

  7·52

  7·28

  -6·02

  Teeside

  15·66

  13·75

  13·32

  -14·96

  Tyncside

  17·04

  18·33

  17·75

  4·18

  Wearside

  7·35

  7·78

  7·54

  2·52

  ET/EA/HTNT (1992–93) TFW (1993–94)

  1992–93 cash terms £ million

  cash terms £ million

  1993–94 1992–93 prices £ million

  1992–93 prices percentage +/-

  Hampshire

  6·64

  11·67

  11·30

  70·22

  Heart of England

  2·15

  3·86

  3·74

  73·88

  Isle of Wight

  0·81

  1·38

  1·34

  65·01

  Kent

  7·72

  14·23

  13·78

  78·52

  Milton Keynes and North Buckinghamshire

  1·58

  2·83

  2·74

  73·48

  Surrey

  2·36

  5·06

  4·90

  107·66

  Sussex

  6·27

  11·04

  10·69

  70·53

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  3·28

  8·48

  8·21

  150·40

  AZTEC

  3·37

  6·83

  6·62

  96·29

  CENTEC

  8·42

  15·61

  15·12

  79·56

  CILNTEC

  7·42

  14·46

  14·00

  88·74

  LETEC

  13·02

  24·00

  23·24

  78·53

  North London

  7·20

  13·16

  12·75

  77·02

  North West London

  2·83

  7·14

  6·92

  144·36

  SOLOTEC

  4·22

  8·24

  7·98

  89·11

  886 887

  1992–93 cash terms £ million

  cash terms £ million

  1993–94 1992–93 prices £ million

  1992–93 prices percentage +/-

  South Thames

  12·90

  25·17

  24·38

  88·97

  West London

  3·38

  7·40

  7·17

  112·04

  Bedfordshire

  2·73

  5·29

  5·12

  87·67

  CAMBSTEC

  1·02

  2·30

  2·23

  118·39

  Essex

  10·07

  12·67

  12·27

  21·86

  Greater Peterborough

  2·22

  4·59

  4·45

  100·25

  Hertfordshire

  4·02

  7·16

  6·93

  72·50

  Norfolk/Waveney

  5·57

  11·29

  10·93

  96·31

  Suffolk

  2·11

  4·65

  4·50

  113·44

  Avon

  8·00

  14·97

  14·50

  81·23

  Devon/Com wall

  11·24

  25·53

  24·73

  119·99

  Dorset

  3·58

  6·70

  6·49

  81·26

  Gloucestershire

  2·54

  5·07

  4·91

  93·32

  Somerset

  2·81

  5·26

  5·09

  81·30

  Wiltshire

  2·68

  5·62

  5·44

  103·10

  Birmingham

  18·60

  22·33

  21·63

  16·27

  Central England

  2·78

  5·08

  4·92

  76·98

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  6·41

  13·16

  12·75

  98·84

  Dudley

  3·11

  5·79

  5·61

  80·31

  HAWTEC

  2·41

  4·87

  4·72

  95·71

  Sandwell

  3·33

  6·42

  6·22

  86·72

  Shropshire

  2·95

  5·52

  5·35

  81·23

  Staffordshire

  6·71

  11·91

  11·54

  71·91

  Walsall

  2·81

  4·83

  4·68

  66·48

  Wolverhampton

  3·36

  5·44

  5·27

  56·81

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  5·35

  10·31

  9·99

  86·64

  Leicester

  5·13

  8·88

  8·60

  67·65

  Lincolnshire

  5·27

  11·78

  11·41

  116·49

  North Derbyshire

  2·30

  5·01

  4·85

  110·97

  North Nottinghamshire

  5·84

  7·46

  7·23

  23·72

  Northants

  2·32

  3·84

  3·72

  60·31

  South Derbyshire

  4·60

  7·74

  7·50

  62·96

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  7·10

  13·74

  13·31

  87·43

  Bradford and District

  5·00

  8·35

  8·09

  61·74

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  6·00

  10·80

  10·46

  74·33

  Humberside

  10·90

  17·75

  17·19

  57·72

  Leeds

  5·90

  13·38

  12·96

  119·64

  North Yorkshire

  3·60

  6·76

  6·55

  81·87

  Rotherham

  3·50

  6·11

  5·92

  69·08

  Sheffield

  7·00

  14·27

  13·82

  97·44

  Wakefield

  3·70

  6·88

  6·66

  80·09

  Bolton/Bury

  3·04

  5·47

  5·30

  74·27

  Manchester

  11·24

  18·17

  17·60

  56·57

  METROTEC

  2·81

  4·72

  4·57

  62·68

  Oldham

  1·90

  3·70

  3·58

  88·61

  Rochdale

  2·58

  4·69

  4·54

  76·06

  South and East Cheshire

  2·68

  4·36

  4·22

  57·57

  Stockport

  1·95

  3·81

  3·69

  89·23

  CEWTEC

  5·90

  11·03

  10·68

  81·06

  Cumbria

  3·35

  6·38

  6·18

  84·45

  ELTEC

  3·91

  7·42

  7·19

  83·80

  LAWTEC

  7·34

  12·37

  11·98

  63·22

  Merseyside

  16·73

  30·04

  29·09

  73·91

  NORMID

  3·05

  5·51

  5·34

  74·97

  QUALITEC

  2·42

  4·72

  4·57

  88·90

  Durham

  9·30

  16·79

  16·26

  74·85

  Northumberland

  3·57

  6·67

  6·46

  80·95

  Teeside

  10·80

  18·31

  17·73

  64·20

  Tyneside

  13·14

  25·15

  24·36

  85·38

  Wearside

  6·64

  12·56

  12·16

  83·20

  888 889

  BES (1992–93) BSUS (1993–94)

  1992–95

  1993–94

  cash terms £ million

  cash terms £ million

  1992–93 prices £ million

  1992–93 prices percentage +/-

  Hampshire

  3·12

  2·04

  1·98

  -36·67

  Heart of England

  1·20

  0·36

  0·35

  -70·94

  Isle of Wight

  0·49

  0·31

  0·30

  -38·73

  Kent

  2·75

  2·34

  2·27

  -17·59

  Milton Keynes and North Buckinghamshire

  0·76

  0·36

  0·35

  -54·12

  Surrey

  1·85

  0·86

  0·83

  -54·98

  Sussex

  3·98

  1·18

  1·14

  -71·28

  Thames Valley Enterprise

  2·40

  1·13

  1·09

  -54·40

  AZTEC

  1·46

  0·76

  0·74

  -49·58

  CENTEC

  4·18

  1·24

  1·20

  -71·27

  CILNTEC

  2·82

  1·80

  1·74

  -38·18

  LETEC

  2·75

  1·06

  1·03

  -62·67

  North London

  2·56

  1·38

  1·34

  -47·79

  North West London

  1·34

  0·66

  0·64

  -52·30

  SOLOTEC

  1·98

  1·89

  1·83

  -7·55

  South Thames

  3·36

  1·81

  1·75

  -47·83

  West London

  1·92

  0·95

  0·92

  -52·08

  Bedfordshire

  1·11

  0·45

  0·44

  -60·74

  CAMBSTEC

  0·88

  0·34

  0·33

  -62·58

  Essex

  2·69

  1·05

  1·02

  -62·20

  Greater Peterborough

  0·60

  0·30

  0·29

  -51·57

  Hertfordshire

  3·00

  1·40

  1·36

  -54·80

  Norfolk/Waveney

  2·16

  1·30

  1·26

  -41·71

  Suffolk

  1·36

  0·87

  0·84

  -38·04

  Avon

  3·60

  1·55

  1·50

  -58·30

  Devon/Cornwall

  5·44

  3·27

  3·17

  -41·78

  Dorset

  2·10

  0·74

  0·72

  -65·87

  Gloucestershire

  1·80

  1·59

  1·54

  -14·45

  Somerset

  1·80

  0·58

  0·56

  -68·79

  Wiltshire

  1·90

  1·60

  1·55

  -18·44

  Birmingham

  3·91

  2·28

  2·21

  -43·52

  Central England

  1·36

  0·97

  0·94

  -30·92

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  2·65

  1·52

  1·47

  -44·45

  Dudley

  0·97

  0·56

  0·54

  -44·09

  HAWTEC

  1·53

  0·92

  0·89

  -41·76

  Sandwell

  1·01

  0·54

  0·52

  -48·22

  Shropshire

  1·43

  0·84

  0·81

  -43·11

  Staffordshire

  3·17

  1·37

  1·33

  -58·14

  Walsall

  0·87

  0·38

  0·37

  -57·70

  Wolverhampton

  1·00

  0·56

  0·54

  -45·76

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  1·80

  1·37

  1·33

  -26·28

  Leicestershire

  2·90

  1·93

  1·87

  -35·54

  Lincolnshire

  1·95

  1·23

  1·19

  -38·91

  North Derby

  1·11

  0·57

  0·55

  -50·27

  North Nottinghamshire

  1·46

  0·90

  0·87

  -40·30

  Northamptonshire

  1·60

  0·90

  0·87

  -45·52

  South Derby

  1·75

  0·51

  0·49

  -71·77

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  1·50

  1·16

  1·12

  -25·10

  Bradford and District

  1·80

  1·20

  1·16

  -35·43

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  2·00

  1·53

  1·48

  -25·91

  Humberside

  3·20

  1·77

  1·71

  -46·43

  Leeds

  2·30

  1·44

  1·39

  -39·36

  North Yorkshire

  2·20

  1·63

  1·58

  -28·24

  Rotherham

  1·10

  0·68

  0·66

  -40·13

  Sheffield

  2·20

  1·04

  1·01

  -54·22

  Wakefield

  1·20

  0·75

  0·73

  -39·47

  Bolton/Bury

  1·53

  0·97

  0·94

  -38·60

  Manchester

  4·32

  2·81

  2·72

  -37·00

  METROTEC

  1·15

  0·76

  0·74

  -35·99

  Oldham

  0·78

  0·46

  0·45

  -42·88

  Rochdale

  0·74

  0·27

  0·26

  -64·66

  South and East Cheshire

  1·36

  0·57

  0·55

  -59·41

  Stockport

  1·52

  0·84

  0·81

  -46·48

  CEWTEC

  2·40

  1·21

  1·17

  -51·17

  Cumbria

  1·60

  1·12

  1·08

  -32·20

  ELTEC

  1·89

  1·09

  1·06

  -44·14

  LAWTEC

  2·76

  1·12

  1·08

  -60·70

  Merseyside

  4·30

  2·35

  2·28

  -47·07

  NORMID

  1·45

  0·78

  0·76

  -47·90

  QUALITEC

  0·62

  0·44

  0·43

  -31·27

  Durham

  2·48

  1·48

  1·43

  -42·20

  Northumberland

  1·30

  0·66

  0·64

  -50·83

  Teeside

  2·38

  1·39

  1·35

  -43·44

  Tyneside

  3·49

  1·27

  1·23

  -64·76

  Wearside

  1·29

  0·50

  0·48

  -62·46

  890 891

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible have been(a) abolished or (b) created since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister on I February 1994,Official Report, column 611.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were in employment in the Amber Valley constituency, for its nearest equivalent, in(a) 1979, (b) 1983, (c) 1987 and (d) 1992; and what is the latest figure.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information on employees in employment in the Amber Valley parliamentary constituency is available from the periodic censuses of employment, and is given in the following table:

  Employees in employment in the Amber Valley constituency in September of each year.

  Number

  1981

  129,300

  1984

  32,000

  1987

  34,300

  1989

  35,900

  1991

  36,700

  1 The boundary for this parliamentary constituency was revised in 1983 and therefore the information for 1981 is not directly comparable with that in later censuses.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current rate of unemployment in the Amber Valley constituency; what is the latest figure for the south-east; and what is the current average figure for each of the EC countries.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In December 1993, the seasonally adjusted rate of claimant unemployment stood at 9·7 per cent. of the workforce in the South East region. Claimant unemployment rates are not available for areas smaller than the self-contained labour markets known as travel-to-work areas. No figure is available for the Amber Valley constituency.

  Internationally comparable unemployment figures based on the internationally standardised ILO definition of unemployment are published by EUROSTAT in its monthly "Unemployment Bulletin", copies of which are available in the Library. The United Kingdom ILO unemployment rate is below the EC average and is falling.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were placed in employment by(a) Kilwinning and (b) Irvine jobcentres in each month since April 1992.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Brian Donohoe, dated 3 February 1994:
  892
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of people placed into employment by Kilwinning and Irvine Jobcentres each month since April 1992.

  Tables are attached which show this information.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Placings achieved by Irvine and Kilwinning Jobcentres April 1992 to March 1993

  Month

  Irvine jobcentre

  Kilwinning jobcentre

  April 1992

  342

  175

  May 1992

  309

  188

  June 1992

  341

  180

  July 1992

  299

  124

  August 1992

  366

  90

  September 1992

  285

  135

  October 1992

  434

  224

  November 1992

  393

  99

  December 1992

  155

  58

  January 1993

  304

  137

  February 1993

  318

  138

  March 1993

  226

  78

  Placings achieved by Irvine and Kilwinning Jobcentres April 1993 to December 1993

  Month

  Irvine jobcentre

  Kilwinning jobcentre

  April 1993

  321

  117

  May 1993

  344

  137

  June 1993

  388

  146

  July 1993

  351

  139

  August 1993

  332

  151

  September 1993

  356

  142

  October 1993

  448

  154

  November 1993

  428

  129

  December 1993

  219

  44

  Unemployed People, Cornwall
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much central Government money was spent on schemes to help unemployed people in Cornwall in each year since 1979 in total and per person unemployed; and if he will list which schemes are included in these totals for each year.

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Industrial Disputes
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of days lost in industrial disputes in relation to the size of the work force in each EC country in(a) the latest year for which information is available and (b) 10 years previously.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The latest available data are given in the following table:

  Working days lost per thousand employees in employment1 2

  1992

  1982

  United Kingdom

  20

  250

  Belgium

  40

  170

  Denmark

  30

  50

  France

  30

  130

  Germany (Federal Republic)

  60

  4—

  Greece

  52,910

  830

  Ireland

  220

  500

  893

  1992

  1982

  Italy

  6200

  1,280

  Netherlands

  10

  50

  Portugal

  60

  170

  Spain

  670

  360

  1 It should be noted that there are some differences in coverage between each country's statistics. More details can be found on page 550 of Employment Gazette December 1993.

  2 Data are not available for Luxembourg.

  3 Data relates to 1980.

  4 Less than five days lost per thousand.

  5 Data relates to 1991.

  6 Data relates to 1991.

  Lettuce Growing
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many inspections were made by the Health and Safety Executive agricultural inspectorate of lettuce-growing establishments in each month since January 1993; and how many cases of misuse of pesticides were found by the agriculture inspectorate in each month since January.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Between 1 April 1992 and 31 March 1993, the latest year for which information is available, inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive's agricultural inspectorate made a total of 40,051 visits which includes visits to lettuce and other salad production establishments. During the same period agricultural inspectors investigated 206 pesticides incidents.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the cost of administering unemployment benefit in the Greenock travel-to-work area in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 3 February 1994:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the cost of administering unemployment benefit in the Greenock travel-to-work area in each of the past five years.

  Perhaps I should make it clear that as the Employment Service Is responsible for administering several other benefits in addition to Unemployment Benefit, it is not possible to provide information on the payment of Unemployment Benefit only. Therefore the figures relate to the administration costs for all benefits paid to clients. In addition, as our records of local office running costs are retained for only the last three complete financial years. I am consequently unable to provide information in respect of those financial years prior to 1990–91. The information below is in respect of the area covered by the Greenock and Port Glasgow offices, which more or less approximates to the Greenock travel-to-work area.

  Given these provisos, the relevant costs, which include staff salary and other running costs, such as fuel and telecommunications, are as follows:
  894

  Financial year

  Non-integrated £

  Integrated £

  Total costs £

  1990–91

  606,942

  Nil

  606,942

  1991–92

  300,208

  561,186

  861,394

  1992–93

  Nil

  1,235,560

  1,235,560

  These figures give a total cost for the three years of £2,703,896 broken down into £907,150 for costs related to Unemployment Benefit Offices (UBO) and £1,796,764 for those related to Employment Service Jobcentres (ESJ).

  However, I must emphasise that these figures are not strictly comparable. As you may be aware, since 1990 the Employment Service has been pursuing a policy of bringing together Unemployment Benefit Offices and Jobcentres with the aim of providing a more efficient and effective service to our clients. Our Inverclyde offices have featured as part of this programme of integration, Greenock in November 1991 and Port Glasgow in March 1991. The figures provided for the periods after integration, therefore, include job broking costs as well as benefit administration costs.

  Given the fact that staff in our integrated offices are responsible for all aspects of Employment Service work, it is not possible to provide any further accurate or meaningful breakdowns in these costs.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Essex Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how much total funding has been made available for the Essex TEC expressed in cash terms and with the percentage change from the previous year for each financial year of its existence;

  (2) how much funding has been made available for the Essex TEC in 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94 expressed in cash terms and with the percentage change from the previous year for (a) youth training and credits, (b) training for work and the programme it replaced and (c) business start-up allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The following table provides the information requested for each full year of the training and enterprise council's existence.

  Funding for TECs is negotiated annually by officials from the Department who ensure that budgets are sufficient to meet priority local needs. Officials also ensure through regular reviews that TECs deliver quality training and enterprise support in a cost-effective way.

  Essex TEC

  1991–92 £ million

  1992–93 £ million

  1993–94 £ million

  Youth/training credits

  13·712

  15·313

  16·712

  Per cent, change

  —

  11·68

  9·14

  Training for Work

  5·637

  6·026

  6·133

  Per cent, change

  —

  6·9

  1·78

  Business start up allowance

  0·424

  0·670

  0·863

  Per cent, change

  —

  58·0

  28·8

  Total

  19·773

  22·009

  23·708

  Note:

  All figures except 1993–94 are based on actual spend.

  1993–94 figures are estimated, based on contracted amounts.

  TfW figures include the programmes replaced by TfW, including Employment Training, Employment Action and HTNT.

  BSU figures are based on the amounts paid for starts and survivors.

  Figures do not include the following interest-free loans:

  (i) a Working Capital Loan of £1,774K the balance of which was repaid in 1992–93.

  (ii) Fixed Asset Loans totalling £650K which are written off over five years between July 1990 and July 1995. The balance of these loans is currently £168K.
  895

  Jobcentre, Brixham
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will instruct his agents in Brixham to engage in the fullest consultation on the building of a new job centre in the old bus station site; and what is his policy on(a) leasing or (b) building new buildings for the purposes of employment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 3 February 1994:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about a new Jobcentre in Brixham, and about our policy on leasing or building new buildings.

  For commercial reasons it is our policy not to comment on specific locations for prospective sites for new jobcentres. I can however, confirm that the Employment Service (ES) is considering a number of options in the Brixham area, and that all of these will be subjected to the fullest consideration and fully evaluated.

  All options, including leasing and purchase of new buildings, will be subject to an investment appraisal in accordance with Treasury guidelines.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Job Shops
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his annual budget for running job shops in England; how many staff are employed; and how many of the premises are owned by his Department or leased by it and at what annual cost.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 3 February 1994:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the annual cost of running Jobcentres in England, the number of staff employed and how many offices are owned or leased.

  The annual budget provided for running the Employment Service (ES) Local Offices' in England for 1993–94 was some £729 million, which includes premises operating costs of £122 million.

  The ES employs around 43,000 staff in 1,021 offices in England. Of these buildings 607 are Departmental Estate properties, administered by the ES, and 414 are Common User Estate properties, administered by Property Holdings.

  I hope this is helpful.

DEFENCE

  Airmisses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the date, location, altitude, aircraft types and joint airmiss working group determination of cause, for all category C airmiss reports involving military aircraft in the period from 1 January 1990.
  896
  Mr. Hanley
  A list of all category C airmiss reports involving military aircraft in the period from 1 January 1990 will be placed in the Library of the House.

  "Feedback"
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the current issue of the Royal Air Force inspectorate of flight safety publication "Feedback".

  Mr. Hanley
  No. "Feedback" is an internal Royal Air Force document for official use only. It is intended to provide early and practical guidance to service air and ground crews in their particular environment.

  Harrier Jet (Wirestrike Incident)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the wirestrike incident involving a Royal Air Force Harrier in north Norway on 15 November 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  The aircraft was on a routine training exercise and struck power cables while flying through a fjord at 335 ft. The aircraft suffered minor damage and was able to land at a diversion airfield. The cause of this incident is currently under investigation by an RAF board of inquiry.

  Skyguard Radar
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose of Royal Air Force Provost and Security Service monitoring by Skyguard radar of aircraft flying at altitudes higher than 2,000 ft.

  Mr. Hanley
  The purpose of deploying the Skyguard radar system in its low flying monitoring role is to observe military aircraft flying below 2000 ft. However, some tracking of military aircraft flying above 2000 ft is unavoidable. The Skyguard system comprises two radars; a search radar and a tracking radar. Aircraft in the area of monitoring are picked up on the search radar initially before the tracking radar is set to observe a particular aircraft in detail. Only when the tracking radar has locked on to an aircraft can its height be established. Once an aircraft has been identified as flying above 2000 ft, attention is turned to monitoring other aircraft in the area.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the system for reporting of breaches of low flying regulations recorded by Skyguard radar; to which units or offices such breaches are reported; and what are the mechanisms for instituting disciplinary proceedings.

  Mr. Hanley
  Following any apparent breach of low flying regulations recorded by Skyguard, the RAF police conducts further inquiries to identify the aircraft concerned and interview the aircrew. A report is then passed to my Department's secretariat—Air Staff—and copied to other interested parties, including the commanding officer of the aircrew concerned. Where breaches of low flying regulations are not the subject of court martial or summary disposal proceedings under the service discipline Acts, responsibilty for action lies with the commanding officer of the aircrew.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what equipment is carried by RAF police in covert
  897
  monitoring of low flying without use of Skyguard radar; how many aircraft have been observed by such non-radar covert monitoring in each year since 1990; and how many apparent breaches of low flying regulations were detected by these monitoring deployments.

  Mr. Hanley
  Covert monitoring of low-flying aircraft without the use of Skyguard is carried out visually by experienced RAF Police observers following a survey of the chosen site. The relative heights and distances of local landmarks are taken into account when conducting the survey.

  The number of aircraft observed using these methods since 1990 are as follows:

  Year

  Number of aircraft observed

  1990

  177

  1991

  533

  1992

  276

  1993

  347

  Four apparent breaches of low flying regulations were detected during these covert monitoring deployments.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the changes in policy since February 1992 concerning the release of statistical information on the results of Skyguard monitoring of low flying; and what were the reasons for those changes.

  Mr. Hanley
  Since November 1992 it has been my Department's policy to notify hon. Members in advance when Skyguard low flying monitoring is planned to take place in their general area and arrange for the equipment to be available for the public to see at the end of the deployment. The decision to release statistical information on the results of the monitoring flowed from the revised arrangements.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the equipment used by the RAF police on Skyguard radar deployments to monitor low flying includes radio equipment capable of receiving transmis-sions on the common radio frequency for the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Mr. Hanley
  No.

  Flying Hour (Definition)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Defence what definition of flying hour is used in the recording of flight time by British military aircraft.

  Mr. Hanley
  British military aircraft record flight time as being from the moment an aircraft takes off to the moment it lands, as opposed to commercial aircraft where flight time includes the time the aircraft taxies for departure and on arrival.

  Tornado Accident, County Durham
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances of the accident involving a Royal Air Force Tornado F3 aircraft in County Durham on 21 October 1993.
  898
  Mr. Hanley
  The aircraft, on a routine training sortie flying at 2,000 ft and 300 knots, suffered a major fuselage fuel leak and an associated engine flame-out. Shortly afterwards, the aircraft caught fire. Both crew members ejected safely. The cause of the accident is currently being investigated by a RAF board of inquiry and a summary of its findings will be produced in the normal way. A copy of the summary will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Harrier Accident, Evesham
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances of the accident involving a Royal Air Force Harrier near Evesham on 14 January.

  Mr. Hanley
  The aircraft was on a routine training sortie when it crashed near the village of Aston Somerville. The pilot, a member of the United States Marine Corps on an exchange tour with the RAF, unfortunately died in the accident. An investigation into the cause of the accident is being conducted by an RAF board of inquiry.

  Harrier Accident, Bristol Channel
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances of the accident involving a Royal Navy Sea Harrier in the Bristol channel on 5 January.

  Mr. Hanley
  The accident involved a Royal Navy Sea Harrier FRS2 from 899 Squadron, based at RNAS Yeovilton. The aircraft was flying low over the sea when an engine malfunction caused the pilot to eject. The aircraft came down approximately 15 miles west of Chivenor. The pilot was uninjured. The cause of the accident is currently under investigation.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the current issue of the Royal Air Force publication "Low Flying Update".

  Mr. Hanley
  The document is classified and cannot therefore be released.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reports have been received from aircrew on operational low flying training sorties in the tactical training areas, of sightings of other military aircraft on non-operational low flying training sorties flying at less than 500 ft minimum separation distance.

  Mr. Hanley
  Central records of such reports are not maintained. However, the indications are that such reports have been received on only a very small number of occasions.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify the nature of each of the breaches of low flying regulations listed in his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley of 18 October 1993,Official Report, column 57, and the height at which each aircraft was recorded as flying.

  Mr. Hanley
  All of the apparent breaches of low flying regulations listed in my answer to the hon. Member of 18 October 1993,Official Report, column 57, were in respect of height, except for the following which were apparent breaches of an avoidance:
  899

  Date

  Location

  Type of aircraft

  Nationality

  16 July 1991

  Eshott Airfield

  F4

  German Air Force

  2 July 1992

  Beverly/Linley Hill Aerodrome

  Tornado

  RAF

  It is not my Department's policy to release detailed information such as the recorded height of aircraft involved in apparent breaches of low flying regulations.

  British Goods
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to increase the purchase of British-manufactured goods for the armed services.

  Mr. Aitken
  To achieve the best value for money, wherever possible, we place contracts by means of open competition. British companies have proved highly competitive to the extent that, over the past five years, we estimate that some 90 per cent. of defence equipment expenditure was spent with United Kingdom industry. My Department provides British defence industry with as much information as possible about its future procurement plans, and Ministers and officials meet regularly with epresentatives of defence industry trade associations.

  Garelochhead Training Centre
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many training man days were spent on the Garelochhead training area in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Hanley
  Details for Garelochhead are available only from the financial year 1987–88 onwards:

  Financial year

  Man training days

  1987–88

  54,500

  1988–89

  67,183

  1989–90

  73,289

  1990–91

  56,621

  1991–92

  63,342

  1992–93

  79,182

  11993–94

  31,308

  1To December.

  The lower than average figure for 1993–94 is due to a reduction in capacity on account of works services.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those categories of armed forces personnel whose national health service prescription charges are reimbursed from his Department's funds; and what was the total cost of this provision in the latest year for which data are available.

  Mr. Hanley
  All armed forces personnel are entitled to free medical and dental treatment. As a part of this condition of service national health service prescription charges paid by service personnel based in the United Kingdom may be reimbursed from funds within my Department. Figures relating to the cost of this provision 900
  are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The entitlement to free medical and dental treatment is one of the many factors taken into account by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body when comparing pay levels in the armed forces with those in civilian employment.

  Glen Douglas Depot
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future use of the Glen Douglas armaments depot.

  Mr. Hanley
  The NATO armaments depot—NAD—at Glen Douglas is currently used for ammunition storage by the Royal Navy, the US and the Netherlands. Following the United States' decision to withdraw its holdings, it was announced on 2 December 1993 that the task of storing and maintaining RAF ammunition would be transferred from RAF Chilmark to NAD Glen Douglas. Work has already commenced on the transfer which should be completed, on current plans, by the end of 1994.

  Hercules Accident
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the summary of the report on the accident to a Royal Air Force Hercules aircraft on 27 May 1993.

  Mr. Hanley
  A summary of the RAF board of inquiry's findings will be placed in the Library of the House shortly.

  T80U Tank
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's receipt of a tank from Russia for research purposes.

  Mr. Aitken
  In 1992 a Russian T80U tank was imported for defence research and development purposes.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any department of his Ministry has taken delivery of a T80U main battle tank.

  Mr. Aitken
  Yes. A Russian T8OU tank was imported for defence research and development purposes.

  Defence Cuts
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage reductions have been made in the total number of(a) armed forces, (b) military establishments, (c) naval craft, (d) aircraft, (e) munitions factories, (f) naval dockyards and (g) regiments since 1979; and what were the numbers in each case in 1979 and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows:
  901

  (a) Armed Forces

  1979

  Latest

  Royal Navy and Royal Marines

  Regulars

  73,500 (1 January 1979)

  57,427 (1 November 1993)

  Reserves

  35,300 (1 January 1979)

  31,100 (1 April 1993)

  Total

  108,800

  88,527

  Total percentage change

  -19

  Army

  Regulars (including Gurkhas)

  156,200 (1 April 1979)

  130,900 (1 January 1994)

  Reserves

  59,400 (1 April 1979)

  64,100 (1 December 1993)

  Total

  215,600

  195,600

  Total percentage change

  -10

  Royal Air Force

  Regulars

  85,400 (1 January 1979)

  78,900 (1 April 1993)

  Reserves

  30,600 (1 January 1979)

  47,800 (1 April 1993)

  Total

  116,600

  126,700

  Total percentage change

  +9

  (Date of information in brackets).

  (b) Military Establishozents. There are several possible definitions of the term "Military Establishment". On any definition, the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Records for 1979 are not held.

  (c) Naval Craft. The figures for the number of major warships (vessels of frigate size and above) are as follows:

  1979

  Latest

  1103

  265

  1 As at 1 January 1979.

  2 As at 31 December 1993.

  Total percentage change: -37.

  (d) Aircraft. Figures available for 1979 only cover squadrons, flights or regiments, and do not give numbers of individual aircraft. Because the numbers of aircraft within units has changed over the years, a percentage change figure based on the numbers of units would not be meaningful. The available figures are as follows:

  Royal Navy

  1 January 1979

  13 squadrons plus 49 flights

  1 April 1993

  18 squadrons plus 34 flights

  Army

  1 April 1979

  6 Army Air Corps regiments

  1 January 1994

  5 Army Air Corps regiments

  Royal Air force

  1 April 1979

  14 Strike/Attack squadrons

  5 Offensive Support squadrons

  4 Maritime Patrol squadrons

  5 Reconnaissance squadrons

  16 Air Defence squadrons

  1 Airborne Early Warning squadron

  9 Air Transport squadrons

  2 Tanker squadrons

  2 Search and Rescue squadrons

  Total: 58

  1 February 1994

  7 Strike/Attack squadrons

  5 Offensive Support squadrons

  3 Maritime Patrol squadrons

  902

  5 Reconnaissance squadrons

  7 Air Defence squadrons

  1 Airborne Early Warning squadron

  14 Air Transport squadrons

  1 Tanker squadron

  2 Search and Rescue squadrons

  Total: 45

  (e) Munitions Factories. Records of royal ordnance factories in 1979 are not held. Royal Ordnance ceased to be part of the Ministry of Defence in January 1985.

  The figures are as follows:

  (f) Naval Dockyards

  1979

  1994

  5

  2

  Percentage change: -60 per cent.

  (g) Regiments Taking "regiments" to mean front-line units, the figures are as follows:

  Regular Army front-line units

  1 April 1979

  1 January 1994

  Royal Armoured Corps Regiments

  19

  10

  Royal Artillery Regiments

  22

  15

  Royal Engineer Regiments

  9

  12

  Infantry Battalions

  56

  45

  SAS Regiment

  1

  1

  Army Air Corps Regiments

  6

  5

  Total

  113

  88

  Total percentage change: -22 per cent.

  TA Front-line units

  1 April 1979

  1 January 1994

  Royal Armoured Corps Regiments

  5

  5

  Royal Artillery Regiments

  5

  5

  Royal Engineer Regiments

  7

  9

  Infantry Battalions

  37

  36

  SAS Regiments

  2

  2

  Total

  56

  57

  Total percentage change: +2 per cent.
  903

  Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is the Government's policy to seek the negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty by September 1996.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), on 31 January,Official Report, column 481.

  RAF Byelaws
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what directions or guidance of a general nature now apply in respect of the arrest, detention, charge and prosecution of a person under either the RAF Lakenheath Byelaws 1986—SI 1986/480—or the RAF Mildenhall Byelaws 1986—SI 1986/479;

  (2) what directions or guidance of a general nature have been given to the Ministry of Defence police and the Crown Prosecution Service in the last five years concerning the arrest, detention, charge and prosecution of a person under either the RAF Lakenheath Byelaws 1986 —SI 1986/480—or the RAF Mildenhall Byelaws 1986—SI 1986/479.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Ministry of Defence police is an operationally independent body responsible for policing the defence estate in accordance with the provision of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. One of its duties is to enforce military byelaws. Those applicable at RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall are extant but under review. In November 1993 general guidance was given to MDP by its chief constable not to arrest for byelaws offences at these sites until the review process is complete.

  MDP continues, however, to escort trespassers off the premises for their own safety or may make arrests if other non-byelaws offences such as criminal damage are committed or suspected.

  The Crown Prosecution Service is an independent prosecuting authority which does not accept instructions from outside agencies.

  Paveway III Bomb Fuse
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research is being conducted by his Department on collateral damage to humans caused by the use of the Paveway III multi-function bomb fuse in laser-guided bombs deployed by the RAF.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department conducts research into a wide range of weapon technologies and effects, many of which are relevant to precision-guided systems, with the aim of improving performance in line with evolving

  Property and location

  Disposal position

  28A Colliergate—ex. Sandhill Hotel—York, Yorkshire

  With defence land agent for disposal

  29 Pembridge Gardens, London W11

  Group value grade II

  33 Upton Scudmore, Wiltshire

  Being offered to tenant for purchase

  ACIO Edinburgh, 73 Hanover Street, Edinburgh

  Will be sold during 1995

  904
  military requirements for increased reliability and accuracy and reduced collateral damage. The RAF is currently equipped not with Paveway III but with the Paveway II guidance kit which provides a precision bombing capability and can be used in conjunction with the multi-function bomb fuse, and the UK 1,000 lb bomb.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much plutonium British Nuclear Fuels plc has stockpiled at Sellafield on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Aitken
  The United Kingdom does not hold significant stocks of weapons-grade plutonium which is not required for our operational stockpile of weapons.

  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions it has been necesssary for him to appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment against a local authority's refusal of planning permission for the destruction of listed buildings or properties regarded as having heritage importance; and whether he consults the Department of National Heritage before deciding how to dispose of Ministry of Defence property of heritage significance.

  Mr. Hanley
  To date, there have been no occasions when it has been necessary for my Department to appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment against a local authority's refusal to grant permission to demolish an historic building. Kennet district council has refused a recent application for consent to demolish Gore Cross farmhouse, grade II listed building. We are awaiting the outcomee of an appeal which was submitted and subsequently heard by means of an informal planning inquiry during December 1993. Currently the Department does not consult the Department of National Heritage as a matter of routine when considering proposed disposals of historic buildings, although this is currently under review by my officials.

  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the buildings, docklands, barracks, sites or premises that have a significant heritage value and that have become or are likely shortly to become redundant to the requirements of his Department; what action he is taking to dispose of each of these properties; from whom and at what stage he obtains advice with regard to the preservation of properties of heritage importance; and what factors dictate whether heritage aspects should be subordinated to financial considerations.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is as follows. The listed and scheduled properties have been identified as redundant by the Department and the current position over their disposal is shown:
  905

  Property and location

  Disposal position

  Bawdsey Manor, Bawdsey, Suffolk

  With defence land agent for disposal

  DRA Christchurch

  With defence land agent for disposal

  East Camp, RAF Hendon, Hendon

  Officers' mess has been offered to Middlesex university. The entrance way, control tower and Grahame White hanger are currently up for sale

  Hilton Farm, Steading, Rosyth

  Sale expected to be completed during 1994–95

  Horseshoe Barracks, Shoeburyness, Essex

  Planning negotiations in progress with Southend council. Site cannot be sold until accommodation has been provided for the Sergeants' mess and an archaeological survey undertaken

  Peninsula Barracks, Winchester, Hampshire

  Joint MOD/Crown estate disposal

  RAF Greenham Common, Newbury, Berkshire

  Greenham lodge sold subject to contract Mews cottage sold subject to contract West lodge to be remarketed as original offers too low

  Royal Arsenal Woolwich, Woolwich, London

  With defence land agent for disposal

  Royal Marine Barracks, Eastney, Hampshire

  Eastney fort and north wing of museum to be sold to Hampshire county council. Remainder of museum to be sold to the trustees of the museum. Both sales to be completed mid-1994

  Royal Naval Armaments Depot, Priddy's Hard, Gosport, Hampshire

  Heritage area and Palmerston fortifications to be sold to Gosport borough council

  St. George Barracks (North), Gosport, Hampshire

  Disposal linked to future of Royal Clarence yard

  Waltham Abbey

  Steering committee preparing case for transfer of heritage holding to a trust

  Property and location

  Proposed action

  ACIO Tunbridge Wells, Tunbridge Wells, Kent Angelsey House, Aldershot, Hampshire

  To be sold on relocation of explosive ordnance unit.

  Carlton House, Stirling HMS Nelson—Gunwharf—Portsmouth, Hampshire

  Two listed buildings currently used by the Army will be declared surplus.

  RAF Hullavington

  Royal Naval Hospital, Stonehouse, Plymouth, Devon

  We are conducting a systematic review of all our historic buildings to determine which should be retained by the Ministry of Defence, in their current or alternative use, and which should be disposed of expeditiously to ensure their preservation by finding a suitable alternative use.

  Following the transfer of responsibility for the upkeep of its property, including historic buildings, from the Property Services Agency in 1990, the Department has been putting in place new arrangements. An official has also been nominated to be the focal point for policy on hisoric buildings and is in active consultation with the Department of the Environment conservation unit, Department of National Heritage and the national heritage bodies over the preservation of properties of heritage importance. Defence Works Services has appointed a conservation architect who is available to advise all of our property managers, who also call upon specialist conservation consultants to produce quadrennial reports on each listed and scheduled historic building.
  906
  These properties have been identified for disposal but not action has yet been taken:

  When disposing of historic buildings the Department aims to achieve sympathetic and suitable alternative uses which assure their preservation whilst retaining a duty to secure the best price that can reasonably be obtained.

  Staff Requirement (Air) 1242
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the progress of staff requirement (air) 1242;

  (2) when he expects to announce the result of the contest for the low-level laser-guided bomb under staff requirement (air) 1242.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 17 January 1994,Official Report, column 441. I hope to be able to announce the results of the competition by April 1994.
  907

  Touche Ross
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to if his Department or any agencies for which he is responsible has engaged the services of the firm Touche Ross or any of its partners since 1 July 1993.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department, including its agencies, has placed six contracts with Touche Ross since 1 July 1993. These exclude local purchase orders, of small value, information on which is not held centrally.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the levels of arms sales to(a) Malaysia, (b) Indonesia, (c) Jordan, (d) Oman, (e) Thailand, (f) Nigeria and (g) India for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Aitken
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to reveal details of arms sales to individual countries. However, "Defence Statistics 1993" gives information on the value of sales by region in table 1.11. A copy of this has been placed in the Library of the House.

SCOTLAND

  NHS (Staff Cars)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year since 1990 the expenditure on staff cars for each(a) health board and (b) NHS Trust in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Leisure Facilities
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement listing in descending order the net changes in the leisure and recreation and sports facilities and swimming pools grant-aided expenditure assessment for 1994–95 for each Scottish local authority; and if he will similarly list the amounts awarded to each Scottish local authority for this element of grant-aided expenditure in 1993–94 and in 1992–93.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is set out in the table. The treatment of this GAE assessment has been changed for 1994–95 following a decision by the joint Scottish Office—COSLA distribution committee of the working party on local government finance to discontinue the secondary indicator for the assessment. This indicator —the number of unemployment benefit recipients per 1,000 population—was no longer considered to be plausible.

  Leisure and Recreation: Sports Facilities and Swimming Pools Table 1: Changes in GAE (Ranked)

  Net change in GAE 1993–94 to 1994–95 (Ranked) £000

  Aberdeen

  819

  Gordon

  410

  Perth and K

  349

  908

  Net change in GAE 1993–94 to 1994–95 (Ranked) £000

  Banff

  306

  Edinburgh

  298

  Kincardine

  284

  NE Fife

  236

  Moray

  234

  Eastwood

  194

  Angus

  177

  Bearsden

  175

  Stirling

  126

  Strathkelvin

  124

  Inverness

  117

  East Lothian

  115

  Shetland

  107

  Dunfermline

  106

  Ettrick

  104

  Roxburgh

  73

  Midlothian

  71

  Orkney

  69

  Kyle and C

  66

  Annandale

  62

  Nithsdale

  57

  Stewartry

  56

  Berwick

  56

  East Kilbride

  54

  Badenoch

  51

  Ross and C

  45

  Argyll and Bute

  44

  Clydesdale

  41

  Nairn

  26

  Tweeddale

  25

  Lochaber

  25

  West Lothian

  18

  Cumbernauld

  15

  Skye and L

  3

  Caithness

  -5

  Sutherland

  -6

  Clackmannan

  -12

  Falkirk

  -16

  Dumbarton

  -26

  Western Iisles

  -30

  Wigtown

  -34

  Hamilton

  -79

  Renfrew

  -96

  Clydebank

  -104

  Kilmarnock

  -115

  Cumnock

  -142

  Kirkcaldy

  -160

  Monklands

  -173

  Cunninghame

  -185

  Motherwell

  -213

  Inverclyde

  -243

  Dundee

  -261

  Glasgow

  -3,008

  Scotland

  232

  Table 2: GAE 1992–93–1994–95

  Grant aided expenditure 1992–93 £000

  Grant aided expenditure 1993–94 £000

  Grant aided expenditure 1994–95 £000

  Berwick

  216

  222

  278

  Ettrick

  382

  424

  528

  Roxburgh

  383

  436

  509

  Tweedale

  181

  191

  216

  Clackmannan

  745

  772

  759

  Falkirk

  2,156

  2,236

  2,221

  Stirling

  1,184

  1,211

  1,338

  Annandale

  431

  489

  551

  Nithsdale

  751

  824

  881

  Stewartry

  299

  301

  357

  909

  Grant aided expenditure 1992–93 £000

  Cram aided expenditure 1993–94 £000

  Grant aided expenditure 1994–95 £000

  Wigtown

  488

  489

  455

  Dunfermline

  1,884

  2,011

  2,117

  Kirkcaldy

  2,260

  2,440

  2,280

  Nefife

  831

  888

  1,124

  Aberdeen

  2,562

  2,869

  3,688

  Banff

  1,036

  1,052

  1,358

  Gordon

  772

  839

  1,250

  Kincardine

  550

  597

  881

  Moray

  1,074

  1,124

  1,358

  Badcnoch

  161

  168

  218

  Caithness

  404

  421

  416

  Inverness

  895

  973

  1,090

  Lochaber

  334

  354

  379

  Nairn

  132

  134

  160

  Ross and C

  766

  760

  804

  Skye and L

  200

  199

  203

  Sutherland

  212

  205

  199

  East Lothian

  1,171

  1,158

  1,273

  Edinburgh

  6,412

  7,168

  7,466

  Midlothian

  1,165

  1,171

  1,243

  West Lothian

  2,335

  2,402

  2,420

  Argyll and Bute

  988

  999

  1,044

  Bearsden

  458

  469

  643

  Clydebank

  828

  816

  711

  Clydesdale

  814

  849

  890

  Cumbernauld

  1,009

  1,060

  1,075

  Cumnock

  760

  802

  660

  Cunninghame

  2,261

  2,373

  2,188

  Dumbarton

  1,252

  1,320

  1,294

  East Kilbride

  1,178

  1,311

  1,365

  Eastwood

  706

  700

  893

  Glasgow

  14,001

  14,402

  11,394

  Hamilton

  1,701

  1,794

  1,715

  Inverclyde

  1,660

  1,638

  1,395

  Kilmarnock

  1,242

  1,370

  1,255

  Kyle and C

  1,591

  1,658

  1,724

  Monklands

  1,793

  1,856

  1,683

  Motherwell

  2,403

  2,528

  2,314

  Renfrew

  3,104

  3,253

  3,157

  Strathkelvin

  1,215

  1,231

  1,355

  Angus

  1,235

  1,273

  1,450

  Dundee

  2,768

  2,954

  2,693

  Perth and K

  1,557

  1,579

  1,928

  Orkney

  224

  233

  302

  Shetland

  258

  265

  372

  Western Isles

  464

  483

  453

  Scotland

  77,844

  81,742

  81,974

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland where the membership of the distribution committee of the working party on local government finance is drawn from; and if he will indicate specifically what representation Scottish local authorities have on this committee.

  Mr. Stewart
  Membership of the committee comprises Scottish Office officials, members of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities' secretariat and representatives of a number of local authorities. Each regional authority provides one member. There are six members from district authorities and one representing the islands authorities. Additionally there are four technical advisers to the committee who are also local authority officials. The local authority representatives are nominated by COSLA.
  910

  Community Charge
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines his Department has issued to Scottish local authorities in respect of pursuing unpaid community charge where the costs of pursuing the debt exceed the amount owed; what representations he has received from local authorities on this matter; and what plans he has to amend the current guidance to allow local authorities to write off community charge in situations where the costs involved in pursuing amounts owed exceed the amount being owed.

  Mr. Stewart
  My Department has not issued any guidance to local authorities on this matter which is for each authority to consider in consultation with its auditor. My right hon. Friend last received representations from local authorities on this issue in 1991.

  Health Boards
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list any voting members of health boards who are also employed by those boards as managers or administrators showing the salaries paid in each case.

  Mr. Stewart
  Executive members of health boards are those who are employees of the board. They are all voting members. The present executive members are listed. Salaries are determined by the boards and details are not held centrally.

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board

  Mr. I. C. Smith

  Dr. A. A. Reid

  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board

  Mr. J. M. Eckford, OBE

  Mr. N. R. Lammie

  Mrs. M. Durie

  Dr. D. Walker

  Borders Health Board

  Mr. D. A. Peters, OBE

  Dr. I. A. McDonald

  Mr. J. S. Wilson

  Mrs. A. Weston

  Dumfries and Galloway Health Board

  Mr. D. J. Banks

  Mr. D. McEachran

  Mr. P. J. Kelly

  Mr. A. P. Milligan

  Dr. I. H. MacLean

  Fife Health Board

  Miss P. Frost

  Mr. M. D. Murray

  Mrs. J. Edey

  Dr. I. G. Jones

  Forth Valley Health Board

  Mr. D. F. Hird

  Dr. D. C. Moir

  Grampian Health Board

  Mr. F. E. L. Hartnett, OBE

  Mr. A. J. Cumming

  Dr. H. R. M. Wilson

  Dr. J. G. Paterson

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  Mr. C. M. Gordon

  Mr. T. A. Divers

  Dr. H. J. G. Burns

  911
  Highland Health Board

  Mr. R. R. W. Stewart

  Dr. G. V. Stone

  Mr. M. S. Iredale

  Mr. D. T. Wright

  Lanarkshire Health Board

  Professor F. Clarke, CBE

  Dr. J. B. P. Ferguson

  Mr. M. Docherty

  Mr. B. Gill

  Miss E. Hastings, OBE

  Lothian Health Board

  Mr. J. Lusby

  Dr. H. Zealley

  Mr. P. Wilson

  Dr. L. Burley

  Mr. P. White

  Orkney Health Board

  Mr. G. W. Jackson

  Mr. R. L. Allan

  Shetland Health Board

  Mr. B. J. Atherton

  Dr. F. C. Cox

  Mr. D. P. P. Eva

  Mrs. M. S. Henderson, OBE

  Tayside Health Board

  Miss L. Barrie

  Mr. J. R. Hudson

  Miss E. A. Edwards

  Western Isles Health Board

  Mr. R. Mullan

  Mr. G. N. Stobbs

  Lothian Health Board
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on expenditure by Lothian Health on(a) the refurbishment of its headquarters building and (b) the appointment of waiting list managers, contracts managers and any other administrative staff in connection with recent reorganisations.

  Mr. Stewart
  The refurbishment of Lothian health board's headquarters building will cost approximately £950,000, the bulk of which is expected to fall in the current financial year.

  The appointment of staff is a matter for the board and the trust in Lothian.

  Apprentices
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many 16 to 18-year-olds were undergoing apprenticeship training in Scotland in the 12-month period ended(a) December 1990, (b) December 1991, (c) December 1992 and (d) December 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not available in the form requested. However, information from the labour force survey shows the numbers of 16 to 18-year-olds involved in apprenticeships in Scotland in the spring of each year from 1990 to 1993 as set out in the table:

  Numbers of 16 to 18-year-olds involved in apprenticeships

  Period

  Number

  Spring

  1990

  23,824

  1991

  26,825

  912

  Period

  Number

  1992

  25,996

  1993

  19,495

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many elderly persons were living long term in private nursing homes in Scotland in the 12-month period ended(a) December 1992 and (b) December 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information is not available centrally on persons in private nursing homes. The number of beds in private nursing homes in Scotland, as at 31 March 1993, was 16,477. It is estimated that over 85 per cent. of nursing home residents are persons over the age of 65.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the trend in the numbers of persons in Scotland availing themselves of youth training including credits and training for work schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Youth training is demand-led. There is a downward trend in the number of young people in training due in part to the effect of demography. In addition more young people leaving school are moving into further or higher education, which has the effect of further reducing the potential client group. This can be seen when comparing those who entered youth training for the first time between April and September in 1992 and 1993 respectively. In 1992 over 15,000 joined youth training for the first time while in the same period in 1993 only around 12,500 did so.

  The number of persons in training under training for work has also decreased since the programme started in April 1993. The introduction of the programme took place at the same time as the launch of an increased range of opportunities available to unemployed people through the Employment Service.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will release additional funds to Scottish local authorities to enable them to increase their sheltered housing facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Substantial resources totalling some £405 million have been made available to local authorities for capital investment in public sector housing in 1993–94. For 1994–95 additional resources will be made available to enable local authorities to contribute to the care in the community policy including the provision of sheltered housing. I will announce these allocations shortly.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children received pre-five education in state schools in Scotland in the academic years 1991–92 and 1992–93; and if he will make a statement.
  913
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of children attending education authority nursery schools and Departments in Scotland in 1991–92 was 45,238 and in 1992–93, 46,992. This confirms that the year on year rise in children receiving nursery education since 1979 is continuing.

  Elderly People (Day Care)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will release additional funding to Scottish health boards to enable them to increase the numbers of day care places they provide for the elderly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Health boards receive generous financial resources to allow them to purchase all health services for which they are responsible. It is for health boards themselves to set priorities for spend in accordance with the needs of their area. Other agencies, principally social work departments, have a part to play in the provision of day care.

  Health boards and social work departments are aware that day care is one of the priorities set out in the White Paper, "Caring for People".

  Nurse to Patient Ratio
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average nurse to patient ratio in Scottish NHS hospitals in the 12-month periods ended(a) December 1992 and (b) December 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The ratio of qualified nurses working in hospitals to 1,000 weighted patients was 10·9 in 1992 and 10·7 in 1993. The change reflects improvements in the deployment of staff, improvements in the management of patient care in hospitals and increases in day case surgery.

  Heart Surgery
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons aged 65 years and over received major heart surgery in Scottish hospitals in the 12-month period ended December 1990 and in the 12-month period ended December 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The number of cardiac procedures performed in Scottish hospitals on people aged 65 and over in 1990 and in 1993 is set out in the table.

  Number of cardiac procedures in Scottish hospitals by age (65 and over) and procedure 1990 and 1993

  Year procedure

  Total

  1990

  Valve Surgery Procedures

  216

  Coronary Bypass Procedures

  446

  Other Ischaemic Heart Disease Procedures

  18

  Other Cardiac Procedures

  12

  Total Procedures

  692

  19931

  Valve Surgery Procedures

  210

  Coronary Bypass Procedures

  615

  Other Ischaemic Heart Disease Procedures

  5

  Other Cardiac Procedures

  18

  Total Procedures

  848

  914
  11993 Totals are provisional.

  The figures show an increase of 22·5 per cent. in the total number of procedures performed in this age group.

  Nurse to Carer Ratio
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the ratio of trained nurses to carers working within Scottish NHS hospitals in the 12 months ended December 1992 and in the 12 months ended December 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The number of carers working in the NHS in Scotland cannot be identified centrally. The ratio of qualified nurses, including midwives but excluding teachers and senior nurse managers, to unqualified nurses was 1·78:1 on 30 September 1992 and 1·76:1 on 30 September 1993, the most recent dates for which information is available.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what additional support facilities have been given to the elderly in Scotland who are cared for under Her Majesty's Government's community care provisions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Older people form one of a number of client groups to benefit from our community care arrangements. These include involving users and carers in planning services, individual assessment of needs, greater choice of services and, where appropriate, the appointment of a care manager to ensure that appropriate packages of care are developed to meet the individual's assessed needs.

  To date we have made available to local authorities over £80 million to implement our reforms. This will enable local authorities to provide and develop a wide range of services for elderly people including residential care, day and domiciliary services, aids and adaptations to houses. It is, however, for individual local authorities to decide for themselves the particular services which they provide in response to their assessment of local needs.

  I believe that elderly people will be among the principal beneficiaries of our reforms.

  Geriatric Patients
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase funding to Scottish health boards for the dedicated purpose of providing physiotherapy treatment to long-stay geriatric patients in NHS hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  It is for health boards themselves to organise physiotherapy services in accordance with the assessed needs of their area.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that all Scottish health boards guarantee to retain a minimum number of long-stay geriatric beds within hospitals which currently have a geriatric facility; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The distribution of NHS facilities is a matter for health boards to decide in the light of their assessment of needs.

  The national health service will continue to provide long-stay care for patients who need continuing consultant

  915
  led medical and nursing care. People whose needs are primarily for social care and whose health needs can be met by the primary care services will be the responsibility of the local authority and resources will transfer to them from the national health service. Health boards and social work authorities are developing joint strategies which fully reflect this policy.

  Health Centres
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will release to Scottish health boards additional funding to be used for redecorating local health centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Capital and revenue allocations for 1994–95 to Scottish trusts and health boards were announced in December 1993. For small-scale expenditure, priorities are determined locally.

  School Boards
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools within each Scottish education authority area currently have school boards; and what were the figures for 1993.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the current number of school boards is not available. The most recent information relates to May 1992, based on the 1991–92 round of biennial parental elections. The figures for 1992 are taken from statistical returns made to the Scottish Office Education Department by education authorities:

  Education Authority

  Number of Primary School Boards

  Number of Secondary School Boards

  Borders

  52

  9

  Central

  90

  16

  Dumfries and Galloway

  81

  16

  Fife

  95

  17

  Grampian

  182

  31

  Highland

  138

  25

  Lothian

  163

  47

  Strathclyde

  770

  169

  Tayside

  120

  31

  Orkney

  15

  6

  Shetland

  21

  9

  Western Isles

  24

  13

  Strathclyde Divisions

  Argyll and Bute

  63

  9

  Ayr

  133

  30

  Dumbarton

  104

  23

  Glasgow

  186

  42

  Lanark

  183

  36

  Renfrew

  101

  29

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which private schools in Ayrshire have pupils under the assisted places scheme; how many pupils are supported at each institution; and what is the cost to the Scottish Office of this support.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information for school year 1992–93 is as follows:916

  School

  Number of assisted pupils

  Total cost £

  Drumley House

  3

  10,790

  Wellington School

  55

  183,265

  Departmental Information Points
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement outlining progress in establishing the Scottish Office's information points; and what costs have been incurred so far.

  Mr. Lang
  Twenty information points have been established in existing Department offices throughout Scotland. Two have been set up in citizens advice bureaux offices in Airdrie and Kirkaldy, and four more information points will be opened shortly. Estimated set up operational costs amount to some £26,000. This sum was included in the figure of £175,000 quoted in my reply of 24 January,Official Report, columns 71–2.

  NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many secretarial staff employed by agencies are presently doing work at those hospitals which have been granted trust status but where the changeover has not yet come into effect.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not held centrally.

  NHS (Staff Cars)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that when official cars are provided for senior executives in the NHS the recipients will be required to pay for their private motoring.

  Mr. Stewart
  NHS senior executives on NHS Whitley Council conditions of service are required to pay for the private use of officially supplied cars in accordance with these conditions of service. For those on NHS trust conditions of service, arrangements for the use of cars will be determined by the trust remuneration committee.

  SSSIs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times he has granted nature conservation orders for the protection of sites of special scientific interest under section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; how many are still in operation; how many he has refused in Scotland since 1982; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend has made 14 nature conservation orders under section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and 11 are still in force. On no occasion has he refused a request from the Nature Conservancy Council, the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland or Scottish Natural Heritage to make such an order.

  Tourist Boards
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what study he has made of the costs of tourist boards between local authorities in the last two decades; and what is his future estimate of the cost of tourist boards.
  917
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The network of area tourist boards was extended throughout Scotland from 1983 onwards. Their funding position has been as follows:

  Non-Commercial Income

  Year

  STB/HIE Gram

  LA Grant

  Commercial Income

  Total

  £

  per cent

  £

  per cent

  £

  per cent

  £

  1983–84

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1n/a

  1984–85

  1,218,247

  27

  1,974,932

  44

  1,280,958

  29

  4,474,137

  1985–86

  1,328,925

  26

  2,168,955

  42

  1,642,070

  32

  5,139,950

  1986–87

  1,423,850

  25

  2,361,628

  41

  1,947,374

  34

  5,732,852

  1987–88

  1,470,972

  22

  2,682,548

  40

  2,609,998

  39

  6,763,518

  1988–89

  1,513,739

  19

  3,182,322

  40

  3,216,361

  41

  7,912,422

  1989–90

  1,957,940

  21

  3,942,270

  42

  3,532,980

  37

  9,433,190

  1990–91

  2,227,720

  17

  5,706,580

  43

  5,365,490

  40

  13,299,790

  1991–92

  2,185,090

  14

  6,901,290

  45

  6,290,160

  41

  15,376,540

  1992–93

  2,443,000

  14

  7,329,000

  44

  7,063,000

  42

  16,835,000

  1993–94

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Figures not compiled for first year of operation.

  I expect funding arrangements to continue to follow roughly the same pattern.

  Enterprise Companies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the public relations companies employed by each of Scotland's local enterprise companies; and what is the annual cost of these services to each of the companies.

  Mr. Stewart
  Services contracted for by the local enterprise companies are an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I will ask the chairmen of those bodies to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which agency is employed by Scottish Enterprise to handle its public relations; and what is the annual cost of these services to Scottish Enterprise.

  Mr. Stewart
  This is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise. I will ask its chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the set-up costs of each of Scotland's enterprise companies.

  Mr. Stewart
  On I April 1991 Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise took over the resources, including staff and buildings, formerly administered by the Scottish development agency, the Highlands and Islands development board and the Training Agency in Scotland. Set-up costs were subsumed within the overall running costs of the new networks and cannot be identified separately. No additional provision was made available to take account of the set-up costs of the new bodies.

  Telephone Information Line
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, columns 71–72, what assessment has been made of the inquiries received by the Scottish Office's information line; what was the nature of the inquiries raised; what were the main subjects raised; and what percentage of calls related to these main subject areas.

  Mr. Lang
  Calls received on the Scottish Office enquiry line form a small proportion of the 8,000 or so calls
  918
  per week dealt with by the Scottish Office central enquiry unit Calls relate to a wide variety of the subjects for which the Scottish Office is responsible. No central record is kept of the details of individual calls received since the central enquiry unit's task is to put the caller in touch as quickly as possible with the person in the Department who can best deal with the subject of the enquiry.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 71, how many calls have been received by the Scottish Office's information line in each month since its establishment.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of calls to the Scottish Office enquiry line each month since its introduction has been:

  Number

  October 1993

  797

  November 1993

  740

  December 1993

  452

  1January 1994

  155

  11st to 21st.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide figures for the amount his Department has been reimbursed by the Department of Social Security in respect of statutory sick pay provision for each of the past three years.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the table, which covers the Scottish Office—excluding the Scottish Prison Service—and the associated departments:

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  328,374

  256,418

  291,390

  Diabetics
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is(a) the total budget for diabetic care, (b) the budget for education work among diabetics and (c) the expenditure for each health board in these categories.
  919
  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Universities (Academic Staff)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a profile of academic staff at Scottish universities in terms of age and department.

  Full-time non-clinical academic wholly university funded staff in the eight traditional Scottish universities, 1992–93

  Cost centre

  Age under 25

  25–29

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  50–54

  55–59

  60 and over

  Total

  Education

  —

  2

  7

  13

  21

  25

  17

  19

  3

  107

  Medicine, dentistry and health

  4

  28

  28

  59

  62

  70

  45

  40

  8

  344

  Engineering and Technology

  3

  22

  64

  58

  81

  94

  95

  48

  27

  492

  Agriculture, forestry and veterinary science

  4

  25

  24

  26

  27

  35

  20

  13

  11

  185

  Biological, mathematical and physical sciences

  3

  48

  101

  138

  180

  272

  258

  168

  67

  1,235

  Administrative, business and social studies

  12

  71

  109

  147

  165

  221

  149

  66

  32

  972

  Achitecture and planning

  —

  5

  6

  7

  5

  10

  13

  9

  3

  58

  Language, literature and area studies

  6

  34

  42

  35

  45

  102

  116

  30

  27

  437

  Other Arts

  1

  11

  29

  36

  56

  78

  78

  54

  26

  369

  Other

  —

  —

  4

  —

  2

  3

  3

  2

  —

  14

  Total

  33

  246

  414

  519

  644

  910

  794

  449

  204

  4,213

  Full-time academic staff in the four new Scottish universities, 1992–93

  Age

  Under 30

  30–34

  35–39

  40–44

  45–49

  50–54

  55–59

  60 and over

  Total

  98

  177

  252

  295

  334

  231

  145

  61

  1,593

  Local Authority Boundary Changes
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish representations received regarding local authority boundary changes for Dumbarton district.

  Mr. Stewart
  It is not normal practice to publish correspondence received by Government Departments unless the correspondent has agreed to this. Since publication of the White Paper, "Shaping the Future—The New Councils", a number of representations have been received in relation to the Government's proposals as they effect Dumbarton district. Most of these have been in support of the proposed inclusion of Helensburgh and Cardross withn Argyll and Bute. Some letters have also requested that the Luss and Arden area be included within Argyll and Bute.

  Paintings and Photographs
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to buy or borrow photographs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  None.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) paintings and (b) photographs there are on the walls of his rooms.

  Mr. Lang
  There are six paintings on the walls of my room in Dover house, London, none in my room in St Andrew's house, Edinburgh, and one in my room at the House of Commons. I have no photographs on the walls.
  920
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Figures for full-time non-clinical academic staff whose salaries are wholly met from general university funds are given for the eight traditional universities in the following table. Figures for the four new universities are given for full-time academic staff by age only as a departmental breakdown is not available.

  Ambulances (Response Times)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures for response times by ambulances to 999 calls for each of the health authorities or trust areas within Scotland; and what is the average for Scotland as a whole.

  Mr. Stewart
  The response times for the latest period available are as follows:

  Responses (1 April 1993 to 30 November 1993)

  Health Board Area

  0–8 minutes per cent.

  14–21 minutes per cent.

  Argyll and Clyde

  55

  95

  Ayr and Arran

  45

  92

  Borders

  58

  94

  Dumfries and Galloway

  62

  89

  Fife

  61

  97

  Forth Valley

  56

  96

  Grampian

  63

  90

  Greater Glasgow

  47

  86

  Highland

  61

  96

  Lanarkshire

  46

  95

  Lothian

  62

  96

  Tayside

  66

  95

  Orkney

  49

  82

  Shetland

  44

  72

  Western Isles

  59

  84

  Scotland Average

  56

  91

  Target

  (50)

  (95)

  921

  Queensferry (Second Road Bridge)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the results of the feasibility study ready into a second road bridge at Queensferry; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: Feasibility studies into aspects of the proposals for a second Forth road bridge at Queensferry and associated road links are nearing completion. The findings will be made available to interested parties, subsequently we will consider whether or not to proceed with the proposals in due course.

  European Affairs (Responsibility)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many engagements he has carried out in his role as Minister responsible for European affairs; and what engagements he has planned for the next six months;

  (2) what additional resources were made available in terms of staff and finance to his Department upon a Minister being appointed to be responsible for European affairs; how often this Minister has travelled abroad to discharge his responsibilities; which countries have been visited; and for what purpose.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: In view of the importance of the European Union and of European Community policies to Scotland and to Scottish interests, in May of last year I invited my noble Friend the Minister of State to take responsibility for general European issues within the Scottish Office. In addition, all Ministers in the Scottish Office continue to look after European affairs within their own areas of responsibility, and I myself continue to be actively involved in European issues.

  In the course of their responsibilities all Scottish Office Ministers have undertaken engagements with European dimensions and will continue to do so as the opportunity arises. For example, in November last year I addressed the annual general meeting of the Scottish Council of the European Movement and in December opened the Europartenariat in Glasgow and my noble Friend the Minister of State attended a meeting in December held by the Local Government International Bureau for the United Kingdom members of the Committee of the Regions.

  In addition to domestic engagements, Ministers have also visited other member states to further Scottish interests in the European context. Last year, I visited Brussels in January and September to attend meetings of the joint Environment and Transport Council, of the joint Foreign Affairs and Agriculture Council and of the Agriculture Council and to undertake other engagements relating to Scotland's interests in Europe including meetings with Commissioners Milian and Brittan and with the Scottish European Association and Scotland Europa.

  In November last year my noble Friend the Minister of State visited Brussels to attend a meeting of Justice and Interior Ministers, to meet Scottish MEPs and to undertake other engagements relating to his responsibilities for general European issues; and in December he visited Strasbourg to participate in Scottish Week at the European Parliament. My hon. Friend the Minister for Fisheries in Scotland visited Brussels or Luxembourg on four occasions in 1993 to attend meetings of the Fisheries Council; in addition he visited Cologne to promote
  922
  Scottish exports at the ANUGA food fair and in January this year visited Brussels for a meeting with Commissioner Paleokrassas.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism in Scotland visited Bavaria in February last year to promote Scotland as a tourist destination. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry in Scotland visited Lille in June last year to support the Scottish presence at the Europartenariat event and Munich in December to participate in discussions about employment issues.

  In response to the growing importance of the European dimension, the Scottish Office undertook a thorough review in 1991 of the way in which it conducts its European business. This resulted in the establishment of a European central support unit within the Scottish Office, currently staffed by one official at grade 7 level, one at higher executive officer level and one at executive officer level with clerical support. The unit is responsible for advising Ministers on general European issues of concern to Scotland.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland from which legally qualified persons he has had requests to see the evidence which he alleges he has in respect of two Libyans alleged to be involved in the crash of Pan Am 103.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 January 1994]: My noble and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate, has received requests from one Justice Zawi of the Libyan Supreme Court and from the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar QC and Mr Alistair Duff, solicitor, acting on behalf of the two Libyan accused. My noble and learned Friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, the then Lord Advocate, made a full statement of facts available to the Libyan authorities when the arrest warrants were issued in November 1991. That statement contained more detail than would be required for extradition in most European countries.

  The Lord Advocate has received a number of private requests from lawyers representing different interests, in the main civil, for information concerning the case and he has, in accordance with normal practice, declined to make evidence relating to the case against the two Libyans available to third parties.

  Old People's Homes
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of old people's homes, and the number of nursing homes in the Blairgowrie cottage hospital and Meigle cottage hospital catchment areas.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 31 January 1994]: The information is not available in the form requested. However, the number of old people's homes and nursing homes in Tayside at 31 March 1993 is as follows:

  Residential Care Homes

  Number

  Local Authority

  30

  Private

  60

  Voluntary

  59

  Nursing Homes

  37

  923

  NHS Computers
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how the NHS computer system pilot scheme at Crosshouse and Ayrshire Central hospitals is being funded; what assessment he has made of the impact on existing service provision at the hospitals; what plans there are to change the existing staff structures in hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 1 February 1994]: The funding of the outpatients administration system pilot scheme at Crosshouse and Ayrshire central hospitals is being provided jointly by the site and from central funds in accordance with normal practice. The new computer system will automate a number of outpatient administration functions which are presently done manually and introduce other functions not currently available with a view to making more efficient uses of hospital services and resources.

  I understand that there are no plans to change the existing staff structure of the outpatient services in these two hospitals.

  Labour Statistics
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new jobs have been created in the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow in each year since 1975.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: The information requested is not available.

  Strathclyde

  Number of murder victims

  Number of murders of police officers

  Number of officers in post

  Number of assaults on police officers1

  Male

  Female

  1975

  32

  0

  6,070

  386

  N/A

  1976

  38

  1

  6,007

  424

  N/A

  1977

  37

  0

  5,725

  422

  142

  1978

  27

  0

  5,947

  405

  549

  1979

  25

  0

  6,454

  405

  470

  1980

  35

  0

  6,509

  373

  211

  1981

  21

  0

  6,484

  361

  264

  1982

  34

  0

  6,491

  342

  278

  1983

  30

  1

  6,474

  342

  N/A

  1984

  31

  0

  6,449

  343

  170

  1985

  26

  0

  6,463

  353

  102

  1986

  34

  0

  6,390

  379

  104

  1987

  32

  0

  6,347

  426

  272

  1988

  23

  0

  6,305

  463

  544

  1989

  29

  0

  6,353

  534

  2,989

  1990

  20

  0

  6,249

  555

  2,854

  1991

  30

  0

  6,203

  587

  2,827

  1992

  53

  0

  6,172

  625

  2,786

  1Figures for 1977 to 1987 record number of officers assaulted.

  N/A—Not Available.

  Scotland

  Number of murder victims

  Number of murders of police officers

  Number of officers in post

  Number of assaults on police officers2

  Male

  Female

  1975

  43

  0

  11,656

  676

  N/A

  1976

  57

  1

  11,533

  740

  N/A

  1977

  60

  0

  11,105

  767

  811

  1978

  42

  0

  11,477

  748

  1,157

  1979

  40

  0

  12,280

  736

  1,122

  1980

  47

  0

  12,419

  771

  924

  1981

  42

  0

  12,379

  749

  876

  1982

  48

  0

  12,433

  719

  824

  1983

  54

  1

  12,435

  713

  N/A

  1984

  53

  0

  12,415

  722

  922

  924
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list job losses in each year since 1975 in the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow; and what was the level of youth unemployment in the same year.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: Information in the form requested is not available. No data are available for parliamentary constituencies on redundancies.

  With regard to youth unemployment, data by age are only available quarterly from October 1983. The information is available on the NOMIS database in the House of Commons Library. Library staff are ready to assist in accessing the information.

  Police Officers (Assaults)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of(a) murders, (b) murders of police officers, (c) assaults upon police officers, giving degrees of seriousness of injury and (d) policemen and policewomen in post in each year since 1975 in (i) Inverclyde, (ii) Strathclyde and (iii) Scotland as a whole.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: The information in respect of Strathclyde and Scotland is set out in the tables. Statistics for Inverclyde, and information on the degrees of seriousness of injury resulting from assaults on police officers, are not held centrally.
  925

  Number of murder victims

  Number of murders of police officers

  Number of officers in post

  Number of assaults on police officers2

  Male

  Female

  1985

  41

  0

  12,455

  761

  718

  1986

  48

  0

  12,504

  838

  745

  1987

  48

  0

  12,470

  933

  1,058

  1988

  135

  0

  12,434

  1,020

  1,397

  1989

  41

  0

  12,593

  1,157

  4,131

  1990

  36

  0

  12,520

  1,257

  4,306

  1991

  53

  0

  12,493

  1,353

  3,989

  1992

  79

  0

  12,576

  1,460

  4,422

  1Excludes Lockerbie air disaster.

  2Figures for 1977 to 1987 record number of officers assaulted.

  N/A—Not Available.

  Substance Abuse
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of people who died in each of the past seven years as a result of the abuse or the misuse of(a) tobacco, (b) alcohol, (c) heroin, (d) cocaine and (e) cannabis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: The available information is as follows. It is estimated that some 10,600 people in Scotland die each year from smoking-related illnesses, including lung cancer, coronary heart disease and stroke. In some 600 cases a year the cause of death, as recorded on the death certificate, is a disease identified as being alcohol-related; however alcohol plays a part in the deaths of many more people through its contribution, for example, to hypertension, violence and road accidents. In the year from 1 November 1991 it is estimated that between 80 and 120 habitual misusers of controlled drugs died as a direct result of drug misuse; many of these cases will have resulted from the misuse of several drugs and reliable estimates cannot be offered in relation to the role of particular drugs.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what recent representations he has received concerning funding for drug and alcohol addiction treatment centres; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what proposals he has concerning the funding of drug and alcohol addiction treatment centres; whether

  Change 1987–93

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Number

  Per cent.

  Bed complement, Number

  Scotland

  16,237

  15,910

  15,343

  14,689

  13,878

  13,199

  12,283

  -3,954

  -24.4

  Argyll and Clyde

  1,463

  1,462

  1,264

  1,264

  1,197

  1,196

  1,180

  -283

  -19·3

  Ayrshire and Arran

  878

  878

  861

  861

  756

  744

  740

  -138

  -15·7

  Borders

  288

  276

  270

  255

  255

  249

  248

  -40

  -13·9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  617

  617

  617

  617

  451

  457

  430

  -187

  -30·3

  Fife

  1,070

  1,050

  925

  925

  857

  754

  730

  -340

  -31·8

  Forth Valley

  857

  820

  850

  800

  750

  740

  714

  -143

  -16·7

  Grampian

  1,641

  1,573

  1,520

  1,499

  1,396

  1,345

  1,271

  -370

  -22·5

  Greater Glasgow

  3,536

  3,533

  3,495

  3,195

  2,914

  2,744

  2,488

  -1,048

  -29·6

  Highland

  655

  655

  579

  499

  489

  489

  444

  -211

  -32·2

  Lanarkshire

  1,468

  1,405

  1,405

  1,302

  1,346

  1,204

  954

  -514

  -35·0

  Lothian

  2,220

  2,184

  2,175

  2,131

  2,122

  1,993

  1,789

  -431

  -19·4

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17

  17

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  1,536

  1,449

  1,374

  1,333

  1,312

  1,259

  1,227

  -309

  -20·1

  Western Isles

  8

  8

  8

  8

  33

  25

  51

  43

  537·5

  Length of stay of patients resident percentage

  1 year or less

  35·6

  35·6

  36·3

  37·4

  38·1

  39·3

  138·4

  —

  —

  Over 1 year

  64·4

  64·4

  63·7

  62·6

  61·9

  60·7

  161·6

  1 As at 31 December 1992.

  926
  money obtained by way of European Community structural funds can be used for such purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: The drugs task force, led by my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State, has received reports from health boards, social work departments, drug liaison committees and other organisations about facilities for drug misusers. This subject will be considered by the task force at a future meeting.

  No recent representations have been received about the funding of alcohol addiction treatment centres.

  The principal aim of the European structural funds is to assist the economic development of areas experiencing particular structural and economic difficulties. Drug and alcohol addiction treatment centres would not therefore be eligible for support from this source.

  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) long-stay and (b) short-stay psychiatric beds have been closed in each year of the health board areas in each of the past seven years.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: The information requested is not available in the form requested. The bed complement for psychiatric beds in total and the percentage of patients using psychiatric beds on 31 March each year from 1987 to 1993 is as follows.
  927

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the persons appointed to the posts of members of the Inverclyde Royal Hospital Trust, with the dates of appointments, length of such appointments and remuneration.

  Date of appointment

  Appointed until

  Annual remuneration £

  Chairman

  Mr. James Kinloch

  6 December 1993

  30 November 1997

  17,145

  Non-executive Directors

  Mrs. Margaret Bruce

  23 December 1993

  31 March 1996

  5,000

  Mr. Norman Cunningham

  23 December 1993

  31 March 1996

  5,000

  Mr. Robert Henderson

  23 December 1993

  30 November 1997

  5,000

  Mr. Martin McGeehan

  23 December 1993

  31 March 1996

  5,000

  Mrs. Jane MacMillan

  23 December 1993

  30 November 1997

  5,000

  Cervical Smears
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the number of women who have had to undergo medical and/or surgery treatment as a result of the reported misreading of cervical smear test slides at the Inverclyde Royal hospital; what forms of treatment have been taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: The re-reading of the cervical smear slides at Inverclyde Royal hospital led to around 440 women requiring further investigation and/or treatment. It is not possible to say how many of these patients required treatment as a result of the original misreporting of the smear results.

  The forms of treatment include colposcopy without biopsy, colposcopically-directed selective biopsy, cold coagulation and conization of the cervix.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the procedures adopted by the Argyll and Clyde health board in response to the misreporting of the cervical smear tests at the Inverclyde Royal hospital, Greenock.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: Argyll and Clyde health board accepted the main thrust of the recommendations directed at them by the Inverclyde inquiry report and a task force was set up to advise the board on the action to be taken.

  The proposals by the task force are to be implemented through a comprehensive purchasing plan based on service specification for all components of the board's cervical screening programme including targets and quality control procedures. The purchasing plan is to be presented to the board for approval at its meeting in February and it will be for provider units to deliver the service required through contracts.

  The task force is also currently considering the implications of the rationalisation of the cervical cytopathology services. An extensive consultation exercise is currently underway involving relevant laboratory consultants, clinicians and outside experts. The task force is expected to complete this exercise and report with recommendations to the board by May.
  928
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: The information requested on the appointments made by my right hon. Friend to the board of the Inverclyde Royal and Rankin Memorial hospital NHS trust is set out in the table. Details of the executive members of the board, who are appointed by the non-executive directors, are not held centrally.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women underwent cervical smear tests in each of the health board areas for the latest available year; what these figures are as percentages of women of the appropriate age range; what is the proportion of those who develop carcinomas before being recalled; and what is the recall period for each region.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: Information is available only on the number of smears processed and not the number of women examined. Figures for 1992—the latest available—are as follows:

  Number of cervical smears examined

  Percentage of eligible population

  Scotland

  485,368

  84·6

  Argyll and Clyde

  41,769

  80·5

  Ayrshire and Arran

  33,925

  85·8

  Borders1

  —

  91·6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  12,921

  91·2

  Fife

  32,656

  88·0

  Forth Valley

  30,658

  85·6

  Grampian

  54,897

  90·2

  Greater Glasgow

  87,424

  80·1

  Highland

  24,290

  88·1

  Lanarkshire

  45,177

  79·7

  Lothian

  86,294

  85·4

  Orkney1

  —

  91·8

  Shetland1

  —

  91·6

  Tayside

  35,357

  87·3

  Western Isles1

  —

  78·8

  1 Smears of women in Borders, Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles health board areas are included in figures for Lothian, Grampian (Orkney and Shetland) and Highland health boards respectively.

  Information on the proportion of women who develop carcinomas before being recalled is not available.

  All health boards in Scotland are now operating a three-year call/recall system.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 759, whether the target time of 14 days for the processing and notifying the results of cervical smear tests includes the processing time for general practitioners, hospitals or clinics to report the results to their patients.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: Yes.
  929
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women living, or formerly living, in the catchment area of the Inverclyde Royal hospital have as yet not been traced in relation to the recall programme following the discovery of the misreporting of cervical smear test slides at the hospital's cytology laboratory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 February 1994]: As of 31 January 1994 there were 16 women with non-negative results on rescreening still to be traced. Of these 15 are believed to be in the United States, and one woman in Europe. The health board is continuing to pursue links to trace the remaining women. Approaches have been made to the United States internal revenue service to ascertain whether they can help in tracing the women.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of the report by the Monitor Group into the future of the electronics sector in Scotland by the Monitor Group; if the report will be made public; and what action Scottish Enterprise has taken following the report.
  930
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 26 January 1994]: The report was prepared by the monitor group as part of a wider task to develop, with the Scottish electronics forum, a strategy for the electronics sector in Scotland. The total cost of that work was £480,000.

  The text of the report has not yet been published since Scottish Enterprise does not consider the report on its own to be fully representative of all the associated work undertaken to develop the wider strategic approach. But I understand that its plans to pull this wider range of material together with the report itself, with a view to publication.

  It is for Scottish Enterprise to decide how the work it commissioned from the monitor group should be taken forward; and I understand it is considering, with the Scottish Electronics forum, how that might best be done. Scottish Enterprise is willing to provide further details about the current position, or to meet the hon. Member to discuss the matter further, if that would be helpful. I have therefore written to the chairman of Scottish Enterprise asking him to write direct to the hon. Member about this matter.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

The Independent Living Fund
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to revise the eligibility criteria for the Independent Living Fund (1993).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, the new independent living arrangements and the community care initiative of which they form part have been in operation for only 10 months. We have no plans to revise the criteria at the present time.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, is he aware that many severely disabled people are denied payment from the new Independent Living Fund because of local authority incompetence? No matter how severely disabled they are, even if they are paralysed, they receive no money from the new ILF if their local authority fails to provide a specified number of services. Is the Minister further aware that in no fewer than 57 of the 132 local authority areas not one severely disabled person receives one penny from the new ILF? In many cases that is due to the local authority's failure to provide its part of the package. Does the Minister agree that that is a shocking state of affairs, and that as a minimum we need a revision of the eligibility criteria?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the 1993 fund is not a straightforward continuation of the old ILF, but an entirely new venture which is based upon the provision of joint care packages in partnership with local authorities. Some local authorities have adapted to the new way of working more quickly than others, and that has affected their ability to work effectively with the fund. The fund has issued detailed guidance to local authorities. The director has met the Association of Directors of Social Services and agreed a joint way forward. Of course, 75 local authorities have applied successfully. There are only 13 local authorities from which there have been no applications. Decisions are still pending in the remaining 44 local authorities.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the Government's mind still open about direct payments by local authorities, which were available previously? It was a much simpler and effective system, and was advocated by some of us when the Bill was before the House in May last year. Is my noble friend aware that the trustees are now likely to recommend reintroducing that system?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Cash payments were one of the most popular aspects of
1370
the old fund. Of course cash payments have been retained by the fund. Payments from the 1993 fund continue to be paid to the disabled customer, not to the local authority. Local social services departments have recently taken on new responsibilities for providing flexible care packages for disabled people. We believe that we should wait to see how well that goes before rushing into another major change in the way in which they operate.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Minister look at the forms that severely disabled people or their carers have to fill in? Is he aware that they are complicated and a bureaucratic nightmare, and that it is not surprising that people get into a muddle?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am never surprised if people sometimes get into a muddle when they have to fill in complicated forms. The forms are available from. local social services departments, which also have information on the fund. The forms are a matter for the fund's trustees. I shall bring the forms to their attention and ask that they look closely at them.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Baroness, is the Minister aware that I have received the most heartbreaking representations from those whom the fund is supposed to help in regard to a specific kind of bureaucratic requirement contained in the forms? Is the Minister aware that I am referring to the requirement that the name, address and national insurance number of each carer must be supplied? Is the Minister cognisant of the fact that in the hard, real, sometimes cruel, but nevertheless courageous world in which these people live that requirement is a hardship? Many people resign as carers when they learn that they have to supply these particulars. That is especially difficult when wives do not always keep husbands informed of their part-time employment Will the Minister look into that matter because it is causing many heartbreaks?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we believe that it is reasonable for the trustees of a charity to ensure that, if a payment is made for the purpose of buying care, the appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure that that payment is spent on care and not on something else. Payments from the new fund are not a benefit entitlement but grants made by a charity. A public body which has a budget of about £120 million must take the minimum of reasonable steps to ensure that proper records are kept of how that money is spent. A review that the trustees have undertaken in order to collect carer's national insurance numbers has uncovered a number of examples of where ILF money has been used for purposes other than for the purchase of personal care, and where overpayment; have resulted.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, if in the future the Government consider reducing the £200 limit up to which local authorities must provide services, will the Minister say whether the Government would then allow disabled people direct access to the fund?
Viscount Astor: My Lords., the fund is not the only source of help for disabled people. It is an integral part

1371
of the Government's community care initiative, providing an additional option for a small and specific group of people with severe disabilities. Parameters have been established within which the fund is to operate; the £200 threshold of local authority services and the £500 limit on the total value of joint care packages are two of them. Of course we shall reconsider those limits in the future if it seems reasonable to do so.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, does my noble friend consider it right that, where the package from the local authority costs more than £500, the severely disabled person is then ineligible for help from the ILF and can obtain proper help only by being put into a registered home, which often costs considerably more than that? It is normally well in excess of £600.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is up to local authorities to try to make the appropriate arrangements. It is of course all part of community care. All the evidence suggests that the local authorities have made a good start in implementing the community care changes. The new arrangements offer users the opportunity to have services which are better matched to their needs and wishes. The reforms are an agenda for change over many years, but elderly and disabled people all around the country are already benefiting from the more flexible care packages.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that in 1991–92 the ILF made 7,300 new awards, and 10,600 awards in 1992–93, but in the 10 months of this financial year just 108? That is over 10,000 last year but barely over 100 so far this year. Thirteen per cent. of its budget has been spent at the moment and its total budget will be severely underspent by the end of this year. Does that not show that the ILF for 1993, as constructed, is failing to reach and help the severely disabled? Will the Minister respond to the anxieties expressed in the House today and to the views of the disability organisations and local authority social services directors that the scheme does not work, and in my view cannot work? It must be amended if we are to help the disabled.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the average time from application to payment is currently 16 weeks. The most common cause of delays in payment is difficulty in agreeing the costings for components of the care package with local authorities. It is wrong to view the fund in isolation. The extension fund continues to maintain awards to some 18,500 former clients of the old fund and will spend an estimated £120 million this year.
I should also say that the Government have made increased resources available. In addition, £64 million, rising to £99 million next year, will be transferred to local authorities in recognition of their primary role in providing opportunities for independent living for all disabled people. That is in addition to the core funding for community care that authorities have received. Moreover, £11 million has been allocated to the 1993 fund for 1994–95.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has given some very disappointing replies this afternoon? Will he investigate the allegations that have been made, because the figures that I gave derive from the ILF this morning?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we believe that community care and the ILF are working. As I have said, there have been delays and difficulties in the granting of applications. But the fund has been in existence for only 10 months. We should give it time to operate before we begin to speak of radical changes being made.

EC Budget:Scrutiny
3.12 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that the departmental briefing for each entry in the EC preliminary draft budget for 1995, as co-ordinated by the Treasury for presentation to the Budget Committee and COREPER by the United Kingdom's Permanent Representative, is at the same time presented for scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government's broad objectives in considering the preliminary draft budget are set out in the explanatory memorandum which is submitted to Parliament in the weeks leading up to the Budget Council's establishment of the Community's draft budget.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the purpose of the Question is to elicit the Government's response to the suggestion, repeatedly made, that both Houses of Parliament should have an opportunity to have an input into the budget discussion before the Government take up an attitude in the Council of Ministers? Is the noble Lord aware that in answer to a Written Question that I tabled over 18 months ago, the Government stated:
"The basis for the United Kingdom's consideration of the Commission's Preliminary Draft Budget is a careful consideration of each entry in it by the United Kingdom department with policy responsibility for that spending programme. Consideration is given to the amount proposed by the Commission, the cost-effectiveness of the programme and the importance which the United Kingdom attaches to the programme. The Treasury co-ordinates briefing for each entry, to enable the United Kingdom's permanent representation to argue the United Kingdom's position in the Budget Committee and in COREPER"?—[Official Report, 15/7/92; WA29.]
Is there any reason at all why the Government are afraid of either House of Parliament being in possession of the same facts that are in the possession of government departments when they consider the preliminary draft budget?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord will put his views across and we shall take note of them. Obviously —and I believe that even the noble Lord would accept this—in any negotiation, and particularly on detailed

1373
matters of an international nature, one does not disclose one's negotiating position in advance. It would be unreasonable to expect the United Kingdom's Permanent Representative to negotiate effectively if our detailed position were known in advance at the outset of those negotiations.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, invites Parliament to usurp the function of Ministers?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I should not like to accuse the noble Lord of that. I am trying to make it clear that we shall not disclose our negotiating position in advance; but as we have made clear to the noble Lord, we shall provide explanatory memoranda to Parliament at all the appropriate stages of the budget process. However, we shall not disclose our negotiating position in advance.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that nobody is asking the Government to disclose their negotiating position and that contrary to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, one of the functions of Parliament is to control and question the Executive? Is there any reason why Parliament should not be able to have available the same facts as the Government on the preliminary draft budget?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's position as regards the function of Parliament. However, I do not accept that means that we should disclose our negotiating position. Whatever the noble Lord says, that is exactly what he is asking us to do.
Lord Desai: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bruce has his views on the European budget; and whether or not we disagree with him, we all have our own views on it. We should like to know what is going on. Why will the Government not tell us?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Government make their position clear. They will not disclose their negotiating position in advance. If the noble Lord cannot accept the validity of that point, I do not know that I can say anything further. I suggest to the noble Lord that he next tries to play bridge with his cards face up on the table to see how he gets on.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, does not the Government's determination to maintain secrecy over these matters make everybody feel more disgruntled with Brussels than they otherwise would be? Are we to have no open government at all as regards what is going on behind the scenes before we present our case to Brussels?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord is a little disgruntled. Perhaps I can make him a little more "gruntled", as P.G. Wodehouse put it. As I believe the noble Lord is aware, in accordance with agreed practice, at all stages of negotiation of the EC budget the Government submit explanatory memoranda which set out their broad objectives. That allows Parliament to inform the Government of its views.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, in setting out the Government's broad objectives, as the noble Lord put it, what allowance is made in departmental Treasury briefings for the exercise of additionality?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I go back to what I have tried to make clear to the noble Lord's noble friends. It is a long-standing convention that the Government do not give details of discussions which precede the formulation of government policy. We stick by that.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I was not asking for detail. I was asking for the general principle which the noble Lord said in his earlier answer that he was happy to provide.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot take the matter any further.

Israeli-PLO Peace Initiative: Syrian View
3.17 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in securing the agreement of Syria to the Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, President Clinton and President Assad met on 16th January. We hope that that will give new impetus to the negotiations between Israel and Syria which resumed in Washington on 24th January. Syria made it clear on 10th January that it considers the Israeli-PLO declaration of principles a first step towards a just and comprehensive peace.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that the great peace process initiated by Israel and the PLO is now being stalled by Syria and Lebanon? Despite the 26–year occupation, the Golanese will not accept Israeli citizenship. Will she acknowledge also that the United Nations Secretary-General, Boutros Boutros Ghali, should try to bring more pressure to bear in order to reach a successful conclusion? He may wish to use the British Foreign Secretary as an example of how such matters should be tackled. He is inviting people to talk to him to try to find a solution. It is a pity that the United Nations Secretary General does not emulate the endeavours of the British Foreign Secretary.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is wrong in that view. I do not think that Syria and Lebanon are trying to stall the discussions. I know that Prime Minister Rabin of Israel said yesterday that it could take weeks. We believe that that is probably a more cautious view of the situation than was given by Foreign Minister Peres. However, it is quite clear that great efforts are being made towards achieving peace.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be easier to supply the security guarantees that Israel wants on the Golan Heights when

1375
Israel ends its occupation of Jericho and Gaza? Can she tell the House what pressures are being put on the Israeli Government to end its occupation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is all part of the overall discussions. Israel is well aware that it must under the terms of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 withdraw from the territories occupied in 1967. That, of course, includes the Golan Heights. That is why all those interlinking aspects of the problem are taking, as Prime Minister Rabin said, some weeks to resolve.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, while it is argued that the Golan Heights are needed to protect Tel Aviv, it could also threaten Damascus? Does she agree that all the members of the United Nations Security Council must enforce peace or the whole idea of the United Nations will crumble? That is most important. While the British Government and the British Foreign Secretary have shown an example, I believe that we are now entitled—
Noble Lords: Question !
Lord Molloy: Why do not noble Lords wait a little now and again? I know that patience is in very short supply on the Benches opposite.
However, if our Foreign Secretary could go to the United Nations to help to resolve the problem, I am quite sure that he would receive the hearing that he so well deserves.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are doing our best. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was with the Secretary General all day on Monday.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, can my noble friend the Leader of the House say whether it is in order to read and ask long supplementary questions?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, as I understand it, I believe that reading is probably not in order. However, I was not aware of any reading. I thought that the noble Lord was simply taking a little time to make his point.

Grant-Maintained Schools:Advertising
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much the current advertising campaign by the Department for Education for grant-maintained status for schools is costing the taxpayer.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the present series of advertisements, which will run for a period of five weeks and are designed to provide factual information on grant-maintained status to parents, governors and schools, will cost about £200,000.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, does the Minister feel that it is proper to spend that or, indeed, any sum of money on advertisements which must only doubtfully be in accordance with the relevant code of practice of the Department for Education which states—I trust noble Lords will allow me to read what it says—that information,
"should be full and accurate, and should not mislead".
Is the Minister aware of an advertisement from the Department for Education of 25th January which said:
"Going grant-maintained transfers financial control of a school to the people who best understand its needs—the head-teacher and governors."?
However, local education authorities must currently delegate 85 per cent. of their schools' budgets to the governors who will decide how to spend it and will shortly be delegating 90 per cent. of their schools' budgets.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I should welcome information from the noble Baroness about anything which is not accurate and which may be misleading. The information contained within the advertisements consists of actual statements by the very people in grant-maintained schools who have experienced GM status at first hand. Secondly, it is entirely in line with the code of practice. As for the third point made by the noble Baroness about funding, I must tell her that however the authorities fund their schools, the amount of money that they hold back for central services is handed over to the grant-maintained schools, so there will always be a plus factor. For example, even when the sum of money is 90 per cent., there will always be a plus factor for grant-maintained schools.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in view of the Minister's response perhaps I may pursue the matter further. I remind the House that the Public Accounts Committee recently announced that it found the £13.6 million paid to grant-maintained schools "unacceptable"—and that was an all-party committee. One advertisement says that extra teachers are being supplied to grant-maintained schools. However, is the Minister aware (I am sure that she is) that a number of counties that have now fallen under the control of opposition parties have provided extra teachers for schools and that the Department for Education does not make equivalent funds available for those who oppose grant-maintained schools? Does the Minister argue that that is a level playing field? Is she willing to submit such advertisements to the Advertising Standards Authority for independent judgment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is absolutely absurd that a government should fund an organisation opposed to government policy which has been subjected to parliamentary approval. The way in which grant-maintained schools are managing with the same money —it is the money that would have been held back by the centre —to provide more books, more teachers and to ensure that the money is better deployed in the schools is substantiated by all the evidence. Whatever an LEA passes on to its own schools it nevertheless holds money back at the centre to spend centrally. That proportion is

1377
handed on to the grant-maintained schools. All the evidence shows that the grant-maintained schools make better use of it.
As regards the Public Accounts Committee, the noble Baroness refers to what was known as "cash protection" for the early wave of schools which came out when a sum was assumed for central services and held back. That point has been entirely addressed. As the noble Baroness will know, that cash protection is being phased out. All the schools for the past two years, have received pound-for-pound the money that was held back by each local authority.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister have information as to whether any public money has been spent by local authorities in opposing schools while they are considering becoming grant maintained? Does she agree that any such opposition would be a great pity because grant-maintained schools are proving to be such an overwhelming success?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend asks an important question. The answer is very definitely, yes. Considerable sums of money are being spent by local authorities in opposing that policy.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the Minister will know that the code of practice states that a ballot can be set aside if advertisements are misleading in deciding the outcome of that ballot. However, the point that my noble friend and I are making concerns. precisely the issue of misleading information. Will the Minister look again at her reply? There is no question but that the advertisements give the impression that extra teachers and equipment are restricted to grant-maintained schools. That is not correct.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the noble Baroness genuinely believes that our information has been misleading and that it breaches the advertising standards rule, I invite her to refer her complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is it not a fact that the reason that this huge sum of money is being spent on advertising is that the Government's objective with grant-maintained schools is not being met? After about three years, out of a possible 23,000 schools—and the Minister will probably confirm the figures—the number of schools that have been given grant-maintained status is only 869. Is it not now time that the nonsense was stopped?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, over 1,000 schools have now voted to go grant maintained. I wonder why the noble Lord is so exercised about the matter. If he thinks that over half a million children being educated in grant-maintained schools is such a derisory number, I wonder why it is that we take so much time in the Chamber being so concerned with the issue. The schools that achieve grant-maintained status do so because the parents vote for it. As regards whether the money could be spent on other things, the totality of the money spent on grant-maintained schools' activities, information and advice since 1988 when the Act was passed is less than 20p per pupil.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the reason that I am concerned is that better use could be made of the money. I did not say that the figure of 869 schools out of a possible 23,000 was derisory; but it is certainly not a success.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, less than 20p would hardly buy a pencil.
Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister say, with reference to her reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, what LEA has submitted an advertisement the, size of the one I am holding up which appeared in many newspapers? Has she any evidence as regards what advertisements have been put in newspapers by LEAs?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was not the point put to me by my noble friend Lady Cox. My noble friend asked whether money was being spent on opposing the policy. The answer is definitely yes, and the sums have been considerable.
Baroness David: My Lords, I asked about an advertisement the size of the one I have before me that appeared in many of the broadsheets.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the matter would not be conducted in that way. The methods used are much more subtle.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if these schools are so attractive, why is it necessary to spend £200,000 of taxpayers' money on advertising?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is an important policy. It breaks up the monolith of every school being in the same comprehensive mould. Under the law, governing bodies now have to address the issue, on behalf of parents, of whether they wish to pursue grant-maintained status. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that they have information about that status. That is the whole point of providing information and the method adopted is a cost-effective way of doing so. The cost of this particular advertisement works out at less than 2.5 pence per pupil.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone:: My Lords, is it not somewhat paradoxical that when the Opposition do not approve of something they show great consideration about spending taxpayers' money, but when they want to spend money they call it investing in education?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble and learned friend makes a good point. I should make it clear that local authorities are entirely free to give information to parents and if they want to pass on to those parents information presented to them by an organisation that opposes grant-maintained status, they are as free to disseminate that information as they are to disseminate information that is pro-grant-maintained status.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords—
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I think we should move on.

Local Government (Wales) Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedules 1 and 2,

Clauses 2 and 3,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 4 to 18,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 19 and 20,

Schedules 5 and 6,

Clause 21,

Schedules 7 to 10,

Clauses 22 to 36,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 37 and 38,

Schedule 12,

Clause 39,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 40 to 62,

Schedules 14 to 17.

—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)

On Question, Motion agreed to,

Mental Health (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Short title and commencement]:
Lord Jerkin of Roding Lord Jerkin of Roding moved the amendment:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) This Act extends to England and Wales only.").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment.
I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Intelligence Services Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 4 [The Director of GCHQ]:
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No: 1
Page 3, line 26, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 2. The object of this amendment is to restore fundamental human rights to the staff at GCHQ but by way of agreements worked out on the ground which may be a more satisfactory way forward. The amendment is narrower than that moved in Committee in this Chamber. I regret that I was unavoidably absent on that occasion. I wish to explain the amendment's argument carefully because this may be the last time that the matter can be considered here, or indeed in another place, before international condemnation of the Government for this episode is finally pronounced.
Your Lordships will know that 10 years ago the Government banned membership of trade unions for GCHQ employees, with immediate effect, using their powers under the Royal Prerogative and under legislation. The Government pleaded the needs of national security and, to some extent, a conflict of loyalties at that place of employment; and required the staff to renounce their union membership immediately. The Government offered cash to those who would do so and threatened dismissal for those who courageously refused. Some employees were sacked, not because they broke or threatened to break any employment obligation or duty of loyalty—that is not alleged against them—but because they insisted on the basic right to be members of an independent union of their choice. Ever since, the Government have sought justifications both on the facts and in law.
On the facts, the Government have said the justification is that there had been some industrial action about four years earlier. However, it took that long for the Government to decide that the only solution lay in a draconian ban on union membership at GCHQ—a membership which had existed for some four decades before that. The Civil Service unions offered then, and offer now, agreements guaranteeing that no such stoppages will interrupt the work at GCHQ, but the Government have refused even to negotiate on that basis.
As regards the law, mainly international law—in fact exclusively so—the Government have been found to be in breach of their international obligations on freedom of association by everyone except themselves. The United Kingdom was among the first to ratify the 1948 Convention No. 87 of the International Labour Organisation—an agency of the United Nations. That ILO convention provides in Article 2 that workers,

1381
"without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and … join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation".
The only exceptions are the armed forces and the police. GCHQ staff had enjoyed those rights for many decades. In 1984 it may be said— some foreign commentators have said this—that they were put on a quasi-military footing.
The Government's main legal argument has been that a subsequent ILO convention—No. 151—dealing with aspects of the right to organise in the public sector, which was ratified by the United Kingdom in 1980, gave the Government an unfettered right, whatever Convention No. 87 had said, to strip civil servants totally of their freedom of association in trade unions in a number of areas. That is the argument which has been advanced repeatedly by the Government. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor also mentioned it in Committee at col. 276 of the Official Report. It is the bedrock of their case.
Apart from the inherent improbability of the argument—at least as it seems to me, because Convention No. 151 preserves more favourable rights, and Article 19 of the ILO constitution also seems be against the Government—the argument has been rejected by every forum to which it has been addressed over the past nine years. Everyone other than the British Government has come to agree that the argument is wrong. It has been rejected by the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association, by the governing body, by the Committee of Experts and—as the TUC pointed out to the Government last month at the ILO conference—by spokesmen for employers, workers and governmental representatives.
In 1991 an employers' representative said:
"Even if only 13 workers had wished to make use of their right freely to choose a union,"
—those were the workers who had been dismissed—
"it was the duty of the [British] Government to ensure that their freedom of choice was guaranteed".
At the ILO conference which is to be held in 1994 the United Kingdom is in grave danger of being the subject of what is known as a condemnation by special paragraph. That is the final condemnation accorded normally, in this agency of the United Nations, only to authoritarian regimes. In its reports, the ILO Committee of Experts has annually, since 1985, both rejected that argument and also deplored the Government's refusal to negotiate. The guarantee of Article 87 has, as the experts put it in their last report in 1992, been seen to be based on a very broad consensus that has emerged in the ILO supervisory bodies.
The ILO Committee of Experts, to which the Government appear not to pay too much attention, is not a scratch team of hack lawyers. Its members include former judges of the international court, judges from national constitutional and high courts, many with experience in labour sections or tribunals, together with eminent scholars in the field of labour relations law. Yet the Government have addressed the same argument to the committee year in, year out, for nine years on the trot.
I thought that there was a touch of irony when I read that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had
1382
chided the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in Committee (at col. 277 of Hansard for 13th January) when the noble Lord criticised a decision which had gone against him elsewhere. The noble and learned Lord said:
"when one loses, one perhaps sometimes holds a less generous view of the quality of the judgment than one would hold in other circumstances".
He is right. It is a well known phenomenon. It is perhaps excusable once or twice, but not nine years on the trot. Simply to put aside a judgment which goes against you in every relevant body for nine consecutive years needs some justification.
The amendment suggests negotiation at the place of work, where problems can be solved by agreement between the director of GCHQ and the Civil Service unions—including, as the unions have offered, any problems about continuous operation—as a means by which a step forward can be made. But negotiations must be with real trade unions. Government spokesmen at the ILO have claimed that the staff federation set up in 1984 with sole rights to represent staff at GCHQ is "a workplace-based union" which "operates like a normal union". In his Written Answer of 13th January in another place (at col. 255 of Commons Hansard) the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister spoke of the staff federation, as other Ministers have, as a:
"registered trade union for GCHQ staff'.
The courts have decided that the staff federation is nothing of the kind. First, it is not registered, because we have not had a register of trade unions for some 20 years. More important, it is not even an independent trade union. Both the certification officer and the Employment Appeal Tribunal have rejected its claim to be in any way independent. It failed to prove that it was free from:
"the dominance or control of an employer"
and:
"not liable to interference by an employer … tendirg towards such control".
In giving judgment on appeal last December, Mr. Justice Wood concluded that the federation was at the mercy of management at GCHQ and also at the mercy of the Government. Therefore, he said it:
"operates under a basic constraint that its continued existence depends upon the approval of the Director".
The federation is, and has been judicially pronounced to be, a puppet in the hands of the employers.
Sometimes the Government do not seem to understand why they are seen in such a bad light abroad on this matter. Perhaps they should reflect that it is somewhat unusual these days to find a government with pretensions to democratic values setting up a company union for its own employees and sacking the employees who resist. That reaches back to the notorious precedent of 1852, when masters closed down their works in Lancashire and London to compel their workers to sign what is known as the "document" renouncing trade union membership. However, I hasten to add that the history books disclose that Members of this House honourably went to join the subscriptions list to add to the funds to defend those workers. Sidney and Beatrice Webb described those dramatic events as turning points in the history of the trade union movement.

1383
The Government could mark a turning point now. I beg them to consider doing so very seriously by accepting international standards for their employees at GCHQ and saying to the real unions that it is a special workplace which needs special agreements. Experienced officials of real trade unions are well practised in negotiating and administering jointly agreements suited to the workplace. As a first step on that road, and to avoid further and perhaps final condemnation at the ILO, I entreat the Government to accept this moderate amendment. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment moved by my noble friend. As he said, it is now 10 years since the announcement of the ban on trade union membership at GCHQ. Last Saturday there was another demonstration in Cheltenham, led by the TUC. I was there. Again we marched through the town with our banners flying. The local Member of Parliament—a Liberal Democrat—marched at the head with my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in another place. Again the people standing on the pavements were largely welcoming and supportive. It was a very well supported and enthusiastic demonstration, although it would have been nice to have been able to say at that demonstration that the Government had at last changed their mind about the GCHQ ban.
The Government persist with this unpopular ban on the plea of national security. I am glad that in Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor dismissed the charge that the Government had acted, as they had, in the belief that trade unionists in general were some sort of threat to national security. However, many ordinary trade unionists feel that their patriotism has somehow been called into question. They constantly cite instances of actual convicted spies who were not union members, and indeed were opposed to joining unions.
The reason, we are now told, is that the Government require continuity of operation and there could be strikes which would disrupt that continuity. In fact, there have been no disputes since 1981, almost three years before the ban was imposed. According to one of the trade unionists from GCHQ who has been steadfast in his refusal to give up his union card—and lost his job in consequence—and who was one of the speakers at the demonstration last Saturday, even in those days cover was provided during the dispute. Moreover, since then times have changed considerably. The Government themselves have made it much more difficult for any dispute action to be called, and the unions, as we know, have offered a no-strike deal.
We are therefore left with a situation in which pure obstinacy seems to be the only reason left to the Government for their persistent flouting of ILO conventions. In Committee it was claimed that the Government had met the desire of the staff for independent representation by government agreement that the staff federation which has been established could join the Council of Civil Service Unions.
1384
However, the Government's own legislation has provided a definition by which a trade union can be regarded as independent. The certification officer who operates under that legislation has refused to certify that that in-house staff organisation is independent. I understand that the certification officer based his judgment on the fact that its existence is dependent upon the approval of the GCHQ director, and the staff had no option to join any other union. Moreover, if that organisation wanted to assert a truly independent right and merge with another union, perhaps a union affiliated to the TUC, it would not be allowed to do so. So much for its independence.
Our amendment seeks to provide that there should be arrangements for consultation with one or more independent trade unions in respect of terms and conditions of employment of persons employed at GCHQ and of the conditions, if any, on which such persons may, if they so choose, become members of such a trade union.
This is a minimalist amendment. It is about as little as can be provided to staff to ensure that they have a real right of choice. Do not the Government constantly talk about how necessary it is that people should have choices in their everyday lives? What could be more important than the choice of an independent union? As I said in Committee, there still remain people in employment who would want to belong to an independent union if that did not endanger their employment. It required a great deal of courage, even back in 1984, for individual staff members to refuse to tear up their union cards and to lose their jobs in consequence. That has happened to a number of former GCHQ employees, who have found it very difficult to get back into any sort of employment.
We really must try to bring about an end to this sorry chapter in the history of British industrial relations. As I said earlier, the amendment moved by my noble friend is about the minimum that could be provided to ensure that people have the rights that they ought to have under ILO conventions. It gives me pleasure to support the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it gives me pleasure to support the amendment which also stands in my name on the Marshalled List. I made a full speech at Committee stage. I shall therefore not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments because I have already given my main reasons for supporting the approach.
However, the amendment does not confer any right to engage in or threaten industrial action. As has been said, it is the most minimalist amendment that one can think of. It provides a framework for consultation with independent trade unions at GCHQ. If the Government oppose the amendment, as I suspect they might, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor two questions.
First, why have the Government not sought to enter into a legally binding collective agreement with the Civil Service unions, giving membership rights but forbidding any rights to take industrial action? I raised the issue at Committee stage, I believe in an exchange

1385
with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, pointing out that, under Section 179 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, a collective agreement can be made legally binding with the consent of both parties. If the Government wish to respect membership of trade unions as a constitutional right, I can think of no good reason why they could not make the collective agreement legally binding. Alternatively, if for some reason the Government thought that that approach was inappropriate, why could they not introduce a clause in the Bill giving statutory effect to what I have suggested—that is to say, membership rights but no right to strike?
That is exactly what the Government are doing in another place in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill in relation to prison officers. I do not say that I support that measure in another place, but it seems to me to be a perfectly appropriate way of conferring the substance of trade union membership without any of the adverse consequences of strike action.
If there is no satisfactory answer to those questions, I for one will conclude that the situation is a continuation of a narrow-minded, mean piece of bullying of a defenceless group of employees who are dedicated public servants. The best comment that I can make upon it was given by Shakespeare through Isabella's mouth in Measure for Measure when, in answer to Lord Angelo, she said,
"O it is excellent
To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous
To use it like a giant".
If the Government persist in their obstinate position, I believe that only a change of Government will remove this minor but important form of tyranny.
Lord Monson: My Lords, to me, and I should have thought to any fair-minded person, the amendments appear to be a most reasonable and moderate pair of amendments, fully deserving of your Lordships' support.
The operative word in the second and substantive amendment is "conditions". If stringent conditions relating to a continuity of operation are not agreed to, then, reasonably enough, trade union membership will not be permitted. One would not disagree with that. On the other hand, if continuous operation is guaranteed —and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, in Committee about three weeks ago said that assurances in regard to continuous operation have been forthcoming—there is no problem and no reason not to agree to trade union membership.
It is rumoured that the original ban was imposed at the behest of the Americans at the height of the Cold War. The Cold War is no longer with us, thankfully; and the Americans have not been exactly helpful to Her Majesty's Government over the past 72 hours. I therefore suggest that there is no longer any need to pay too much attention to American sensibilities in this matter.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I am totally against the speeches so far. The background to my remarks is this. I commanded the mission to the Soviet Army in East Germany. It was called the British Exchange
1386
Mission BRIXMIS. We toured Germany and photographed the 20 divisions there. We sent our photographs to the War Office where they were interpreted and used. There were other organisations, but the parallel organisation was GCHQ which listened to what the Germans or Russians were saying.
The point of the Bill is this: is GCHQ an intelligence gathering operation, or is it a non-intelligence gathering operation? It is clearly gathering intelligence and should not be treated differently from the British Services, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. To impose on GCHQ special conditions for having trade union status is totally inappropriate.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may say how very much I agree with what was said in the last speech. GCHQ is part of the defence arrangements of this country. It was accepted by the noble Lord who moved the amendment that one would not have trade union representation in the police or armed forces. I suggest that the role of GCHQ is absolutely parallel. It is of the greatest importance to the whole of our arrangements for national defence. In my view it would be taking an undue risk to agree to the amendment and to trade union representation. I therefore hope that the Minister will resist the amendment.
Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may put this point to him. He says that GCHQ is analogous with the armed forces of the Crown. I hear and understand the point. In that case, why is it not manned by armed forces of the Crown? It is perfectly open for the Government to man it with soldiers if they so wish. They have chosen to man it not by people who are subject to Army discipline but by civilians. We are talking about the right of civilians, not of armed servicemen.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may reply since the remark was addressed to me My point is not whether or not the forces were armed. It is whether they are part of the defence arrangements of this country. It is quite clear—the noble Lord, Lord Richard, knows this as well as I do—that GCHQ is part of the defence arrangements of this country. That, rather than the question of whether they carry arms, is the material point, which he has simply ducked.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, GCHQ is manned by people of sometimes considerable age, many of whom have served in the forces. They retire and go to GCHQ. The forces are, quite rightly, paid a great deal of money at present. GCHQ employment is far cheaper. That is why it is totally inappropriate to make it part of the armed forces.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I had not intended taking part in the debate. However, I am bound to say that I feel somewhat provoked by the remarks of the noble Duke and the noble Lord.
Perhaps I may make the position, as I see it, perfectly clear. We are not talking about the rights or non-rights of servicemen. We are talking about the rights of civilians. If the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter,

1387
wished GCHQ to be manned by servicemen, the Government would be perfectly entitled to do so. Whether or not those people are armed is, frankly, neither here nor there. The fact is that the Government have chosen not to man GCHQ by servicemen but by civilians. We are therefore talking about the rights of civilians.
Those persons may be undertaking sensitive work, but so do many other people in this country. I merely pose this question. It is conceded that civilians have worked loyally for many years at GCHQ. Why should they be deprived of the rights that other civilians in sensitive areas of our society are granted?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I hope not to prolong matters, but at the Committee stage I gave a full answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has just said. The problem is the potential for divided loyalty from which any trade union member must always suffer between his employer and the trade union. I said at Committee stage that when, 30 years ago, we were considering turning what is now GCHQ into a civilian force instead of having it in the armed forces, we were seriously worried whether it would be right for it to have a trade union.
The reason was that there has been good experience to show that it can come about that the people involved have a problem with not knowing which orders to obey. It is important, and I trust that your Lordships will get on and defeat the amendment as quickly as possible.
4 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am bound to say that the last argument is one of the most disgraceful that I have heard advanced in any democratic assembly. I speak as one who has been president of a trade union for 15 years and a member of my union for 50 years. No more patriotic set of people can be found than those with whom I have worked in my trade union. I deeply resent the suggestion—which I am glad to say the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor discounted on a previous occasion—that there is any conflict of loyalty between trade unions and their employers. The noble Lord is really telling us that we should have no trade unions at all because inevitably there will be a conflict of loyalty between a trade unionist and his employer. That is not the case.
Likewise, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, will not mind me saying that his logic was faulty when he suggested that it would be totally wrong to have trade unions at Cheltenham, and that dealing with high level defence matters is a unique situation. It is not a unique situation. People in the Department of Defence at a very high level, dealing with exactly the same matters, are members of a trade union. No one suggests that the Department of Defence is full of people who are a threat to the safety of the realm. That is a nonsensical argument.
The other point I wish to make in passing is that trade union membership at GCHQ is of very long standing. I defy any Member of your Lordships' House to produce a single incident in the whole of that period where anyone might suggest that trade unionists had a conflict
1388
with their employer or the state and where they had acted adversely. The noble Lord opposite shakes his head, and I am glad to see it. I presume that he agrees that no such evidence can be produced.
What it comes down to now is the prejudice which has been rejected by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor before and in all the speeches we have heard so far, that there is an inherent possibility of disloyalty or treachery on the part of people who happen to be members of a trade union. That is what Members opposite are saying. On behalf of millions of sensible, loyal trade unionists who have served this country well in the forces in times of great peril, I wish to say that we resent that innuendo.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I wish to address the amendment on two levels: first, and most important, on the point of principle. As has already been mentioned, your Lordships debated and disagreed to an amendment to Clause 3 on much the same topic during the Committee stage. It is plain that the purpose of this amendment, although modified, is to traverse the same ground.
It is obviously a subject about which many noble Lords have strong feelings. The principles were debated at some length in Committee, and I recall the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, saying:
"We have had a very good debate on this issue".—[Official Report, 13/1/94; col. 278.]
I agree with that. Of course, different views were expressed and that is what makes a good debate. I certainly do not object to revisiting the matter now; but I think it is unnecessary for me to repeat what I said at Committee stage. Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that the Government's position has not changed since we last debated the subject.
The key issue is to ensure the continued effective operation of GCHQ by making it free from external pressures of a kind that took place in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The kind of conflict of loyalty which was spoken of in that connection is the conflict between keeping the operation going and pressure to stop the operation in the interests of a particular trade union dispute.
I wish to make it as plain as I can on behalf of the Government that, in saying what I have just said, there is no suggestion that individual staff at GCHQ were disloyal, nor that trade unionists are inclined to be spies or anything of that kind. There is no suggestion of any treachery of that kind in this. What is suggested is that by the very nature of the arrangement a question is put into the mind of a trade unionist in that situation whether, assuming an instruction were given by the union which would have an effect on the operation of GCHQ, it would be obeyed rather than the requirement of the employer—namely, Her Majesty's Government —to keep the operation going.
It is the Government's firm view that the changes to GCHQ's conditions of service in 1984, which put GCHQ on the same footing with regard to these matters as the other intelligence and security services in the United Kingdom, were absolutely necessary for GCHQ to operate effectively and without risk of disruption.

1389
On that matter, I suggest that the principle which my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the Duke of Norfolk enunciated applies precisely. The same conditions apply in GCHQ as apply to the other intelligence and security services in the United Kingdom.
I understand that in the aftermath of the 1984 ban two Civil Service unions' national conferences specifically rejected the idea of a no-strike agreement relating to GCHQ. There were discussions between the unions and the Government in 1992 and 1993. I understand that those discussions took place on a confidential and without-prejudice basis by agreement with both sides. I therefore feel inhibited from discussing the details of what was then suggested.
I believe that the Government have not been obdurate. For example, they have considered the suggestion that GCSF—the staff federation—might affiliate to the Council of Civil Service Unions. That represents a genuine shift in the Government's previous position, while enabling the essential requirements of national security to be met.
My remark at the Committee stage about the treatment by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, of the decision in the case before the Commission has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, as my "chiding" the noble Lord. That is about the last thing I would wish to do. I just wanted to put his remarks in context in relation to what he was saying about the Commission or the tribunal, for which I personally have considerable respect, even though from time to time I have found it necessary to disagree with its decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, asked me two questions under the threat that if I did not answer them to his satisfaction then fairly drastic action on his part would follow. That at least encourages me to try to answer them. First, with regard to enforceable agreements, I remain of the view that I held last time; namely, that I, for my part, need to see in writing the detail of the agreement in question before I can conclude whether or not it is enforceable at law with the effect to which he referred. Also, I do not believe that it is appropriate to put any provisions in the Bill in relation to GCHQ when, as I explained, the other security and intelligence services are under arrangements of exactly the same kind. In principle the present situation is the right one.
I should point out that paragraph "(a)" in Amendment No. 2 should perhaps be paragraph "(c)". That is a minor matter. The effect of the amendment would be to place a duty on the director of GCHQ to ensure that there are arrangements for consultation with independent trade unions in two respects: the terms and conditions of employment of persons employed at GCHQ; and the conditions on which employees may become members of trade unions. I have to say that those matters are not fully within the director's powers. The general framework of those conditions is laid down centrally, although the director has discretion to vary some aspects. Furthermore, the instruction to change to conditions of service was made not by the director, but by the then Prime Minister in her capacity as Minister
1390
for the Civil Service. Consultation on the matter therefore needs to take place not with the director but with the Prime Minister or his appointee. That has already happened, as I mentioned last time, with the meeting on 20th December last year with the Prime Minister. As I said and as the Prime Minister indicated, the Government are willing to discuss any further proposals the unions may have.
My primary purpose in opposing the amendment is on the basis of the principle to which I referred at the outset. I do not know whether or not your Lordships would wish me to go into the legal arguments in detail regarding the relationship between Convention 151 and Convention 87. I believe that the Government have a good argument on that matter and no binding decision has yet been taken that would suggest that the Government's view is wrong. For those reasons I invite the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, not to press his amendment. But, if he chooses to do so, I hope your Lordships will reject it.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps I may ask him, for my own enlightenment despite the legalese, whether the legislation as it stands—unamended —prohibits a civilian employee at GCHQ, whether or not a member of a labour union, from taking or joining industrial action under any conditions?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the legislation does not deal with that matter at all. I explained at Committee stage that it would not be appropriate for this legislation to deal with matters of that sort. With regard to the terms of service, the decision was taken by the Prime Minister as Minister for the Civil Service in the exercise of her powers in that connection, and the question of whether or not those powers were properly exercised was the subject of a binding legal decision al the highest level.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, and without seeming, to press my questions too hard, perhaps I may seek clarification. I, for one, am left in a state of puzzlement regarding his answers. As I understand it, the Government regard this as a point of principle and. under no circumstances will allow pressure to be put upon employees of Cheltenham GCHQ by any third party. That I entirely understand. That form of pressure and instruction is normally one associated with threats of industrial action. But I cannot understand why the Government cannot concede the principle of consultation with trade unions while forbidding any pressure of that kind, whether in a collective agreement which they put forward to the unions as their draft or in the form of legislation. That seems to me to leave the Government devoid of any principle and I would be grateful for clarification.
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we may be in danger of forgetting the rules of Report stage but perhaps I may ask for leave to answer that question. The situation is that the Government have left open and are

1391
willing to discuss with the unions any proposals that they may put forward. I believe that it is not for the director but for the Government to be involved in those discussions, in the person of the Prime Minister.
In answer to the reformulated question of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, we await the proposals. Those matters are the subject of discussion and there is no point in discussing the matter in the abstract. The principle is perfectly clear and definite. The way in which it might be met is a matter for discussion and a matter for proposal. But there is no point in dealing with proposals in the abstract, except proposals that are actually made. I have said before and I repeat that it is unwise to take a view about the legal effect of documents which are not available and which have not been the subject of proposals.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, there are two or three matters on which I ask your Lordships to reflect before we decide what to do. I am extremely disappointed with the reply from the noble and learned Lord. I am grateful to him for pointing out that the paragraph should have been "(c)" rather than "(a)". However, the notion that there is grave danger that external pressures from these trade unions—as has been pointed out, trade unions which organise in the middle of the Ministry of Defence—will disrupt the nation's security procedures is about as empty an argument and about as likely as saying that pressures to do so might come from the Carlton Club.
Noble Lords: More likely!
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, my noble friends have other views on that matter; I do not have any view myself. On the technical matter of the amendment of terms and conditions, the remarks of the noble and learned Lord this time compare oddly with what he said in Committee and indeed with other government statements. He said that we cannot accept the amendment because the terms and conditions are not to be discussed or consulted upon with the director. On the contrary, such consultations have taken place in the 40-odd years of the GCHQ. That is not the machinery by which they are fixed. But all sorts of consultations take place and it seemed to us right, in the minimalist amendment that we are putting forward, to see whether we could get conditions at the grass roots, at the place of work where some forward step could be taken on the matter.
My understanding—based upon what was published and having nothing to do with my knowledge (which is nil) of negotiations between the Civil Service trade unions and the Government; it was published and has never been denied and I apprehend it is the understanding of those Civil Service trade unions—is that the Prime Minister, in his interview with them, ended by saying that there were no conditions that they could offer which would satisfy a step back away from the Government's decision.
If that is not so, and if the noble and learned Lord is saying that there are conditions, such as those advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, which might justify the
1392
Government taking another look, why do they not say to us, "All right, we think that your amendment is technically incorrect and is not the proper vehicle, but we admit to the spirit of it and we shall go away to see whether anything can be done, either at Third Reading or elsewhere"? I understand that the noble and learned Lord is not saying that. Unless he is saying that, in my view we should divide on the amendment.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. I) shall be agreed to?
* Their Lordships divided:Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 162.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Airedale, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jeger, B.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L.

Mayhew, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cobbold, L.

Monson, L.

David, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mulley, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Diamond, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Eatwell, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Fitt, L.

Russell, E.

Foot, L.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stallard, L.

Glasgow, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Tordoff, L. [Teller]

Grey, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hamwee, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Haskel, L.

White, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wigoder, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howell, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Boardman, L.

Addison, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Aldington, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Butterfield, L.

Alport, L.

Butterworth, L.

Annaly, L.

Cadman, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Caithness, E.

Arran, E.

Caldecote, V.

Astor, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Beloff, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bird wood, L.

Carnock, L.

Blatch, B.

Carver, L.

Blyth, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

1393

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Chesham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

[Lord Chancellor.]

Cockfield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Coleraine, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Mancroft, L.

Courtown, E.

Marlesford, L.

Cox, B.

Merrivale, L.

Cranborne, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Crathome, L.

Milverton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Morris, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mottistone, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mountevans, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Moyne, L.

Davidson, V.

Munster, E.

Denham, L.

Nelson, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Newall, L.

Digby, L

Norfolk, D.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Orkney, E.

Downshire, M.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dudley, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Dundee, E.

Palmer, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elles, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elton, L.

Peel, E.

Erne, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Faithfull, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ferrers, E.

Polwarth, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pym, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gainford, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Reay, L.

Geddes, L.

Rees, L.

Gisborough, L.

Renwick, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Goschen, V.

Romney, E.

Greenway, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gridley, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hacking, L.

Sandford, L.

Haddington, E.

Seccombe, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sharples, B.

Halsbury, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harlech, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harvington, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hayter, L.

[Teller.]

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Swansea, L.

Hood, V.

Swinfen, L.

Hooper, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howe, E.

Thurlow, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tollemache, L.

Ilchester, E.

Torrington, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Keyes, L.

Trumpington, B.

Killearn, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kimball, L.

Vivian, L.

Kitchener, E.

Wakeham, L.

Knollys, V.

[Lord Privy Seal]

Lane of Horsell, L.

Waverley, V.

Lawrence, L.

Westbury, L.

Leigh, L.

Wharton, B.

Long, V.

Wilberforce, L.

Lucas, L.

Wynford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Young, B.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[* The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 162 names. The Clerks recorded 161 names.]
4.29 p.m.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Authorisation of acts outside the British Islands]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 3:
1394
Page 5, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert ("The power of the Secretary of State to give an authorisation shall be restricted so that any authorisation").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I am also speaking to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the Secretary of State's authorisation for intelligence activities outside the United Kingdom is clearly limited. Clause 7 allows acts to be authorised outside the United Kingdom which might otherwise breach the civil or criminal law in the United Kingdom. As far as I understand the clause, it will do two things. First, it will provide control of the activities of the intelligence services outside the United Kingdom; and, secondly, it will authorise those acts in law so that those involved in illegal acts cannot suffer liability in this country. In fact, most illegal acts abroad would only give rise to liability in this country in very particular and restricted circumstances; for instance, perhaps where the illegal activity was directed at a British subject.
This clause does not of course change what is illegal under the law of another sovereign state. No Act of Parliament passed in this country could make what is illegal into what is legal in another country. However, what is of some concern is that subsection (4) allows authorisation to be given both individually and specifically for acts abroad, but also allows for a general authorisation by description; in other words, a licence to act illegally.
The reality of such a licence is that it is possible, and indeed quite likely, that it will allow the delegation of authority to quite junior officers and at the same time deprive us of the safeguard that authorisation for such acts is given by the Secretary of State himself. This is a controversial and important power and as such should be exercised only by the Secretary of State personally.
I hope that, in responding to this amendment, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not fall back on the argument that the Secretary of State has too little time to authorise individual activities and that therefore he must ultimately simply trust the professional expertise of the heads of the services and indeed of their staff right down, as I have already suggested, to quite a junior level.
I hate to bring in controversial matters of this kind, but if we consider the investigation by Lord Justice Scott into the Matrix Churchill affair, we can see precisely what can go wrong if Ministers do not have a real grip on affairs. If the Secretary of State has to take responsibility for illegal acts, that should ensure a degree of accountability previously absent. After all, that is what this Bill is about.
If the House is to be denied information about operational matters—I shall come back to that question in a later amendment—it is all the more important that this amendment is accepted and that the Secretary of State should be directly responsible for all these activities and for authorising them. We do not accept the view that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stated in Committee, that it is enough to rely on the powers of the commissioner who will have responsibility for reviewing the exercise of such authorisation. As we all know, the commissioner is to be

1395
a senior judge. Almost certainly he will be primarily concerned with issues of legality. We want to be assured that control of these quite draconian powers is in the hands of the Secretary of State and that, as an elected politician, he is answerable for the use of them. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that reference to "lines 41 and 42" in this amendment is a misprint for lines 42 and 43.
I understood the noble Baroness to be concerned that the Secretary of State should be personally responsible for granting these authorisations. She referred to the present investigation going on under Lord Justice Scott. Your Lordships will not expect me to refer to an unfinished investigation. I prefer to wait until Lord Justice Scott has finished and come to his conclusions before expressing any view in relation to that.
As regards the question which arises in this particular amendment, I would like to point out that under Clause 7(5) of the Bill,
"An authorisation shall not be given under this section except—
(a) under the hand of the Secretary of State".
That means personally using his own hand and nobody else's and not by an official, or,
"(b) in an urgent case where the Secretary of State has expressly authorised it to be given and a statement of that fact is endorsed on it, under the hand of a senior official of his department".
Subsection (6) states,
"An authorisation shall, unless renewed under subsection (7) below, cease to have effect—
(a) if the authorisation was given under the hand of the Secretary of State, at the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which it was given;"
and
"(b) in any other case,"
and that is in any case in which it was done by a senior official acting on his behalf—
"at the end of the period ending with the second working day following the day on which it was given".
In other words, authorisation must be given, as a general rule, by the Secretary of State personally. If, in a very urgent case, the Secretary of State is not available to sign the authorisation, then the procedure in subsection (5) (b) has to be followed. But, in addition, the authorisation itself falls at the end of the second working day following the day on which it was given.
These conditions are intended to address precisely the problem that the noble Baroness raised. I believe that they address the problem as fully as the circumstances could possibly allow.
Turning to the actual amendment, I believe that there may be some misunderstanding of the purpose of Clause 7(4). The effect of subsection (4) as it stands is to give the Secretary of State the power to include conditions or descriptions of various kinds in any authorisation which he may give. The purpose of the subsection was to make quite clear what may not otherwise have been apparent —that the authorisations may vary in kind.
The effect of the amendment is to attempt to turn the all-embracing description contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) into a restriction. It seeks to say that you can only do what you have described yourself as able to do. I would suggest that the subsection as drafted already
1396
achieves precisely what the amendment seeks to achieve. Thus, under subsection (4), the Secretary of State may authorise acts of one of the three descriptions specified in paragraph (a); he may address the authorisation either to a particular person or to persons of a specified description, such as any persons who would otherwise be liable for acts done overseas; and he may specify certain conditions.
The noble Baroness's amendment expresses itself as dealing with paragraphs (a) and (b)—that is to say, (a), acts and the descriptions of acts; and (b) refers to the person or persons. The amendment does not address itself to paragraph (c) and I am not surprised. It would be mighty difficult to apply this doctrine to that paragraph. This amendment is trying to turn what is essentially a description into a restriction. As I have said, the test is paragraph (c) and to try to apply this doctrine to that paragraph does not make sense at all. Of course the noble Baroness does not seek to do that. It is very difficult to think of a restriction in this way which applies to a person of a description specified by the Secretary of State. That is about as full a description as you can have and so it is not a very good phrase to have in a restriction. I would ask the noble Baroness whether she is able to envisage a single example of an authorisation which would not fall within paragraphs (a) to (c)—the very ones she intends to be a restriction.
I cannot think of any example, and I have applied my mind to this ever since the amendment was tabled. To allow the Secretary of State to give any authorisation he likes, as described in paragraphs (a) to (c), and then to describe that as a restriction upon him appears to me to be somewhat contradictory. As I have already pointed out, Clause 7 places a number of restrictions on the giving of authorisations and the one that was particularly addressed by the noble Baroness in moving this amendment I have already mentioned; namely, speaking generally, the Secretary of State is required to give authorisations personally. If in very exceptional circumstances that is not possible, it can be done only by a very senior official and in very exceptional circumstances and, if so done, it falls after two days.
We have tried to make these restrictions as important and considerable as the circumstances properly allow. I believe that these restrictions, taken with the others in the provision, ensure that the Secretary of State will not authorise acts lightly but only where there is good reason and where they will be properly carried out. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw the amendment, on the footing that what she seeks to achieve is sought to be achieved in a slightly different way by the drafting which we have adopted and that our drafting is on the whole more suitable, particularly having regard to paragraph (c).
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that response. I of course accept that there are a number of restrictions on the giving of authorisations embodied in this clause. I also understand that subsections (5) and (6) create a time limit for these authorisations and also make it absolutely

1397
clear that only as a matter of urgency and in restricted circumstances should this power be delegated to a senior official in the Secretary of State's department.
I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his clarification of subsection (4). This amendment was in many ways a probing amendment, to tease out the meaning of that subsection. I am reassured by what the noble and learned Lord has said and I accept that the current wording looks as if it should be satisfactory from the point of view of my anxieties. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Clause 10 [The Intelligence and Security Committee]:
4.45 p.m.
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 40, leave out subsections (5) to (7) and insert:
("(5) The Committee shall make an annual report on the discharge of their functions and shall lay a copy before each House of Parliament together with a statement as to whether any matter has been excluded from that copy in pursuance of sub-section (6) below.
(6) If it appears to the Committee, after consultation with the Director-General of the Security Service, the Chief of the Intelligence Service or the Director of GCHQ, as appropriate, that the publication of any matter in a report would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of either of the Services or, as the case may be GCHQ, the Committee shall exclude that matter from the copy of the report as laid before each House of Parliament but shall send a copy of the full report to the Prime Minister without any matters being excluded.
(7) In the event of disagreement between the Committee and the Director-General of the Security Service, the Chief of the Intelligence Service or the Director of GCHQ as appropriate, as to the matters which should be excluded from the Committee's report that dispute shall be resolved by the Prime Minister.
(8) Any matters not in the annual report as a result of subsection (6) above shall instead be included in a report by the Committee to the Prime Minister.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a return to the charge after the discussion we had in Committee and I hope that the Government, and particularly the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, will consider seriously the matters which are the subject of this amendment, which we moved in Committee in substantially the same form. There are now of course some significant differences.
The object of the amendment is to ensure that the committee's report is presented directly to Parliament. It is terribly important that, if this Bill is setting up scrutiny machinery— and it is going to have a committee of parliamentarians to scrutinise the workings of the intelligence services and of GCHQ— the link between that committee and Parliament is an overt one and not merely a covert one. If the report is presented directly to Parliament the link is clearly directly established.
This amendment would also allow possibly sensitive contents of the committee's report to be discussed with the heads of the three services and for sensitive issues to be left out of the report to Parliament—I totally accept that— but to be included in the report to the Prime Minister. I believe that that was something which the noble and learned Lord was anxious about when we last discussed the matter. The amendment also provides for
1398
the Prime Minister to adjudicate on any dispute about the content of the report and on what should or should not go to Parliament.
The Bill as drafted fails to give real and substantial control of the work of the services to Parliament itself: so be it. I accept that. The role of the committee, after all, is to represent Parliament and therefore the committee should report directly to Parliament and not to the Prime Minister. It should be clear that the committee is responsible to Parliament and not to the Executive. As such, the report should be so directed. I totally accept, and indeed it is in the amendment, that the annual report of the committee should be very carefully shorn of any information that might damage national security. Currently, Clause 10(7) gives the Prime Minister the right to censor the report if it would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the services.
My amendment accepts that matter which could be prejudicial to the discharge of the functions of the services should be taken out of the report before it goes to Parliament. I accept that, but the question is: who decides what should or should not go in? The Bill at the moment might prevent the disclosure of matters where there has been some abuse of the functions of the service or some kind of scandal which still could, on the Prime Minister's view, damage morale and thus the continued discharge of the functions of the services. I am not sure that we should rely only on the Prime Minister's view as to what would be prejudicial to the discharge of these functions. The amendment restricts disclosure only if it would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the services. The initial decision as to what should or should not go into the report would be taken by the committee and not left for censoring by the Prime Minister. The amendment puts the committee under a duty to consult the heads of the services before reporting, and then gives the Prime Minister a final right to adjudicate in any subsequent dispute over this.
In Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor opposed this amendment on, among other grounds, the ground that—and I quote from col. 301 of the Official Report of 13th January 1994:
"So far as the net result of these operations is concerned, it will be much the same".
In other words, whether we have the structure which is set out in the Bill or the scrutiny mechanism embodied in my amendment, it amounts to very much the same sort of thing and the noble and learned Lord considers that it arrives at more or less the same conclusion. If that is the case and it is much the same, our amendment would allow a greater input by the committee without risking security issues. Therefore why cannot it be accepted? If it produces much the same result with just as great or as little risk attached to it, why cannot the overt link between the committee and Parliament be accepted by the Government?
The noble and learned Lord also stated in the same debate over our previous amendment in Committee— and I quote from col. 302—that,
"the full report of the Committee, without limitation and without pulling any punches whatever, should be sent to the Prime Minister."

1399
We have taken on board that point and have included it in this amendment. In view of the fact that on the last occasion the noble and learned Lord said that the point did not make very much difference and that since then we have taken on board his point about sending the whole report to the Prime Minister, I hope that he will feel able to accept the amendment in its amended form. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have reconsidered this matter carefully in the light of the discussions that we had in Committee and out of respect for the care and detail of the arguments that were put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
I remain of the view that the result of what is now proposed so far as what ultimately reaches Parliament is concerned may not be very different from what we are proposing—that is even more so, given the addition in the amendment. However, it is important to look at this matter in its full context. The first effect of this amendment would be that the oversight committee would report directly to Parliament, rather than to the Prime Minister, after making any necessary security excisions. As I said at Committee stage, it is, quite rightly, the Prime Minister who has overall responsibility for intelligence and security matters. He is the person responsible to Parliament and the country for intelligence and security matters. I believe that, having regard to the nature of these matters, it is absolutely vital that that should remain the case: namely, that it should be the Prime Minister and not Parliament who has overall responsibility for intelligence and security matters. It is the Prime Minister who appoints the members of the oversight committee after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. It follows, I believe, that it is the Prime Minister to whom the committee should report. It is important that it should be able to do so directly. After all, the Prime Minister has overall responsibility and he, with the help of, and after consultation with, the Leader of the Opposition, appoints the committee. Therefore, it is surely right that the committee should report to him.
Under the Bill as framed, the committee's report to the Prime Minister will then go from the Prime Minister to Parliament, subject only to necessary excisions. Parliament will receive from the Prime Minister the report of the committee (which he has appointed after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition) with only such excisions as are necessary in terms of the Bill as we have framed it.
The second effect of the amendment would be that the committee would consult the heads of agency about matters to be excluded from the version of its report which was laid before Parliament. The Prime Minister would be referred to as required to resolve any disagreement over matters to be excluded. It is a little strange that the noble Lord should seek to include the heads of agency in this process. It is the committee's job to review the expenditure, policy and administration of the agencies, and it would, I believe, be quite wrong for the agency heads themselves to play any role —even a preliminary one—in deciding on how much Parliament
1400
should learn of the committee's work. After all, the committee is intended as an oversight committee for the agencies, including the heads of agency. Would that not come close to the agency heads being placed in a position where they could influence the reports of the very committee which is to oversee and act as an independent safeguard on, the agencies and to report on that to the Prime Minister?
Finally, the amendment would have the effect of restricting the committee to one annual report. It would remove its powers to report to the Prime Minister at any time on any matter relating to the discharge of its functions. That may not be an essential characteristic of the amendment for all I know, but, as the amendment is framed, it has that effect. I consider the committee's power to be able to report as and when it feels it right to do so to be an important one. I am not sure of the reason behind the proposal to cut it out, which is why I said that that is perhaps not an essential feature of the underlying idea.
Under the Bill as drafted, the committee would have direct access to the Prime Minister at any time. Apart from the obvious ability this gives it to act immediately on any issue of concern, this power should also encourage a closer and more effective relationship between the committee and the Prime Minister.
On a practical note, I believe that the noble Lord may perhaps have intended to omit subsection (8) of the amendment when tabling it. I am not certain of that. Given the provision in subsection (6) that the committee should forward a copy of the complete report to the Prime Minister, it would seem unnecessary to make separate provisions in subsection (8).
As I have said, I have considered carefully what the noble Lord said in Committee when he tabled a very similar amendment. He expressed the view that Parliament's confidence in the committee depended on a direct link between the committee and Parliament. I understand his concern. But the Bill does, of course, provide links between the committee and Parliament. I do not believe that the additional proposed link is justified. I would also re-emphasise the importance of the direct link between the committee and the Prime Minister. Parliament, so far as I know, has no quarrel with the Prime Minister's overall responsibility for security and intelligence matters. Indeed, it is my belief that it values the fact that it should be the highest Minister in the land who should hold such responsibility. It will, I believe, enhance Parliament's confidence in the committee to know that the committee has direct access, not just to the heads of agency, but, far more importantly, to the Prime Minister himself, not only once a year but at any time on any matter relating to its remit.
Therefore, although I accept that the matter is extremely important and was enunciated very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in Committee, and we have considered carefully what was said then, we remain of the view that, in principle, it is the Prime Minister who should be responsible to Parliament for the agencies; that the committee appointed by him with the help of the Leader of the Opposition should be a committee reporting to him as its appointer; and that the

1401
link with Parliament should be in the form of the Prime Minister reporting to Parliament what the committee has reported to him, subject only to such excisions as, on his responsibility, he thinks necessary to achieve the purpose of such excisions as stated in the Bill. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he explain to me and the House how Parliament will hold the Prime Minister accountable for the job that he undoubtedly has to do as the head of these activities, bearing in mind that in every other sphere of government activity where a Minister is held accountable, there are other mechanisms for getting information to Parliament about the operations of that department? In this one instance of the intelligence services, there is legally no other mechanism for Parliament to be informed other than through the Prime Minister or, if the amendment is agreed to, by the committee's report direct to Parliament. Unfortunately, if the amendment is not accepted, the only way in which Parliament can be informed is by the Prime Minister.
It seems illogical that a Prime Minister should inform Parliament about acts or omissions in which he may or may not have been involved which would cause Parliament to question his actions. However, there would be a mechanism for Parliament to be given a different view of what was going on if the committee could report direct to Parliament. That would enable Parliament to hold the Prime Minister accountable for his actions.
Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as this question was addressed to me before I sat down, perhaps I should answer it before the noble Lord, Lord Richard, says what he wishes to be done with the amendment.
The whole purpose of this Bill is to introduce new statutory arrangements for the intelligence services and GCHQ, and to introduce a new arrangement in respect of the Security Service. In considering what those arrangements are to be, one has to have regard to the functions of the agencies. There is no point in having a secret service which publicly reports. It is generally accepted that is a rather unsatisfactory arrangement. Therefore, the reporting arrangements must fit in with the idea that there is to be a secret service.
At present the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament for that service. The Bill enhances the arrangements for that accountability by providing that the Prime Minister should appoint a committee of parliamentarians after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. That committee is to be responsible for consideration of the expenditure, policy and administration of the services, and will be the extra part of the new arrangement or enhancement. The only important issue between the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and myself on behalf of the Government is whether that committee should report directly to Parliament or the Prime Minister should submit the report of that committee to Parliament. What I say to your Lordships is that a system whereby the Prime Minister has direct accountability to Parliament is better served by an
1402
arrangement under which the committee reports to the Prime Minister and he is under a statutory obligation to submit that report to Parliament.
Nobody has suggested—in particular, I include the noble Lord, Lord Richard— that the Prime Minister should be cut out of questions about what should be excised from the report. In the event of a dispute between the heads of agency and the committee, the amendment of the noble Lord suggests that the Prime Minister should be the referee. We all agree that the Prime Minister's role in this matter is crucial. I say that it is more logical to recognise that fact and impose upon the Prime Minister the obligation to lay before Parliament the committee's; report, with only such necessary excisions as the reasons given in the Bill may require, rather than that the committee—not appointed by Parliament but by him—should report directly to Parliament through the Prime Minister. Under the arrangement proposed in the amendment, the Prime Minister would have the opportunity to consider any dispute between the heads of agency and the committee, assuming that was a suitable arrangement in the first place, on what should go in the report.
I suggest to the noble Lord that the answer to his question is that the committee is the additional feature, and that its report will go to Parliament in an appropriate way under the machinery proposed by the Bill.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I have listened to the noble and learned Lord explain again why he thinks that this matter should go to the Prime Minister direct and from the Prime Minister to Parliament, rather than from the committee to Parliament. I find his argument just as unconvincing as he obviously finds mine.
It seems to me that if a committee consisting of, parliamentarians is to be set up, even if it is done by the Prime Minister, as it has to be under the Bill, the object of the exercise is that that committee should exercise some kind of scrutiny over the expenditure, administration and policy of the services. It is there to provide a flow of information from the services on the one hand to Parliament on the other.
It does not seem to me that the fact that it is set up by the Prime Minister detracts for one instant from the object of that committee; nor does it derogate from the function that the committee will have to fulfil. If that is the object of the exercise, one should not forget that the six people on the committee will undoubtedly be carefully chosen by the Prime Minister after consultation with my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition. Presumably, they will be people who have already been vetted, or perhaps are so great and good that they do not need vetting, if any such exist in this country. If they do, they are the kinds of people we are talking about.
In those circumstances, the committee can have an important say in what Parliament is entitled to be told. This is nothing to do with the accountability of the Prime Minister for the operation of the services; it is only to do with the flow of information about the services from the services via the committee to

1403
Parliament. It seems to me that the formality of the links between the committee and Parliament is important and ought to be expressed.
However, I am conscious of two matters. First, I am unlikely, to put it mildly, to convince the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of the strength of the argument that I put forward. Secondly, I do not think that this is an appropriate subject on which to divide the House. Therefore, I beg the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Investigation of Complaints]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 9, line 13, after ("above") insert ("and paragraph 4 below").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 7 I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 8. The amendments have been tabled in order to make clear the respective responsibilities of the tribunal and the commissioner in dealing with complaints about activities abroad which are alleged to have been committed by the Intelligence Service or GCHQ. The schedule follows closely the similar provisions for the Security Service Tribunal in the Security Service Act 1989 which states that complaints about property will not be investigated by the tribunal but will be the responsibility of the commissioner. This reflects the responsibilities of the commissioner to review the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers to issue property warrants.
In the same way, it is the intention that complaints about activities abroad which are or should have been the subject of an authorisation given under Clause 7 should also be the responsibility of the commissioner rather than the tribunal. This will also reflect the commissioner's responsibilities to review the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers in granting authorisations. The commissioner will be in a much better position than the tribunal to deal with all aspects of a complaint concerning an authorisation, since he will regularly be reviewing the giving of authorisations. The amendments are intended to make the provision clear in accordance with that policy. They are of a technical nature, and I commend them to your Lordships.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, line 22, leave out ("that matter") and insert ("so much of the complaint as relates to the doing of that act")
Schedule 3 [The Intelligence and Security Committee]:
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 13, leave out lines 17 to 28 and insert:
("(2) Information shall be disclosed to the Committee unless the Secretary of State is of the opinion that

(a) it is sensitive information;

(b) its disclosure to the committee would damage national security; and

(c) that notwithstanding sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) above it is not in the public interest to disclose it.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment looks at the committee from the other point of view. It is not concerned with what the committee does with its
1404
deliberations and conclusions but what information it gets in order to deliberate and reach conclusions. In the amendment we have sought to clarify the situation as set out in Schedule 3 on page 13 of the Bill. We have some anxiety that the committee will not be able to carry out its work properly because of the danger that it may be denied the information that it needs to make proper assessments and judgments. Lest people throw up their hands in horror, I remind them of what I said in relation to the previous amendment. The people who will sit on the committee will be very carefully selected. I would have thought that prima facie it ought to be entitled to see just about everything it thought it necessary to see.
So far, the Government have said very little that reassures me on the point. The schedule is already structured in such a way that the onus is put on the committee to request information rather than that there is a presumption that information is automatically available to it. At the very least, the responsibility for providing information to the committee must be that of the Secretary of State. In our view, he should be the only person able to deny information to the committee.
Since the Committee stage I have thought about the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but I have to say that I do not believe that the schedule, as currently drafted, is better. I do not feel that it is appropriate for the heads of the services to have placed upon them the responsibility, in the first instance, of denying information to the committee of parliamentarians. I did consider the possibility that the heads of the agencies might be more liberal in releasing information than some Secretaries of State. On the other hand, even if that were to be the case, it is likely that the Secretary of State would be involved closely in the decision, regardless of the attitudes or leanings of the heads of the agencies or the directors.
What is more important, the necessary act of balancing the need for sensitivity and security, on the one hand, against the need for appropriate accountability to Parliament, on the other, is one that can be exercised only the Secretary of State himself. It is he or she who must account for any refusal to the committee, and ultimately to Parliament itself. Having considered what the noble and learned Lord told us on a previous occasion—we have taken on board some of his helpful words in other ways—we have set out in the amendment the tests that the Secretary of State would need to follow when deciding whether information should be disclosed. To deny a request for information would require the Secretary of State to be of the opinion that the information was sensitive and that its disclosure to the committee would damage national security. I believe that to be right and sensible.
The Secretary of State finally will have to consider whether, despite that danger, it was in the public interest for the information to be disclosed. The tests are not novel. They are extracted from the Government's drafting of the existing clause. We do not wish the procedures to be adopted under the Bill to cause any danger to those who work directly for those services or those who, sometimes at great risk to themselves, assist

1405
them in their work. The issue here is not total disclosure; the issue is disclosure to this small hand-picked committee.
What gets from the committee to Parliament, and therefore out into the public arena, is something that we discussed in relation to the previous amendment. Clearly the committee should have access to a greater flow and amount of information than Parliament itself will have eventually, as we know that censorship machinery will be built in to be exercised by the Prime Minister. That is the amendment. It simplifies the existing procedures set out in the Bill. It places responsibility for refusing information firmly on the Secretary of State, and it defines, fairly precisely, the grounds upon which the Secretary of State can refuse the information. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord. It is difficult to understand how the amendment is supposed to work. The result of the amendment would be a great inconsistency between the existing provisions of paragraph 3(1) and the amended paragraph 3(2). The amendment proposes that the Secretary of State must disclose information unless it meets all three criteria listed. At the same time, paragraph 3(1) already provides that the heads of agencies may withhold sensitive information. From the description given by the noble I. Lord Richard, I understood that he intended that the heads of agencies should be cut out altogether. However, I may have misunderstood that, and, if so, some amendment of paragraph 3(1) will be required.
As I said, I am not certain that the amendment sits comfortably with the existing text. However, perhaps I may try to deal with the matter on the assumption that the three conditions specified in the amendment should be read cumulatively and be of general application; that is, all three conditions must be met in full before the Secretary of State may withhold information from the committee. I believe that that is the essence of what the noble Lord was proposing. That being the case,
"notwithstanding sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) above"
contained in sub-paragraph (c), would have little purpose.
The amendment may be prompted by a misunderstanding of the scope of the Secretary of State's power to withhold information from the committee. Perhaps I may be permitted this opportunity to re-emphasise that the Secretary of State's power in that respect is limited and clearly set out in the Bill. He may withhold only information which it would not normally be appropriate to disclose to a departmental Select Committee but not on national security grounds alone. That is attempting to deal with the fact that this is a special committee operating very much in the area of national security. It will operate as closely as it can to a departmental Select Committee from the point of view of receiving information, but whereas for an ordinary departmental Select Committee national security grounds alone might serve as a proper reason for withholding information, that will not be so in relation
1406
to this committee. That is a reasonable and limited provision which will not hinder the committee's ability to fulfil its functions. The Secretary of State is always able to overturn a decision of an agency head to withhold information if he considers it to be in the public interest.
If the purpose of the amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to oven-tile, on the grounds that disclosure did not harm national security or was in the public interest, a decision by the head of the agency to withhold sensitive information, it would limit dangerously the type of information which may, arid often should, be withheld. Sub-paragraph (2) (b) of the amendment introduces a new test into the Bill; namely, that information should not be disclosed if it would damage national security. However, while there are circumstances in which disclosure of certain information could not be said to pose a threat to national security, those same circumstances could be of a nature which might identify and therefore put at risk an individual.
From what the noble Lord said earlier, I am sure that he agrees that it would be wrong to put at risk the life of an individual who is, for example, informing on a major drugs operation, merely because the information requested had no direct consequences for the security of this country. In a large criminal drug operation it might be dangerous if the identity of an individual were to be disclosed. Indeed, we have sad examples of the ruthlessness of people involved in those operations. The noble Lord would not wish to put at risk anyone who was giving information on such an operation.
The amendment places on the Secretary of State the onus for determining which information should be disclosed to the committee. The provision in paragraph 3(2) that the head of the agency may decide to disclose sensitive information to the committee if he considered it safe to do so is the passage to which I referred earlier. It seems odd that there should be any wish to exclude the head of the agency's positive role in that respect, especially when in relation to an earlier amendment the noble Lord argued that the heads of the agencies should be involved closely in discussing with the committee what information should be withheld from the annual report to Parliament (on the basis of a strong working relationship).
The point of note in the Bill is that the Secretary of State may, by virtue of paragraph 3(3) overrule the head of agency's initial decision to withhold information, on the basis that disclosure is in the public interest. That is a useful power. It is a power tending to release information to the committee.
The amendment also deletes paragraph 3(4) which provides that the Secretary of State may withhold information which he would normally think it proper not to disclose to a departmental Select Committee, other than on national security grounds. The guidelines covering the procedures of Select Committees stipulate that a variety of matters, including for example, the advice given by a law officer, matters which are sub judice, legislative proposals 'which are not yet public and information on individuals given in confidence, may be withheld. I can see no reason why the committee

1407
of parliamentarians established under this Bill should have greater access in this respect than a normal Select Committee, nor can I see why their functions require them to have access to such information.
I hope that my explanation has allayed some of the anxieties which underlie the amendment. I have sought to deal with the principle of the amendment as the noble Lord explained it; but I must point out that there are certain difficulties with the drafting of it.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord has allayed any of our worries but he has certainly exposed the inadequacy of the drafting of the amendment. Therefore, I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall take careful note of what the noble and learned Lord said about the drafting. While one does not wish to give any warnings as to what may happen at a subsequent stage, it may be that if we can get the drafting right, we shall return to the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Richard Lord Richard moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 13, line 19, leave out ("it safe to disclose it") and insert ("that the disclosure to the Committee is unlikely to damage national security").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not believe that there is any problem with the drafting of these amendments. Amendment No. 10 is simple. Subparagraph (2) states:
"The fact that any particular information is sensitive information shall not prevent its disclosure … if the Director-General … considers it safe to disclose it."
The amendment seeks to take out the words "safe to disclose it" and to insert the words:
"that the disclosure to the Committee is unlikely to damage national security".
Amendment No. 11 deals with very much the same point, save that it is in relation to line 22 rather than line 19.
We are concerned that the committee will not be able to carry out its work properly because it will be denied the information that it needs. The expressions used in the sub-paragraph are too imprecise. It is not clear what "considers it safe to disclose" may mean. It may mean politically safe rather than the meaning which we assume the Government intend. We should prefer the test to be specific. It should be targeted upon the mischief to be avoided; namely, whether disclosure would damage national security.
As I said earlier, I should not wish any of the procedures adopted under the Bill to be a danger to any of those who work directly for the services or to those who assist them. I remind the House that the issue here is disclosure to a small hand-picked committee. In our submission to the House, these two amendments would make clearer, more precise and therefore more comprehensible the procedure whereby the committee has access to information. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, I understand that one of the main reasons for moving these amendments is a worry that the heads of agencies and the Secretary of State may withhold information, on some unspecified criteria, which should properly be made available to the
1408
committee. I agree that the terms "safe" and "public interest" are somewhat general. But there are practical reasons for the choice of these words in the drafting of the Bill. It is fairly plain that in the context of the Bill, the word "safe" is not used in the sense of politically safe, assuming that there is any such thing. It is used in the sense of safety of the people involved.
It would not be right to replace the test of "safety" by one of national security. There are circumstances in which the disclosure of information would not harm national security, but where it might, for example, put at risk the life of an individual who has given information about a drugs operation to the services. The judgment about whether it is safe to disclose information which comes within the categories of sensitivity listed in the Bill must be left to those most closely involved. Each case must be considered individually in the light of all the relevant circumstances. It is crucial that the head of the agency should be able to decide whether it is indeed "safe", in a particular case, to disclose the information requested.
That does not mean that information which could reasonably be disclosed to the committee will be needlessly withheld. That is very much against the spirit of this legislation. Indeed, as I said on Second Reading, the agencies are very much behind the Bill. They wish it to be enacted because they believe that it will be in the interests of the proper administration of the services and will be for their general benefit.
The first test which the head of agency must apply is whether the information falls into the category of "sensitive information" as defined in paragraph 4. If it does, he must then consider whether it is, nevertheless, safe to disclose it. He has a discretion to disclose it if he believes, in all the circumstances, that it is safe. The Secretary of State may then overrule any decision by the head of agency to withhold information if he considers it in the public interest to do so. Therefore, in a sense, that is directing more information to the committee. Notwithstanding the sensitivity of the information, the head of agency can allow it to be disclosed. The Secretary of State can disagree with the head of agency and can allow disclosure, even against the will of the head of the agency.
The first test which the head of agency must apply is whether the information falls into the category of "sensitive" information as defined in paragraph 4. If it does, he must then consider whether it is nevertheless safe to disclose it. The Secretary of State may then overrule any decision by the head of agency to withhold information if he considers it in the public interest to do So.
Amendment No. 11 seeks to delete the phrase "public interest" and replace it with the "national security" test. Again, national security is not the only appropriate consideration here, for the reasons I have given. Furthermore, the amendment may be unnecessarily limiting. As currently drafted, the Bill enables the Secretary of State to order the disclosure of information even if it impacts on national security. I should have thought that such a provision would be welcomed because, as the noble Lord has said, the committee is looking at matters which are very close to national

1409
security. Therefore, even if national security were involved, it might still be appropriate for the Secretary of State to think that the information should be disclosed. It is intended that the committee should have access to as much information as possible to enable it to fulfil its remit. Conceivably, almost all information relating to the work of the services could be withheld on the grounds of national security. I consider it one of the strengths of the Bill in relation to the committee that the Secretary of State may not make a decision to withhold information on national security grounds alone. I consider that to be an important proviso as regards the openness of the committee. As I said, that in that respect, the amendment goes in the opposite direction, although I am sure that is not what the noble Lord intends. However, that is its effect.
I hope that in the light of those explanations, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it seems to me that I criticise the words "safe" and "in the public interest" as insufficiently precise, and the noble and learned Lord criticises the words "national security" on the grounds that they are over precise and unnecessarily restrictive. There are arguments on both sides.
I should have thought that somewhere between the generality of the words "safe" and "public interest" on the one hand, and the restrictiveness of the phrase "endangering national security" on the other, it may be possible to arrive at a phrase which would satisfy both the noble and learned Lord and me. Between now and Third Reading we shall try to see whether we can achieve that. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 45, at end insert:
("5. For the purposes of section 10(1) of this Act the expression "expenditure, administration and policy" shall include operational matters and subject to paragraph 3 above the Committee shall therefore be entitled to examine them.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment defines the meaning of the words "expenditure, administration and policy" and thus the remit of the committee's work, subject to certain safeguards. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said:
"The committee is there to look at expenditure, administration and policy, not at delicate operations".—[Official Report, 13/1/94; col. 281.]
The noble Baroness is something of an expert on such matters. She was not, of course, speaking for the Government. However, it is fairly clear that her views are not simply those of the services concerned but also those of the Government. If the committee is not to have at least some broad and general information about operations, how can it have any real role?
I am not suggesting that the committee needs to be given detailed information about individual covert acts. For example, I do not believe that the committee need know the date, time and method of breaking into the Ruritanian embassy. Surely, however, it should be told about the general extent of different classes of
1410
intelligence work by the Secret Intelligence Service arid GCHQ. A committee cannot assess the level of expenditure without knowing the level of need, how the resources are being targeted and how efficient and effective the services are, given the resources that they are allocated.
Similarly with administration, discussions of policy without any understanding of how that policy is being implemented is, frankly, pretty useless. It would be unacceptable and, indeed, laughed out of court in arty other area. Perhaps I may give the House an illustration. It may be said that it is an appropriate policy to collect intelligence on the development and possible use of nuclear weapons by other countries. Clearly that would be a perfectly good use of such services. However, should that include spying on American bases? Further, what kind of techniques should be used? We may think it quite acceptable to bribe and blackmail members of the armed forces of Iraq to ascertain more information about chemical weapons in that country. But are we to authorise the use of torture to gain such information? How much information on policies relating to particular methods of operation will be available to the committee? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can enlighten us. Will there be any information at all? If there is, what kind of things will be involved? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can provide some illustrations.
I return to the amendment. Is the use of particular methods an issue of policy or does it stray into discussion of what the noble Baroness, Lady Park, referred to in Committee as "delicate operations"? Again, perhaps the noble and learned Lord can inform the House. If the Bill was amended to allow discussion in the committee about which countries and in what circumstances particular techniques were used, that could surely be done without disclosing details of individual operations and certainly without disclosing the names of the persons involved. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that problems of efficiency or lack of effectiveness, as well as problems with the way policy is implemented, are sometimes only discovered or illustrated by looking at the actual way that a system is operated? Of course, scandals are often individual lapses, but they are illustrative of wider problems.
As we were happy to concede in Committee, we would not wish the procedures adopted under the Bill to cause harm to any of those who work directly for the services, or those who, sometimes at great risk to themselves, assist them in their work. The issue here is disclosure to a very small, hand-picked committee, all the members of which, we assume, will be vetted for security clearance by the services themselves and who, as such, can surely be trusted. Contrary to what was said by one noble Lord in Committee, the notion that those six members will be helped by two or three researchers who would have access to sensitive information is surely absolute nonsense.
If the Government are genuine in their wish to make the services more accountable, they will accept the amendment and thereby make the legislation meaningful rather than leaving the committee which the Bill sets up to work with its hands tied behind its back because

1411
of insufficient information and, therefore, unable properly to fulfil its remit to scrutinise the work of the services. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment specifies that, subject to the provisions regarding access to information in paragraph 3 of Schedule 3, the remit of the oversight committee will include "operational matters". In Committee, your Lordships debated the provisions for the oversight committee in some detail. I am grateful for the further opportunity to set out some thoughts on that committee and to reassure the House of the importance the Government attach to its playing an important and effective role.
The remit of the committee, as set out in the Bill, is to scrutinise the expenditure, administration and policy of the Security Service, the Intelligence Service and GCHQ. That is a very wide remit; it is meant to be so. It is the Government's intention that the committee should be given as wide a mandate as possible to enable it to play an important and effective oversight role. It is for that reason also that the Bill provides for the committee to have unprecedented access to security and intelligence information.
As regards the information the committee can obtain, the answer is provided in the earlier provisions of the schedule. I should weary your Lordships if I were to repeat them because we discussed them in relation to an earlier amendment. Basically, all information about the service is available to the committee for the purpose of discharging its remit unless it is excepted under the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the schedule. Perhaps I may refer to the latter. The provisions prevent information being given to the committee in some circumstances if it is "sensitive". The term "sensitive information" is defined in paragraph 4(a), (b) and (c). So, even if it is sensitive, the information may still be given. Moreover, if the Secretary of State thinks that the director-general was wrong in not giving it and that, although sensitive, it should be given in the public interest, the Secretary of State shall disclose it. Again, under paragraph 3(1) (b) (ii) the Secretary of State could determine that it be not disclosed but only on the grounds allowed under paragraph 3(4) which we have discussed. Therefore, there is ample provision for full information to the committee about the matters covered by its remit.
I suggest to your Lordships that it is a confusion to put into the description of the committee's remit the reference to "operational matters". The purpose of the remit is to define what it is that the committee is supposed to report on. The committee is supposed to report on the matter referred to in its remit; namely, scrutiny of the expenditure, administration and policy of the two services and GCHQ. It is not intended that the committee should review the operations of the agencies, nor that the operations should in any way be subject to the committee's approval. The proposed amendment might, if operational matters are put into the remit of the committee, lead to the idea that one of the purposes of the committee was to explore operational detail.
1412
I would suggest to your Lordships that we have the balance right. What we have done is to say what is the appropriate remit of the committee, and indeed I did not perceive the noble Baroness, in supporting the amendment, as wishing to enlarge that remit. Her concern is whether the remit can properly be discharged. Her concern is that, because information might be withheld, it would be impossible to discharge that remit. I am saying that under paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 3 there is unprecedented access to information for the purpose of this remit being fulfilled.
Accordingly, I would suggest to your Lordships that it is not appropriate to alter the remit to insert in it operational matters. I also suggest that that is not necessary in order to secure that sufficient information on operational matters will be available properly to enable the committee to discharge its remit, having regard to the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4. I believe that these paragraphs represent the protections necessary to secure the information, having regard to the nature of the services in question, and no more. Therefore I believe that the balance of the Bill is right. My particular objection to the amendment is that it seems to alter the remit itself and I believe that that cannot be right in the circumstances. Indeed I do not know whether the noble Baroness wishes to alter the remit in that way. Rather, her concern was as I have sought to express it, and I believe it is met by the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I hope he can try to explain something to me. My understanding is that the object of the Bill is to ensure that Parliament can be satisfied that the security services are operating satisfactorily, and also to check the correct expenditure of public funds. Obviously the committee needs to have the ability to look into the expenditure of the funds to ensure that that expenditure is properly administered, and to ensure that the policies of the intelligence services are what might broadly be termed legitimate policies that Parliament could accept. But given the nature of the services that we are talking about—the very clandestine and secret nature of these services—one of the difficulties is how we in Parliament will be sure that the activities of the services comply with the stated policies, if one can use that as an example.
Initially, the remit of the committee to have oversight of the financial expenditure would seem to act as a close control. However, one only needs to remember the Iran/Contra affair, led or organised by Oliver North in the United States, when a clandestine operation took place which was self-financing in the sense that arms were being sold in one area and the proceeds from that were being used in another area. The expenditure for the CIA was minimal and therefore would not have been picked up by a check of the financial expenditure. It would seem to me that for the committee to be able to report to Parliament that the activities of the intelligence services were such as Parliament would approve of, the committee needs to have some ability to relate the

1413
expenditure, the administration and the policy to what happens on the ground. In that sense the amendment before us seems to be a mechanism to do that.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, again I believe I am entitled to reply as, theoretically, I have not sat down. However, I ought to ask for leave to do so just in case it might be thought that I am trespassing on our rules. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, accepts that the remit should be to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the three agencies. He then asks how one can find out what are the expenditures, administrations and policies of these services. The noble Lord referred us to Oliver. North and his activities.
One of the points about this is that the agencies will require money. They will have an administration and they will be following some sort of policy. The committee is not required to examine those matters in the air, but rather to examine them against the facts of the situation and the information about the activities of the agencies that is made available to it. If, for example, the committee discovered that one of the agencies was making money in the manner described by the noble Lord, I would think it might wish to report that something of that kind was going on within the agencies, and consider whether that was proper.
The question of obtaining the necessary information in order to do that is what is provided for by paragraphs 3 and 4 of the third schedule. I have said—I believe it to be true —that paragraphs 3 and 4 give the committee really unprecedented access to such information to enable it to fulfil its remit, and give it access to all the information to which it is reasonable that it should have access in the circumstances of the work the agencies do. I would be surprised if, in the light of those provisions, anything significant in the way of expenditure, administration and policy could be undertaken without that coming to the attention of the oversight committee. It is not as though the committee is asked to examine these three matters in vacuo; it is asked to examine them in the light of the information made available to it under the paragraphs I have mentioned.
As I said earlier, I believe it causes confusion to include in the remit the matter of operations. The information on operations is not part of the remit; it is part of the material that the committee requires to obtain in order to fulfil the remit. That is the logic of the way in which it is treated in the Bill, and I believe that that is correct.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I hope he will make what he is saying absolutely clear to me. Am I right in thinking that he is saying that there is absolutely no reason why information on operational matters will be withheld under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3, which concerns access to information? Will the committee be able to have such information?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, what I have said is that all information in the hands of the agencies is available to the committee subject to the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4. These provisions relate to sensitive
1414
information and the committee would not, in the ordinary course, have access to sensitive information. However, the sensitive information is very closely defined and is intended to show the sort of information that is of a character that is so detailed that it is likely, if disclosed to anyone, to" have damaging effects, perhaps for individuals and certainly for operations. The answer is that the committee will have access to operational information but only in so far as that does not transgress the criteria for sensitivity and the other criteria for withholding information, which are specified in the paragraphs of the third schedule I have referred to. I repeat, I believe that these criteria are the minimum criteria necessary for securing—as the noble Baroness wishes to secure—the safety and integrity of the operations covered by the services.
The full answer to the question of the noble Baroness is that the committee will have access to operational information in so far as disclosure of that information to the committee is not prohibited under the provisions of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the third schedule. Those prohibitions are the minimum necessary to secure the integrity of the services as defined.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that clarification. That is exactly what I wanted to hear. It is clear from what he said that the committee will have access to operational information subject to the safeguards in paragraph 3 which he mentioned. In the light of that reply, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Cadet Training:Future
5.50 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are their plans for the future of the Army Cadet Force, the Air Training Corps and the Sea Cadets.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask my Unstarred Question I must first declare an interest in that I am a vice-chairman of the Army Cadet Force Association. That is a purely non-executive position, but it enables me to keep abreast of cadet affairs generally —a matter in which I took considerable interest during my time at the Ministry of Defence some years ago.
Everyone recognises that the defence budget is under considerable pressure these days. Some would say that the peace dividend has been gathered in more than once. Be that as it may, all aspects of defence expenditure are now under close scrutiny, not least the cadet forces.
I believe that the cadet forces of our three services have never been more vital than they are now, for a. number of reasons. Here I want to deal particularly with the Army Cadet Force and also with the Air Training Corps, leaving my noble friend Lord Mottistone to deal with the Sea Cadets. I want to emphasise right from the start that the ACF is not just a recruiting officer for the British Army. That is not even its first role although it may be a useful by-product. Nonetheless, it is a fact that young men joining the Army following ACF experience tend as a general rule to stay much longer. As the cost

1415
of training, particularly having regard to the high-tech nature of today's Army, is very high that has a demonstrable financial benefit. Indeed, so far as concerns the ATC, I remember being told that an RAF pilot entrant who has completed a course in gliding with the ATC is twice as likely to pass his fast jet training as one who has not. If I go on to tell your Lordships that the cost of training a fast jet pilot is close to £5 million, the demonstrable financial benefit that the ATC brings to its parent service is abundantly apparent.
My honourable friend Mr. Walker, the Member for Tayside in another place, initiated a debate in the other place recently about the Air Training Corps, in which he has played a distinguished part for a number of years, so I shall not delay your Lordships on that particular matter at this time.
The second benefit to which I would refer is the simple fact that as our three services shrink, they are visibly represented in fewer and fewer places, which in public relations terms is most undesirable. Thus, for example, the 1,620 ACF locations, many in inner cities, represent a very important Army presence which would not otherwise exist. I do not offer that as a key rationale; but it is a point to be kept in mind.
By far the most important aspect of ACF, ATC and Sea Cadet activity—and here I draw particularly on my own ACF experience—is their role in providing a strong and effective youth movement at a time when such things have never been more vital or valuable to the nation. There are some 90,000 youngsters in the cadets altogether, enjoying not only an exciting and challenging outlet for their energy but also a range of quality training leading to useful qualifications, most recognised by the appropriate non-military authorities. Recently in South London—as some of your Lordships may have heard—a young girl aged 17 who had been serving in the ACF was reported by the local social worker at the Lewisham social services to have played a quite exemplary part in the circumstances following a regrettable road accident. The young lady was highly commended for the action she took at the time of the accident and subsequently. She has since made it absolutely clear that all the skills and experience that she brought to bear on that occasion were drawn from her ACF experience.
The cadets, and the ACF in particular, represent an excellent example of a successful joint venture, with the Government on the one hand and the voluntary sector on the other. Over the years the Ministry of Defence has provided a whole range of accommodation and administrative and training support, always in a cost effective way and often through the economic use of existing facilities. In return, the Government have had the benefit of the services of some 7,000 voluntary leaders who give their time and experience to the movement in an extraordinarily generous way. The result is a stream of responsible and disciplined youngsters, often from disadvantaged backgrounds, emerging into the community as responsible adults.
It is a fact that Ministers, from the Prime Minister down, have on many occasions reaffirmed the importance they attach to these organisations and
1416
declared their continued support. For example, during the course of last year my right honourable friend the Prime Minister himself wrote in a letter to ACF officials:
"I have nothing but praise for the work of the Army Cadet Force, not only here in Cambridgeshire",
where he was supporting a function,
"but throughout the country".
My right honourable friend went on to say:
"I want to pay tribute … to all those who work in support of the ACF. You cannot be in any doubt of the value of the work which you do".
Perhaps I may turn now to the words of my noble friend on the Front Bench, who is to answer the debate tonight. My noble friend visited an ACF unit in Cleveland about a year ago. He said—and I hope that I quote him correctly:
"The Army values the work of the ACF. From the Army's point of view, it is a good source of recruits, many of whom go on to make fine careers with us. The ACF also helps the Army maintain its roots among the population at a time when the proportion of British people with Service connections is falling."
That is the point that I made a moment ago.
Why then, my Lords, do I raise this matter tonight? It is because I fear greatly that in the latest round of defence expenditure reviews the future of the ACF and the other cadet forces is again being examined most critically, and rumour has it that draconian cuts are again being considered. It seems that the chopper is poised to fall first on the cadet training teams.
These are the regular officers and NCOs, generally operating in teams of five or six, who visit the various ACF and CCF detachments on a regular basis in support of training and other activities. The agreed number of personnel assigned to the teams has already been reduced recently by some 12 posts, and I gather that a further cut of 30 is now proposed. I am sure that my noble friend realises that to achieve those larger cuts it will be necessary to reduce the strength of the CTTs by 50 per cent. in Wales, 40 per cent. in the Highlands and by a third in both Northern Ireland and the North of England. I believe that it is proposed to cut the strength of the cadet training teams by a third in Northern Ireland. Your Lordships may think that that is a preposterous proposal.
Does my noble friend really propose to endorse those devastating cuts in the light of his own words, which I have just quoted, and in the light of the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister? I hope that my noble friend will be able to give a plain and unvarnished assurance on this matter when he replies a little later.
There is a further disquieting rumour—namely, that my noble friend may be considering reducing the modest remuneration paid to the voluntary leaders by between 60 and 70 per cent. I refer, of course, to the reduction in paid training days, at present 28, but I hear to be reduced to around five.
This is not the first time that the affairs of cadets have been raised in any detail in your Lordships' House. However, the last time upon which they were raised in great detail was, I understand, on 1st April 1930. That was the time, as your Lordships will recall, when the first Labour Government had recently come into office and were for the first time proposing the sort of

1417
draconian cuts about which we hear tonight in the strength of support for the Army Cadet Force. The hapless Minister on that occasion, the then Under-Secretary of State at the War Office, was Earl De La Warr. I imagine that that would be the grandfather of the present noble Earl. Among those who spoke was the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Onslow, all different personages from those we know and love today but none the less particularly effective on this topic. It is perhaps salutary for me to remind my noble friend that the unfortunate and hapless Minister left his office shortly after replying to that debate in which, so far as I can read, he had not a single friend from the Floor of the House.
Perhaps I may summarise the questions that I should like to put to my noble friend. First, will he assure me that the cadet training teams will remain sufficiently numerous to do their job properly and will therefore not be reduced beyond the 12 posts presently agreed? Secondly, can he assure me that the present level of cadet funding, taken together at around £40 million will remain broadly intact for so far ahead as he can see, and in particular that the number of paid training days to which I have referred will not be reduced?
I am most grateful for your Lordships' attention on the matter. I look forward to the speeches of other noble Lords, and of course to the reply of my noble friend shortly.
6.3 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for raising the matter tonight. As we know, he is an ex-Minister of Defence and also vice chairman of the Army Cadet Force Association. He therefore knows all the facts. I declare an interest as the Honorary Colonel of Northumbrian Army Cadet Force. It is a great pleasure, honour and interest, but it is a sobering fact that I find I am over 50 years older than any of my troops.
I accepted the post because I was so deeply impressed with the spirit of voluntary service which characterises all cadet movements—the ACF, the Air Training Corps and the Sea Cadets. After a good deal of experience, I believe that they are all as good as any of the youth movements in this country. I, and many others, are worried at the serious threats to their funding by the Ministry of Defence's proposed cuts.
We all of course realise the desperate need to cut public spending. What is less easy to agree to is the question of how the Ministry of Defence seems to be going about it. It seems to be doing so by taking a percentage off everything regardless of its value to the country or its total cost or importance. I believe that the approach is called the equality of misery theory. Absolutely nothing, however trivial, is apparently exempt. To put into perspective the costs of the forces, the ACF at present is thought to cost about £18 million; the Air Training Corps, £20 million; and the Sea Cadets, £6 million. The Sea Cadets cost less because the Admiralty has always been notably stingy about paying for them, but they are a registered charity. The numbers involved at present are about 18,000 adults in all three, with over 91,000 cadets.
1418
To put the matter into perspective, the costs of the Army Cadet Force, or the ATC, could be said to be almost exactly the same as the compensation which is likely to be payable to 100 dismissed pregnant WREN s, or the cost of one Chieftain tank.
From what I have learnt, the ATC is facing the worst cuts of all. While it is no doubt possible to say that a small percentage reduction can be made in almost anything once, I believe that a major cut would destroy the morale which is already dangerously low because of the rumours and threats. Before the Second World War, there were similar cuts to the funding of the cadet forces, as the noble Lord said. Many of the cuts were carried out on a voluntary basis, and although that may 'well have to occur now I do not believe that we should rely on that approach. The danger is that we lose those vital services to young people.
The beneficial effect that these young people receive in learning to be good citizens, and good soldiers, sailors or airman, is not in question, Nor is their contribution to the country, often in very depressing urban areas. The chief constable of my county, himself an ex-cadet, has told me that he is distressed at the prospect of major cuts to cadet funding. He believes that they play a significant role in keeping some young people from drifting into a life of crime. In particular, after the serious riots in the inaptly named Meadowell Estate in North Tyneside two years ago, the ACF made an important initiative in recruiting bored and disillusioned young people. Many more young criminals may cost us a great deal more than the cadet forces cost in the present climate of unemployment. If this is an argument that the Home Office should fund part of the costs of those forces, perhaps we may consider that, too. Indeed, privatisation of some or part of the cadet forces may well be considered a possible third alternative.
I could further quote the dismay of a number of senior prison officers, some of whom I spoke to last week, who have given a great deal of their time voluntarily to serve as adult instructors. They believe that the cadet forces play an important role in keeping young people away from prison or from young offenders' institutions. The fact that many of the adult instructors give so much of their time for free is a matter that we must all acknowledge with gratitude. I am told that many of them are paid for far less than a third of the days or weekends which they attend, and a great many of them, to my certain knowledge, have undertaken this task for over 30 years. It is a dedicated job to which they attach the greatest importance, and financial reward is by no means their priority.
However, if the cuts go deep, as we have heard, it is possible that the instructors would be paid for only five days per annum against the current 28 days. That would be shameful, and I very much hope that it does not occur. As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said, the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has himself seen the activities of the ACF in Cleveland; and I know that he was much impressed. I believe that he has since encouraged the cadets to become involved in the

1419
Government's Action for Cities Initiative which they are happy to do. I am sure that that involvement will repay the efforts that they put in.
Further confirmation of the value of those youth movements can be found in the fact that so many of the cadets go on to join the Army, Navy or Air Force. Indeed, I am told that it is possible, although not easy to prove, that some 50 per cent. of the senior NCOs in the Army at this moment have at one time or another been in a cadet force. Many young men or women learn some flying in the ATC for the first time. Therefore when they join the forces they are to some extent partly trained, which must save a good deal of initial training costs as well as producing a steady supply of highly motivated and keen young people. I am delighted to inform your Lordships that all three cadet forces are very politically incorrect as both girls and boys are found together in all the movements.
It could of course be argued that it is an obsolete military philosophy that is being taught—and there is some truth in that. But whether or not we like it, many young people need a tough outlet for their activities which can only be provided by such a movement. I believe that they will soon become more interested in working for the Duke of Edinburgh Award. Many cadets have been outstandingly successful in that scheme over many years, and they contribute a great deal to it.
I hope I have said enough to indicate that I believe cadet forces are a valuable and important part of the civilisation of this country. They make a real contribution to the life of the nation. At this time, with unemployment very high, and boredom among our youth a major and growing problem, we should be actively seeking to expand our cadet forces. We should hear no more talk about contraction, cuts or reduction.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Ridley, (as I like still to call him), as we are Lords Lieutenant of our counties. I have similar experience of cadet forces. In our county we have one advantage over most of the others: the late Lord Mountbatten set up a pentathlon to take place once a year for the cadets of all three services in both the counties of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. I am happy to say that the Isle of Wight wins more often than Hampshire, which is remarkable, seeing as there are 10 of them to one of us. I boast of that just by the way. The fact is that it involves all the cadets together; the pentathlon is much admired by them as a great activity at which to aim. It is one of the best examples of how the cadet forces operate in their own way.
I have been invited to say more about the Sea Cadets, but before doing so I wish to comment on what my noble friends have said. There is little to add to what my noble friend Lord Trefgarne had to say in his splendid introductory speech or to what the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, mentioned. The Air Training Corps and the Army Cadet Force are much bigger than the Sea Cadets and are a worthy part of the cadet forces as a whole in the community.
1420
I have noticed that there is a remarkable tendency for each of the cadet forces to recruit people in different ways. It is not that their parents were in the Navy, the Army or the Air Force. The cadet forces are all important in their own way in providing a special activity for youth and making it available to the whole community. It is important that all three should thrive and continue.
I very much take the point made by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne that the shrinking of the services, the reserves and possibly the cadet forces, although I hope not, will mean that the services have a much lower image throughout the country than they have had for many years. It is no good expecting first-class people to want to join the three services for the many roles which they will have to continue to carry out, whatever people may think about the future, if we do not have wide coverage throughout the country—not just around the bases of the regular forces, which are becoming fewer throughout the country.
In a wonderful way, the cadets are a good starting point for encouraging people to remember the armed forces of the Crown and the uniforms that they wear. Forgetting for the moment whether or not they are paid enough by the Treasury, I have an awful feeling that the regular services may say, "We have got to economise because we must have an extra tank, ship or whatever". It is they who are in danger. They forget that they may be all right now, that their reputation may be splendid and that there may have been a county regiment in the past, though they are also vanishing; but as time goes on, the need for young people is more important than it has ever been in our history. So let us have all three.
To take the Sea Cadets, naturally I think they are the best of the bunch, though one must not say that to the ACF and the ATC in the Isle of Wight. Being the best of the bunch, they have had the wisdom to organise their own Sea Cadet Association which, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne said, contributes much of the money towards their expenses. In fact, the association contributes more than a third of what it costs to run the Sea Cadets. That is not saying that the Navy Department of the Ministry of Defence is being mean; it is because the department has been able to get away with it for a long time.
However, it is important that the public money of the Sea Cadets is not diminished in any sense. It is only about £6 million or £7 million, which is chicken-feed when compared with other expenditure which people have to make. We must keep our cadets and, above all, we must keep their officers, the volunteer instructors who are the backbone in running the cadets. They are the people who will lose heart, much more than the young men. They devote their spare time to keeping the cadet forces going and they are the people whom we must thank most for providing the route for an interest in the services which begins in early life and, in some cases, keeps people away from bad habits in the community. They provide a youth organisation which is second to none in its ability to teach people how to be responsible for their own actions in a sensible way.
I hope that, in replying, the Minister will be able to set at rest the great anxieties which, among others, the

1421
Sea Cadet Association has about the possibility of reductions in cash on the lines which my noble friend Lord Trefgarne suggested. I look forward to hearing him say that, because if he says the wrong thing, we may be able to get back at him.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, unlike noble Lords who have already spoken, I am afraid that I can claim no connection with cadet forces other than having been a very bad cadet in the combined cadet force at school. However, I must say that that sowed the seed or set the spark which subsequently made me join the Army.
This is not the first time that the cadet forces of this country have been discussed in your Lordships' Chamber and probably it will not be the last. Back in 1930, under a Labour Government, my great uncle, the first Viscount, became the first president of the Cadet Association. The Earl of Onslow initiated a debate to call attention to the withdrawal of financial support for the cadets which, at that time, was four shillings for each qualified cadet and a grant of one shilling for each qualified cadet for administrative purposes. Today we face similar problems with the cadets. We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for initiating the debate tonight.
In 1930, there were some 10,000 cadets. Today we have nearly 10 times that figure, not including the Combined Cadet Force of nearly 40,000 cadets in schools. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has omitted the Combined Cadet Force from his Question, I believe in order to limit the scope of the debate. However, with the indulgence of the House, I should like to say that the schools, including 48 grant-maintained schools, do a quite remarkable job in running the sea, air and army detachments, giving up a great deal of their spare time to run these individual detachments. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and ask the Minister not to allow the proposed cut in the number of paid training days for air detachments of the CCF from 28 to around five.
Apart from setting a dangerous precedent, I question whether it is right to deprive those volunteers of crucial support when they themselves make a staggering contribution to our young people and, through them, to our country. They open up their detachment huts often two nights a week, come rain or hail, after a full day's work. They organise and run a weekend's training every six weeks and take their cadets to camp for a fortnight each summer, often giving up their own holidays to do
So.
Noble Lords may not be surprised to hear that of a recent training course of 39 trainers, three-quarters had put in an average of 50 days apiece last year. That is leaving out the considerable amount of pastoral work they also find themselves doing on the side. Against that background, I find it immensely disturbing to hear the rumour that these splendid people may be deprived of the small and wholly inadequate remuneration they can receive for their work. If one service imposes such a cut, undoubtedly the other two services will do likewise. That would be intolerable, given the considerable
1422
responsibilities that they have on ranges, for flying instruction, rock climbing and the great many other activities the cadets undertake when they are bound by military discipline and hold the same commission as officers in the Territorial Army, alongside whom they work.
With the recent closure of Junior Soldiers and Junior Leaders battalions and regiments, a wide void has been created in the development of young people. The transition from youth to adulthood is as difficult today as it ever was. Today we see far too many young people on our streets with nothing to do. As we heard only yesterday, our goals are rapidly filling up with young offenders.
As the noble Lord indicated, the cadet organisation renders a wonderful service to this country. With over 1,600 detachments—some in very new buildings but some in World War I vintage huts—it provides an excellent service to the community with worthwhile challenges, including the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme, British Orienteering Federation Salver Badge and Community Sports Leaders awards. More recently the National Vocational Qualification scheme—NVQ —became part of the Army Cadet Force. However, the NVQ is under threat because of the major reduction of the cadet training team, about which we have already heard, by 42 posts—some 30 more than that proposed by United Kingdom Land Forces. They will not be able to validate the NVQ scheme.
Cadet training schemes, which range from an officer or warrant officer and three to six men selected for their talents, are absolutely essential to the running of the cadet forces. Without those trainers the cadet organisations would wither and die. As the years roll by there are unfortunately fewer and fewer people who either want or are willing to help and train young people voluntarily.
I know that the Minister received a number of letters on the subject of the reductions of the cadet training teams. He has always indicated his willingness to help. Sadly those cuts in numbers are imminent and, yet again, are Treasury driven. However, the Government appear to be giving conflicting directions. On the one hand the cadets are receiving letters of encouragement from no less a person than the Prime Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said; on the other hand, the cadets, leaders and their training teams are being called upon to do the same work with swingeing cuts hanging over them. Salami slicing has gone on for too long and is becoming a massacre. As we heard, cuts ranging from 50 per cent. in Wales to 30 per cent. elsewhere are forecast. Taking Scotland as an example, how can a team of five based on Inverness serve cadets in Orkney. Shetland, Stornaway, Wick, Thurso and the Grampian Region? The answer is that they cannot.
The cadet training teams are the trainers of the trainers. The Army's problem is that it must divest itself of 5,000 regular soldiers by 1995. Therefore the Ministry of Defence sought to impose arbitrary cuts. However that is not a practical solution in relation to cadets. There is a possible solution. Although recruiting is not part of the ACF charter and should not become so, the ACF provides a considerable proportion of regular

1423
recruits. In that I speak from personal experience, having been a recruiter myself. One was constantly being confronted with young men with cadet experience. Whenever they declared cadet experience, they had to produce a cadet report. An interesting incident occurred around three years ago when a young company sergeant major—the highest rank in a detachment—came before me asking to join the regular Army. Although he was a brilliant cadet, he could neither read nor write. He went away for a year and learnt to do both; he is now a sergeant serving in Bosnia. If that does not tell a story, I do not know what does.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said, as many as 50 per cent. of recruits have some cadet experience and I believe it may be higher. At one time every RSM in the Highland Division had been a cadet. Undoubtedly the best recruiters are the NCOs in the cadet training teams. I believe that every serviceman with the right attitude and the right approach is a recruiter. I believe that the time is ripe for the recruiters and trainers to work together for the benefit of both. There are a number of Army youth teams around the country—some established but some held just on the strength of parent units. They are reducing but still exist. The Army needs to look at them most carefully and, rather than reduce CTTs, it needs to enhance them in order to cover the country properly, even if the director of Army recruiting staff has his numbers reduced—and he will not like me for saying that.
I should like to end where I started, by quoting from my great uncle's speech to your Lordships on 1st April 1930 (col. 1112 of Hansard), when he said,
"These cadets learn … the virtues of citizenship. They are disciplined, they are taught to work together, they are taught to think with each other, they are taught self-respect, self-control and self-reliance, and taught to be, I hope, men who will take their places in the world of men".
Those words were spoken 63 years ago but I submit that they are as true today as then. But sadly we find our cadet organisation threatened now, as then. I too sincerely hope that the noble Viscount can go some way to giving your Lordships an assurance that the additional 30 posts will not be taken away at the end of the day, and that the current remuneration of voluntary staff will not be reduced.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. Some may wonder why I should; the reason is that I spent 12 to 13 years as a chaplain to C Company of the Wiltshire Army Cadet Force. From those 12 to 13 years I came to appreciate what they did and how the boys—and now girls—benefited from it.
Her Majesty's Government need to think carefully before they put into effect the proposed cuts. I say that for several reasons. During those 12 to 13 years I worked with the staff and the boys. I went out with them every day. Whenever they were camping, I went camping. As far as possible, during the year I went to the different units, to the different centres to see them.
What does the Army Cadet Force do for the boys, and now girls? One could see a wonderful, build-up in the
1424
character and personality of the young people. I would say that that is the great value of that force, of the Sea Cadets and of the Air Training Corps at the grant-maintained schools and even the combined cadet forces at public schools. In my section at school, I was not all that terrific. But I am speaking on behalf of the Army Cadet Force and relating what I saw as being of great value to the boys. One could see them mature and grow up from what they were when they came so young to when they finished. They were helped to learn about living not only with themselves but with others; to know themselves and to know others; how to live with others and relate to others—to use a modern phrase.
The following are some of the qualities of character that one saw growing in these young boys, which now one would see in the girls. They learnt confidence—yes, confidence—in themselves so that they could be of some use not only to themselves but to others; they learnt trust in one another, faith in one another, assurance in one another and reliance in one another; they learnt initiative and respect, not only for themselves but for one another. All those things were happening, too, between the boys and the staff. They learnt strength—not just physical strength but moral and physical strength.
Along with the other chaplains, who were able to help in a spiritual way, we saw that they were interested —although they may not have appeared to be so—to talk about the things of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit, faith and the meaning and purpose of life. I can remember times when the boys and staff said, "We would like to have a talk with the chaplain". They asked for it and so one would go. They would ask the questions and we would start from there. It was not because I had said to the NCOs and officers, "Look, I want to have my boys at a certain place to talk to them"; it happened on the initiative of the boys and staff. It was wonderful to see how there was an interest which people might not have realised they had in trying to wish to know how to live. There was consideration and thought for others.
This type of organisation has far greater benefit and use than just any ordinary youth club. As a clergyman I have experience of youth clubs as well. When you are a curate, looking after the youth club is one of the things your vicar or rector asks you to do. When you are boss of your own place you still do it but you cannot spend the same amount of time on youth clubs so you try to find people to delegate to. But on the whole, unless you have really fine people morally and spiritually to run youth clubs, I do not believe they can give nearly as much help and value to the young boys and girls as organisations like the Army Cadet Force.
The boys, and now girls, are encouraged and are made to think and reason. It is not a question of their being told, "This is it. Do this, do that". They learn that they have to think and reason. They have to work out how to do a thing and why to do it. They have to learn reason and purpose, something which, on the whole, in many youth clubs does not happen. In fact, we often see boys and girls left to run riot. The activities of the cadets are far ranging. They are not confined to military stuff. There are many other activities such as the Duke of

1425
Edinburgh Award scheme and so on. It builds them up to become healthy, strong people in body, mind and soul.
Therefore, as I said at the beginning of my speech, Her Majesty's Government should think hard about this. They will have to give a very good reason as to why the cuts involving these services should be made. It will be a sorry day for youth, the young boys and girls, if that so happens. They grow up to be fine men and women, not just in persevering in their own careers but in being helpful, useful, positive and good citizens who will help in other spheres, so enabling there to be a harmonious community of people respecting and honouring one another and helping one another to lift themselves up; to respect one another for what they can give; to have respect for what someone else has which they may not have. All these things are able to be done in the Army Cadet Force, the Sea. Cadets and the Air Training Corps, things which do not always happen in youth clubs unless a youth club is lucky to have a fine couple or fine people as leaders. On the whole, things are suggested in youth clubs. Things are suggested in the Army Cadet Force but there is a difference.
Noble Lords have already heard praise of these organisations. Perhaps I may quote from the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette. An article under the heading "Worth a Medal" states:
"Hardwick community centre in Stockton was plagued with bored, abusive youth and vandalism. Now there is no trouble at all. What can the secret be?
The secret has apparently been the forming of a detachment of Para Cadets, and winning the young people over to a form of constructive and disciplined leisure activity".
There is also an instance of army cadets' quick thinking and actions which helped in saving a life. We are told in a press release:
"During the evening of Thursday 25 February 1993 an attempted murder took place in Banbury. The victim, a young man, was left lying in the roadway suffering from serious injuries, having been dragged by a motor vehicle for a distance of approximately half a mile. Some of the first people to arrive on the scene were two Army Cadets—Daniel Kent (14 years) and Andrew Fothergill (15 years). Despite the horrific nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the man, the two cadets gave immediate first aid and continued to do so until the arrival of the ambulance".
One could go on and on with such examples. There is a letter from Queen Elizabeth School in Northamptonshire which states how, through his time in the cadets, a boy was helped in his school work and with his relationships at school. There is praise of cadets from Derbyshire Constabulary. There is also praise of cadets with regard to an expedition to Nepal. Some cadets managed to get to the top of the peaks.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will realise what harm could be done if in any way the great work of these different youth organisations was impaired. As has already been said, it is not a question of the purpose of these organisations being first and foremost to grab people for the Army, Navy or Air Force. It is not. That is incidental, but naturally it is very nice if in the end many of them decide to join the forces. I ask the Government to be very careful in what they do.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I wish to speak for a very short time in support of what has already been said, in particular by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone, who, like myself, have had the honour of being honorary colonels of their cadets. I particularly wish to stress the point about the connection with the regular Army. There is no doubt at all that cadets who wear their badge proudly can go to their territorial regiment and then the regular army. That is a most valuable way of recruiting.
The dedication of leaders has been stressed and it is worth stressing again. Many of the leaders have enormous dedication and give an enormous amount of time. They give discipline to people who would never have it otherwise. I am sure that my county is not alone in helping other organisations. For example, a fortnight ago my cadet corps ran a cadet competition for all other organisations. Present were the Red Cross, the St. John's Ambulance and others. That meant that their organisational abilities were made available to the benefit of all the other youth organisations.
Many of the cadet huts are in very bad. areas. I want to finish with a story. One of the huts in my county is in a very bad area. The glass in it had to be resistant to the kind of damage which was likely to occur. A lady demanded damages because a brick which her child had thrown at the glass had bounced back and hurt her child!
6.41 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, when the noble Viscount comes to wind up I hope that he will give the reasons which have led the Government to cut the training schemes and to threaten the cadet forces. In the light of the speeches which have been made in the debate, it is most extraordinary that the Government appear to be cracking down on the cadet forces. To argue that because the cold war is over the cadet forces can be smaller is ludicrous. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, has just explained to us that the cadet forces can be of considerable value to the Army, Navy and Air Force for various reasons of recruitment and so on. No one denies that.
However, I maintain strongly—and this has been the, spirit of the debate—that the principal value of the cadet forces today is their contribution to the well-being and self-discipline of our young people. I am sure that that is the big justification and nothing to do with the cold war. Today, when we look at our society and ask ourselves what the priorities are, it is these kinds of organisation which should have priority. If one is going back to basics, self-discipline and the well-being of our young people is the most basic thing that one can go for. Therefore, I hope that the noble Viscount can explain what the Government are up to. To link the number of cadets to the international situation and the threat to national security, is ridiculous. It is related to a cost-cutting exercise which the Secretary of State is about to embark on as regards the support services. Perhaps the noble Viscount can specifically deny that

1427
the reduction in the training groups has anything to do with the cost-cutting exercise for the support services. Such a reduction would be folly in the extreme.
I wish to ask the noble Viscount about the figure of 91,000 cadets. Is that a target for the Government? The Government have in mind a certain manpower figure for the Army, Navy and Air Force. Do they also have in mind a manpower figure for the cadets? The noble Viscount shakes his head. So why is the figure 91,000? I very much agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, who said that he is looking for more. There is the figure of £40 million pounds for 91,000 cadets. We should look at our society and ask: Why 91,000 cadets and why not twice or three times that number? We have heard about case after case and the effect on civilian values of the cadet forces. Why is the figure 91,000? I ask the Government to give an explanation of that figure, which is surprising to me.
I was delighted to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, praising the schools' cadet forces. That reminded me that I was the senior cadet in the cadet force of the old school of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I was a pacifist at the time, but it kept me off the streets. However, I ask these questions very seriously of the noble Viscount. Why is the figure 91,000? What is the Government's target and why not a far higher number? Also why, at this time above all, when the priorities in our society should be so different, make this hostile move against the cadet forces?
6.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will indeed be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for raising this Question. One of the benefits of winding up from the Opposition Front Bench is that most of what I wished to say has already been said. Therefore, I shall not weary your Lordships too long.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and indeed, others, were right to point to the objective and purpose of the cadet forces. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, summed it up very well by saying that there are really three objectives which one should bear in mind. First, the forces provide worthwhile activities for young people, particularly in deprived areas and those of high unemployment. Secondly, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, said, they give a sense of identity to young people who might otherwise stray. Thirdly, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, and I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, emphasised, they act as a form of recruiting sergeant for the armed forces. I believe that those three purposes are as valid today as they have ever been and indeed, if anything, in times of high unemployment, they are more valid.
I was glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby of Megiddo, brought in the Combined Cadet Force. Can the noble Viscount let us know how far that force is represented in the state sector of education rather than in the independent sector? The noble Viscount did say that some grant-maintained schools had a force of this nature. I should be grateful if the Minister can enlarge on that when he comes to reply.
1428
As regards recruitment, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, quite rightly produced some information about how people stay longer in the regular forces if they have had cadet training. That is because they are more skilled initially. When the noble Viscount comes to reply can he tell us what proportion of those who have had cadet training go into the armed forces? I am not quite sure how he can put the figures. I should be interested in that information.
For cadet forces to operate effectively there seem to me to be three necessary conditions. If one of them is not met there is the risk of a vicious downward spiral. In other words, if one is not present there are fewer cadets and if there are fewer cadets then one does not have the second and so it goes on. The first concerns material resources. These must be made available, such as places for camps, training equipment, accommodation in centres of towns and such things. Are there going to be any cuts here that the noble Viscount can tell us about?
A second necessary condition is that we must have personnel. That is not just voluntary leaders who, as many noble Lords have pointed out, are becoming more and more rare at the moment. Above all, we must have teams from the regular forces as training teams for cadets. Perhaps I may put in a plea for Wales as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, did mention Wales. I am told by the Army Cadet Force Association Wales that regular Army units do play a vital role in the training of cadets.
Over the years they have already endured cuts in their numbers. Further cuts would be unsustainable and would affect the level of training that is necessary to maintain the present high standards. In Wales it is proposed that we should lose a third of our cadet training team personnel, including one whole team. These reductions in manpower, together with the geography of the Principality, would create great difficulties. For that reason they have asked me to support the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in his plea, which I willingly do.
The third necessary condition is the political will, the thought that these cadet forces serve a useful purpose. In addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and indeed others, have said, I should like to refer to what the Prime Minister himself has said. This is one of the few occasions I can remember when in fact I agree with the Prime Minister. He says this:
"At a time when much of the news highlights the problems of modern youth and the lack of direction of many young people of today, I am considerably heartened when I hear of the work of the Army Cadet Force. I am aware of the success you have had in providing worthwhile activities for young people across the whole of the UK and in particular the deprived areas of some of our inner cities.
"What particularly encourages me is that as well as the activities you offer, the Army Cadet Forces provide teamwork and a development structure enabling the young people to assume responsibility and begin to put back into society what they have gained.
"None of this of course could be possible without the dedicated effort of those of you who give of your time to lead and instruct. I thank you for your devotion to the ACF. Your contribution is vital and very much appreciated."
That was signed by John Major and it is dated November 1993.

1429
I agree with the Prime Minister on that. I only hope the noble Viscount this evening can assure us that the Government will put the Prime Minister's words into practice.
6.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, like every noble Lord who has spoken in this short debate I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, with his unrivalled experience, combined with the cadet forces and the Ministry of Defence, for giving me the opportunity to do a number of things this evening. The first is to place on record once again Her Majesty's Government's recognition of the valuable work of the Sea Cadet Corps, the Army Cadet Force, the Air Training Corps and the Combined Cadet Force.
I wish to place on record that I personally agree with everything he and other noble Lords said about the functions the cadet forces perform in our national life and the value of those functions. Indeed, if it is not immodest of me to say so, I was at least in part instrumental in encouraging my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to give the message that he did in November 1993, so eloquently quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, a moment ago.
On the question of numbers, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that the four cadet forces have at the moment a combined strength of about 130,000 cadets. We welcome that figure and are happy that people want to join in such numbers.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, may I interrupt to make one point? I was quoting cadets and not adults.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have a figure of a combined strength for the four cadet forces of 130,000 souls. I am extremely happy that your Lordships allowed the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby of Megiddo, to widen the scope of the debate and to include the combined cadet force contingents. These, as your Lordships will know, are tri-service and are formed in schools in both the maintained and private sectors. What I am unable to supply to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, at the moment is the precise number of cadets in the combined cadet forces in maintained schools. I apologise to your Lordships. I should have anticipated that question. If your Lordships will allow me, I will endeavour to find out and write to the noble Lord and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
The Sea Cadet Corps, the Army Cadet Force and the Air Training Corps, as your Lordships have mentioned, are based in local communities in cities, towns and villages throughout the United Kingdom. Indeed, they attract young people of both sexes from a wide range of social and ethnic backgrounds. A number of your Lordships have referred to the role that the cadet forces play in acting as a source of recruits to the regular forces and the Territorial Army. As the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, observed, it is surprisingly difficult to find out a precise answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. As so often happens with Government spokesmen, the traditional phrase goes that the statistics are not compiled centrally or in the form requested. That
1430
is perhaps a rather convenient way for Ministers to cloak their answers. However, I have heard many estimates. The one I find most convincing—although I would hate noble Lords to hold me to it—is something in the order, in some cases, of 20 per cent. Certainly, I subscribe to the view that a very high proportion of recruits spend a much longer than average period in the services and therefore rise to the distinguished rank of warrant officer. As your Lordships will know, that rank is very much the backbone of the forces.
I shall not weary your Lordships with a history of the cadet forces because, with your combined experience, you will be at least as knowledgeable, if not more knowledgeable, than I. But it is worth drawing to your attention, as indeed has already been done, the fact that the system of support and management of the cadets varies quite significantly. For example, the Sea Cadet Corps—I believe my noble friend Lord Mottistone confirmed this—is a registered charity, managed by the Sea Cadet Council and is only partly funded by the Ministry of Defence, although the naval section of the combined cadet force is administered centrally. The Army Cadet Force receives greater support from its parent service and is administered by the Ministry of Defence and the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations, or TAVRAs, with ACF county commandants providing an administrative as well as a command function. The Army Cadet Force Association also plays an important supporting role.
The CCF (Army) is administered by the Ministry of Defence through the district and brigade chain of command. Both the Air Training Corps and the RAF section of the CCF are administered centrally by a single headquarters at RAF Newton. The Air Training Corps relies to a large degree on support from the RAF, with accommodation provided by the TAVRAs and with additional valuable support provided by local parents' committees. That, I believe, is an important point to note. The Ministry of Defence provides support in the form of service manpower, as many of your Lordships have observed, and by means of training facilities, equipment and help with accommodation for all four cadet forces.
Whatever their administrative and historical differences may be, I agree with your Lordships that the aims and charters of the four cadet forces reflect a common purpose. As my noble friends Lord Milverton and Lord Trefgarne, and also the noble Lord, Lord Williams, noted, that purpose is to seek to help young people, regardless of their background, to succeed in life by developing the qualities of good citizenship and engendering self-reliance, confidence, loyalty and initiative. Through the provision of challenging and exciting activities and useful training, the cadet forces seek to stimulate a practical interest in the Armed Forces and the ethos of service to the nation and community they represent. As the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, noted, that is often done in combination with the Duke of Edinburgh's Award scheme. Cadets participate in community projects with the aim of encouraging a responsible attitude to society, as a number of noble Lords have emphasised. I saw an outstanding example of the success of such projects during my visit to three

1431
ACF detachments in Cleveland last year, where praise for the achievements of the ACF in terms of community relations was unanimous from community leaders of all kinds and, above all, from the parents of the cadets. Indeed, I am flattered that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne follows my travels so closely that he could refer to that experience.
The benefits to society of the participation by young people in such a worthwhile activity cannot be overestimated. The department—what ever your Lordships may think—is anxious to build upon the long-standing reputation of the cadet forces in the promotion of those qualities and to extend their influence particularly in those urban areas where facilities for the training of the young are most badly needed. As my noble friend Lord Gisborough and the noble Viscounts, Lord Ridley and Lord Allenby, have noted, we are anxious to extend that influence where juvenile crime is increasing. Although it is difficult to find figures, it is clear from the Cleveland experience that the new detachments have performed a very important role in that regard, including on one of the estates that has been mentioned this evening.
Indeed, as President of a squadron of the Air Training Corps for over 20 years now, and as ex-officio President of the Air Cadet Council, I have a long-standing connection with the Air Training Corps. I try to take a keen interest also in the activities and well-being of all my local cadet forces. I am especially anxious to strengthen the links between the cadets and the community at large; for example, by promoting their participation in the Government's Inner City Challenge programme, which was an initiative that I took last year and which I hope will begin to bear fruit as our conversations with other government departments proceed.
Your Lordships have laid a great deal of emphasis on community service and personal development. Those aims are reflected in the aims of other national youth organisations. However, I agree with your Lordships that what makes the cadet forces so special is that they achieve those aims by working within an environment based on a military structure and Service concepts of discipline. As one of your Lordships observed earlier, perhaps that is not a politically correct thing to applaud but, nevertheless, I applaud it without any reservation. The high quality training provided by the adult leaders through the Service technique is unique and the underlying military themes provide a special attraction. I have seen, for example, how a detachment of the ACF affiliated to the Parachute Regiment in Middlesbrough was able to attract young people who were unmoved by the overtures of other youth organisations. The access that the cadets are given to military units—as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, observed in the context of Wales —is essential to provide a variety of training experience and exposure to Service life.
I come to a point that I certainly do not apologise for emphasising at least as much as other noble Lords have emphasised it this evening. The proportion of British citizens with first-hand knowledge of the roles of the Services, or the way in which they train for and conduct
1432
their business, is, as we know, steadily declining as the Services reduce in size and National Service recedes further into history—and into our collective memories. Indeed, I have no memory of it at all. I agree with your Lordships that in some parts of the United Kingdom cadets are now, and increasingly, the only form of military representation in their communities. Their presence gives the Armed Forces a place in the community which, as the Armed Forces get smaller, would quite often not exist at all if there were no uniformed youth representation. I am delighted that my noble friends Lord Trefgarne and Lord Mottistone made that point so clearly. I would be inclined to place even greater emphasis on its importance than they did.
We should certainly not take it for granted that our nation will inevitably retain its traditional support for the Armed Forces. Those who wish to encourage that support, both within your Lordships' House and outside it, must recognise the valuable contribution that the cadet forces can and are making to plug that gap.
All that is common ground between us. I am sure that your Lordships, with your noted appreciation of the importance of government economy, will not differ from me on another point. The department which I represent in your Lordships' House has a duty to ensure that the cadet forces make effective use of the funds that are allocated for various activities. It may be useful if I tell your Lordships' House that for the financial year 1992–93 the Ministry of Defence's contribution to the three cadet forces was as follows: the Sea Cadets, £4.5 million; the Army Cadet Force, £16.8 million; and the Air Training Corps, £17.9 million. Whatever the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Mayhew, may say, surely it is right that the cadet organisations should be no different from any other organisation in having to prove and improve their cost-effectiveness and efficiency. It is important that that is done without reducing their capability to achieve their aims. That is the question to which your Lordships addressed yourselves.
A great many noble Lords have taken the opportunity of this Unstarred Question to place their views on the record. I can assure your Lordships that my right honourable and honourable friends and I take very close account of them.
The dedication and quality of the leadership provided by the adults who give their time to run cadet units is a key factor in the success of the cadet forces. My noble friend Lord Mottistone referred to that. They are entitled to a certain amount of pay, but I know that they give many more hours without remuneration. As the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said, this is greatly appreciated and my department should not endeavour to take advantage of their good nature. It is absolutely vital not to inhibit the spirit in which the leaders volunteer and to ensure that our continued recognition of their magnificent contribution is plain.
Your Lordships are aware of the wide-ranging changes facing the Armed Services following the end of the cold war. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that that is not the reason that this proposal has been put forward. The noble Lord will be aware that any item of expenditure affecting the Ministry of Defence is part of

1433
the defence budget and therefore cannot escape some of the effects of the changes that are facing my department at the moment. It is important that each year we consider carefully the cadets' funding arrangements in competition with other demands on the defence budget. As I said a moment ago, it is equally important that we do not change the spirit or traditions of any of the cadet corps. Indeed, as I hope that I have made plain this evening, I would be extremely loath for that to happen.
Nevertheless, I have to confirm to your Lordships that a proposal has been made to reduce the number of cadet training teams along the lines that your Lordships —extremely well informed as always—have laid out. The only quibble I have is that the reduction is smaller in percentage terms than that of the Army as a whole. I believe that the rhetoric that a number of your Lordships very understandably have employed this evening has perhaps not made that clear.
I agree that your Lordships have made a strong and coherent case for rejecting the proposal. Much as I would like to, I fear that I cannot guarantee that my right honourable and honourable friends and I will be able to reject it as your Lordships wish us to. Such is the
1434
difficulty of our present condition. Although it is small comfort, I can say that the views of your Lordships will weigh very heavily with us. To that extent I believe that the debate has been particularly timely. Therefore, I am more than usually grateful to my noble friend for raising the matter this evening. I undertake to keep your Lordships informed of any substantial developments.
Finally, I should like to refer to my apprehension when my noble friend Lord Trefgarne reminded me of the fate of the grandfather of my noble friend Lord De La Warr as a result of his less-than-helpful intervention in 1930. I believe that any sensible junior Minister should feel that he has no right of occupation of any office in your Lordships' House or Her Majesty's Government and that he should anticipate ejection from the enjoyment of his job daily. I hasten to reassure your Lordships that that is very much the spirit in which I approach this task. I am all the more grateful for the gypsy warning of my noble friend. It will further encourage me to take seriously your Lordships' strictures on the cadet forces.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past seven o'clock.

  GENOCIDE CONVENTION: RATIFICATION
  GENOCIDE CONVENTION: RATIFICATION
  LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION
  LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION
  CABINET MINUTES
  CABINET MINUTES
  TRANSFERABLE TAX ALLOWANCES
  TRANSFERABLE TAX ALLOWANCES
  POLICE AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP: ROLE OF LORDS LIEUTENANT
  POLICE AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP: ROLE OF LORDS LIEUTENANT
  PRISONERS: DRUG TESTING
  PRISONERS: DRUG TESTING