Sitting of 1 February 1995

Preamble
The House met at Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Northern Ireland (Rules of Engagement)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
10.4 am
Mr. Julian Brazier: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the most important issue of the rules of engagement which govern those who serve us in Northern Ireland. One particular case has received a great deal of publicity, but the wider problem of the uncertainty in the minds of many of our soldiers serving in Northern Ireland has not received equal prominence.
I shall maintain four points today. First, we should never allow charges less than murder to be brought in a case of deliberate killing. Secondly, we should put on hold the present review of the law of murder in the Home Office until the Select Committee on Defence has had the opportunity to consider the wider issue of the rules of engagement, and until the House has had the chance to debate it. Thirdly, we should expedite cases involving members of the security forces who are charged while serving on active duty, so that they do not have two-year waits. Fourthly, I shall make some brief remarks on the Clegg case.
I hope that it is in order for me to draw on an illustration from the other side of the world. In 1947, six miles south of Haifa, a party of British soldiers were escorting a civilian convoy—a mixture of Jewish and Arab civilians—when they were stopped by a gun battle between Jewish and Arab gunmen up ahead. The young officer concerned went forward with a party of his soldiers to clear the path, when a civilian vehicle with armoured plating came racing down the road.
The officer told the soldiers to stop the vehicle. It was pulled aside and suddenly, a few seconds later, it pulled away and drove rapidly off. Faced with that extremely suspicious behaviour in the middle of a dangerous situation, the young officer, my father, who was aged 20, tried to open fire on the vehicle with a Piat anti-tank rocket launcher. Thank God it misfired, because when that vehicle was eventually stopped, it turned out to contain a large number of women and children huddling in the back.
I make that point only because the House must be clear that, in a situation of conflict of any sort, from time to time tragedies can and will occur, which can cause the most terrible bitterness in the wider community. That does not mean, however, that anyone is culpably to blame. Our forces in Ulster have behaved with a degree of restraint that is not only remarkable, but that we have come increasingly to take for granted in a fashion that may be becoming almost unhealthy. They operate within rules of engagement which are probably the strictest that any army anywhere in the world has ever operated under.
992
I have attempted to obtain the statistics for soldiers charged on active duty in Ulster—so far, without much success. The only statistics that I have been able to find came in an answer to a parliamentary question and relate to murder charges. I am not sure whether they are complete. In particular, they appear to exclude the Ulster Defence Regiment.
The material that is available, however, shows a sinister trend. In the 17 years from 1974 to 1990, only six charges of murder are recorded, involving four incidents, and in every case the soldiers concerned were acquitted; yet in the three and a three quarter years from 1991 to the ceasefire, four incidents took place. Five charges were brought in the same number of incidents in a much shorter period. Of those, one resulted in an acquittal, and two, involving Private Thain and Private Clegg, in convictions. The remaining incident involving two soldiers is still sub judice.
An extraordinary statistical freak may have taken place, or discipline is suddenly breaking down across a cross-section of four different regiments in the Army, which I do not believe, or we must face the possibility that the criminal justice system has changed and hardened its attitude towards offences allegedly committed by soldiers while on duty.
The figures also show that, in almost all those cases, the soldiers concerned, whether or not they were acquitted, waited for between 18 months and two years for a verdict. Those soldiers were in a different situation from members of the public awaiting their trials in custody, because they were there not just because there were charges against them, but because they had volunteered to serve in the British Army and had been sent to Ulster. Their families faced the prospect of their men being in custody for two years.
A much larger number of lesser charges have been brought against our soldiers. Anybody who has spoken to people who have served in Northern Ireland—I know that some hon. Members who wish to speak have served there—will know of the concern caused from time to time by the rules of engagement and the yellow card.
The Clegg incident was first raised with me by soldiers in my local regiment, 2nd Battalion, the Princess of Wales Regiment, when I was privileged to visit them in Ulster last year. Individuals told me again and again that they were deeply concerned that the case left them uncertain about where they stood.
The House will expect me to say something about the Clegg case. As a former Territorial Army officer and someone who was privileged to serve for a while in the Parachute Regiment, I have to say that there are aspects of the case that leave me deeply troubled. I know that I was not there, but it seems extraordinary that a junior rank should be charged with and convicted of perverting the course of justice, when an officer who was present at the time was not even disciplined.
Mr. Andrew Robathan rose—
Sir Jim Spicer rose—
Mr. Brazier: I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me if I press on and allow time for them to speak later.
Sir Jim Spicer: Will my hon. Friend give way on this point?
Mr. Brazier: I will give way.
Sir Jim Spicer: There is another disturbing aspect of the Clegg case. How can it be possible for a soldier who is to be charged with a serious offence to be on duty out on the street for a further six to nine months with that charge hanging over him and with no action being taken by the authorities? That is inexcusable.
Mr. Brazier: That is a good point.
Another aspect that deeply concerned many people is the disgusting montage erected in the barracks afterwards. It must have caused tremendous offence to Karen Reilly's family and to the wider community.
That said, those aspects are of limited relevance to the subject that we are discussing today and, in fact, are of limited relevance to the Clegg case. People may try to manufacture evidence not only because of guilt but also for a very different reason—because they have no confidence in the system of law. When I discussed this issue with people who have served recently in Northern Ireland, the message I heard again and again was that they are not sure where they stand.
If a man is seen throwing a bomb at a patrol and a soldier shoots him before the bomb leaves his hand, he is within the rules of engagement. If he is shot just after the bomb has left his hand, the person firing could be committing a serious criminal offence. If he is shot just before the object leaves his hand and it was not a bomb after all, the person firing the shot may be in serious trouble.
Another point is made time and again. Only three days ago, I had a conversation with an officer who had just come back from Northern Ireland. He had nothing to do with the Parachute Regiment, and was not even an infantry officer. He said that, as a result of cases such as this, soldiers are increasingly uncertain whether they can trust the yellow card.
The House knows most of the facts of the Clegg case. Cars have been used frequently as lethal weapons against our soldiers. They have sometimes been packed with explosives but, more commonly, they were simply used to deliberately run down and kill soldiers. In fact, a soldier in B company of 3 Para, Clegg's company, was killed in that way earlier in the same tour of duty, when a car scooped him up on to its bonnet. The car was driven for several hundred yards, and the soldier was then sadistically crushed to death.
It is against that background that the whole of an eight-man patrol, two groups of four, opened fire. Somehow, the court ruled that they were justified in opening fire, but that the man who fired the second lowest number of shots—only four—was doing his duty on the third shot and, within half a second, became a criminal with his fourth shot.
I shall quote from the late noble Lord Diplock, from a time when it was still possible to have jury trials in Northern Ireland:
"the jury … should remind themselves that the postulated balancing of risk against risk, harm against harm, by the reasonable man is not undertaken in the calm, analytical atmosphere of the court-room
994
after counsel with the benefit of hindsight have expounded at length the reasons for and against the kind and degree of force that was used by the accused: but in the brief second or two which the accused had to decide whether to shoot or not and under all the stresses to which he was exposed."
Private Clegg did not have a second or two between his third and fourth shot: he had about half a second.
Far be it from me to abuse the privileges of the House and suggest that any judge in this country, in Northern Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom, does not understand fully—I am sure that they all do—the letter and detail of our common and statute law. However, I believe firmly that, had this case been heard by a judge from Lord Diplock's generation, someone who remembered the war, we would never have had a verdict which so jarred the feelings of justice of the British people. I believe that that would have been the case whether it had been a murder or a manslaughter verdict.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: I realise, probably more than most, the sensitivity of the matter under discussion. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he is leaving out an important factor, which is that the evidence was given by a police officer who was with that patrol? The evidence from that officer was clear, and totally substantiated the story that the hon. Gentleman has referred to as the concocting of evidence. I cannot for the life of me see why the sympathies of any police officer in the North of Ireland would be towards harming the soldier. Surely the police officer was giving objective evidence about a serious incident.
Mr. Brazier: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I did mention the manufacture of evidence earlier, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, another soldier was convicted and imprisoned for that. None of that alters the fact that a man was convicted of a serious criminal offence—it makes no difference whether it was manslaughter or murder—in the half-second interval between a third legitimate shot and a fourth shot, at a time when shots were ringing out everywhere and no one had any way of knowing whether they were all coming from one side.
I am pleased about the close interest that the Cabinet and the Government are taking, and I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on the Front Bench. I notice that the Home Office is carrying out a review of the law on murder as a result of the recommendations by the judiciary. The change would allow manslaughter charges.
I mean no offence to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, for whom I have the greatest respect, when I say that it is slightly odd that, of the three Departments concerned—the Ministry of Defence, the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office—the Department selected to lead on this inquiry is the only one of the three with no internal military advisers. Nevertheless, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary assures me that he will be taking advice direct from the Army as well as from his colleagues in the other two Departments, in whom I also have the greatest confidence.
Of all the things that I have seen in Parliament and that sadden me as a Member, perhaps the saddest instances have been those rare occasions when we have seen the House make a terrible and grievous mistake by legislating in a hurry to change a law, often as a result of some

995
well-publicised incident, in which the Front-Bench spokesmen have agreed on a policy which has been widely supported by the establishment outside but which the people on the ground know to be impractical. I believe that we have the chance to make such a mistake now.
If we were to accept the recommendations of successive judges, starting 15 years ago and most recently endorsed by the House of Lords, that we should allow charges less than murder—perhaps some new concept of military manslaughter—to be brought against soldiers in uniform when a deliberate killing has taken place, we would remove the discipline on the courts in which it has to be murder or nothing.
That would not help any soldier. Private Thain would not have come out a day earlier had he been convicted of manslaughter instead of murder, but, should the hostilities start again—we desperately hope that they will not—we should be opening the way for a string of borderline cases in which civilian judges would in effect be allowed to rule on whether they thought someone had been negligent.
Incidentally, the recommendation was made in a wider civilian context. I believe that also to be profoundly wrong, although there is no time to argue the point now.
Instead, we should be considering ways to bring the rules of engagement into the law. One option, suggested in an early-day motion supported by 118 colleagues, is to embody them directly in the law. If that is thought to be too inflexible and impractical, an alternative would be to allow an absolute defence in law—not a defence that would somehow downgrade a murder charge—that a soldier reasonably believed that he was operating within the rules of engagement laid down on the yellow card on the advice of the Government's Law Officers. I suggest that the best body to examine the matter would be the Select Committee on Defence which could take advice from all levels in the Army, as well as from other interested parties and various local bodies involved.
I have four recommendations. First, and perhaps most important, we must reject the idea of removing from our soldiers the protection of an "all or nothing" situation. It would be shameful if we were to change the law in this respect under legal pressure. Secondly, we should suspend the internal inquiry in the Home Office until the Select Committee on Defence, if it chooses to do so—which I understand is likely—has had the opportunity to investigate the matter and report to the House, and until the House has then debated the options in the wider context of the rules of engagement.
Thirdly, there is one thing that we could do immediately to reassure our armed forces should hostilities tragically recommence. We could at least ensure that soldiers charged with offences while on active service have their cases heard at an early date. The numbers involved are relatively small, but they should not spend two years in custody waiting for their cases to be heard.
Finally, Private Clegg should be released on licence—as Private Thain was—and allowed to rejoin his regiment. The Northern Ireland Office has the necessary power to arrange that. I believe that we owe these things to the service men and women who serve us so loyally in Northern Ireland.
10.22 am
Dr. Joe Hendron: We are having this debate because of what happened on 13 September 1990. Hon. Members will know that, on that date, two young joyriders—Karen Reilly and Martin Peake—were shot dead by a patrol of the 3rd Parachute Regiment, which included Private Clegg. That same regiment had shot dead 13 unarmed people in Derry in 1972.
I wonder whether hon. Members, especially those on Conservative Benches who might have signed an early-day motion, know all the facts of the case. On 13 September 1990, and on every other night in west Belfast in that period, joyriders were out every night of the week, not only on the Upper Glen road but on Monagh road and Lenadoon avenue. Everybody in Belfast, and especially in west Belfast, and members of the security forces and police officers, were well aware of that fact. Joyriders are a plague; they can kill people and be killed themselves, but they do not deserve to be shot dead. They are not shot dead in England, Scotland or Wales.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Hendron: No, I must be brief.
Hon. Members may be aware that, in the 25 years since the troubles began in Northern Ireland, not once has a car used by joyriders been found to be associated with paramilitary activity. I cannot over-emphasise that point. I have made that statement many times, and never been challenged in any meaningful way. Not once in 25 years has a joyrider's car or the joyriders in it been found to he associated with paramilitary activity.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Hendron: We have been asked to keep our speeches brief.
Do hon. Members really know what happened on the night in question? My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) mentioned the policeman who gave evidence, but another person—Mr. Brannigan from the Lower Falls road—also made a statement. He came to me within days of the killings. The fact that he came to see me rather than a representative of another political grouping showed that he had a certain credibility.
He said that he came up the Suffolk road and turned left into the Upper Glen road to take a short cut home, but realised that it was not a short cut at all and did a U-turn in the dark. Of course, his car lights were on. Members of the Parachute Regiment's patrol seemed to come out of the darkness, and they surrounded him. He was threatened and ordered not to drive on. He put the car to one side and got out, and was searched with his hands on the car.
As Mr. Brannigan stood there, he heard the joyriders' car in the distance approaching quickly, as joyriders' cars are wont to do. As it came nearer, soldiers of the patrol further up the road, whom he had not seen and of whose presence he had not been aware, started firing. As the car went past him, the soldiers standing beside him also started firing at the car; and as the car passed, more soldiers who were part of the same patrol—also people he had not seen—started firing, too. The car came to a halt.

997
Mr. Brannigan said that he saw no checkpoint, but when is a checkpoint a checkpoint? Is it when a soldier or policeman steps out with a red light? I am not sure of the definition, but Mr. Brannigan did not see a checkpoint. I am not arguing that there was not a checkpoint further up the road in the darkness, but, if the patrol was so innocent, why did it try to subvert the course of justice? Why, according to the policeman's evidence, did one soldier try to hurt another soldier's leg? That is an important point. Hon. Members will be aware that Pierce Jordan was also shot dead on the Falls road while running away.
According to the law, any soldier who kills a civilian is exonerated if he testifies that he believed that his life or that of one of his comrades was in danger. We should remember that tens of thousands of soldiers have been in Belfast and Northern Ireland in the past 20 years and thousands of people have been killed, with many more thousands being injured. It is fair to say that millions of shots have been fired. Yet, of all those shots, it would appear that when only two of them were fired can it be said that the soldiers acted outside the law.
Sir Brian Hutton, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, said that it was right that Private Clegg should be convicted in respect of the unlawful killing of Karen Reilly and should receive a just punishment. I accept that there is something wrong with the accusation of murder, and that perhaps a charge of culpable homicide or manslaughter should have been considered a long time ago.
Mr. Mallon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The difficulty is that we are trying to solve a legal matter by military means. We should remember the words of Lord Denning:
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you."
Over the years in Standing Committees, in the House and in debates on emergency legislation, I have proposed the introduction of lesser charges—not for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), but so that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the legal process would have an opportunity to deal effectively with serious crime rather than the opportunity being wholly obviated by the single charge, especially as a result of the Mcllhone decision made in the House of Lords in, I think, 1970. In effect, that decision makes it impossible for the whole gamut of the law to apply in these circumstances.
Madam Speaker: Order. This is a short debate, in which many hon. Members have a great deal of interest and a direct involvement. If we must have interventions, I hope that they will be very short. I need to call many hon. Members.
Dr. Hendron: The present campaign in Britain appears to want Private Clegg released whatever the evidence shows. If he is set free as a political gesture to that campaign, a new set of rules will have been established—one for soldiers and one for citizens in Northern Ireland. The conviction among many of my constituents that double standards apply in Northern Ireland will only be reinforced.
998
Let us look at the campaign. I shall quote directly from the Daily Express, which reported Private Lee Clegg's words on 20 January. Lee Clegg was supposed to have said:
"If I am released it would not be a victory. Two young people have been killed in a tragic situation which could have been avoided if I had been given the correct rules."
I give Private Lee Clegg credit for stating his regret. But he also said on radio one morning recently that he had been well briefed that morning. Perhaps the issue surrounds not only Private Clegg but that whole patrol of the Parachute Regiment out that night. What about the senior officer or officers who gave that briefing?
On television the other evening, a former lieutenant colonel of the Parachute Regiment was asked on the "Counterpoint" programme in Northern Ireland whether he would offer an apology on behalf of the Parachute Regiment to the family of Karen Reilly. His answer was "Never." I say to that and to other comments, especially in some of the papers such as the Daily Mail: let us not have the cheap rhetoric of pseudo-patriots. Let us not have cries that, in reality, seem to amount to "Rule Britannia": that no matter what our boys at the front do, it seems to be all right.
I was asked on a television programme in the past few days whether the people of my constituency were sympathetic to the family of Private Lee Clegg, considering that he was—possibly—facing many years in prison. I answered that they most certainly would be sympathetic to the family of anybody, soldier, policeman or anyone else, if their son were facing a long time in prison.
I also asked whether the people running the campaign, especially Conservative Members, would show sympathy for the families of Patrick Kane, Sean Kelly and Michael Fitzsimons, who seem to face many years in prison for a crime which I believe they did not commit. Would they show sympathy for Mrs. Sarah Conlon, the widow of Guiseppe Conlon, mother of Gerry Conlon of the Guildford Four? Hon. Members have seen, I am sure, the film "In the Name of the Father". Guiseppe Conlon, who was my patient and constituent, was allowed to die in prison. An apology has never been given to his widow, Mrs. Sarah Conlon, who still lives in west Belfast.
The people I represent would support generosity towards prisoners. I most certainly support generosity towards prisoners. I shall not be so arrogant as to say how long Private Lee Clegg should be in jail. However, many others should be there with him, or at least should be facing the due course of the law. When generosity is shown—I believe that it will be shown—let it be across the board and to both communities in the North of Ireland.
10.33 am
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's debate on behalf of Lee Clegg and his family, as his constituency Member of Parliament. Thousands of words have been written over the past few weeks about this tragic case, and I have received hundreds of letters urging me to do everything in my power to put right this injustice.
Lee Clegg did not set out to kill anyone as he went on his patrol on that dark night. He was a soldier trying to do his duty. He was faced with a split-second judgment: a car speeding towards his colleagues. He thought that the

999
occupants were terrorists. He fired, and we are asked to believe that the first three bullets were lawful, but that the fourth shot, fired in that same burst, was not. That fraction of a second has resulted in Lee Clegg being convicted of murder and serving a life sentence.
I do not believe that, had there been a jury, it would have found Lee Clegg guilty in those circumstances. Perhaps his case is a perfect and clear example of why we need to get rid of Diplock courts as soon as possible and return such judgments to ordinary men and women, who can bring common sense and a sense of decency to bear. Only in that environment can normality and trust develop to bring about peace and sustained development.
I understand and acknowledge the frustration felt by people in Northern Ireland, who believe that far more media coverage has been given to a British soldier accused of murder than to Irish people faced with injustice. Whoever is at fault in the press campaign, it is not Private Lee Clegg. I say to the fair-minded people of Northern Ireland that it is wrong to want an innocent man to stay in prison just because he is a British soldier.
Injustice must be fought wherever it occurs, and I hope that all cases that have been mentioned in the context of Clegg's case are examined again. The Government have a tremendous opportunity to investigate all cases of injustice in Ireland and on the mainland, to convince people of their continuing vigour to pursue a just and lasting peace settlement.
There are many questions relating to this case that cause Clegg's legal advisers and me considerable concern. The initial investigation by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army found no case to answer. A television programme later implied wrongdoing and promoted the existence of a shoot-to-kill policy, citing this case as an example. It is interesting to note that the producer of that programme now says that he has an open mind on Lee Clegg's guilt. That was not the case in the programme.
The quality of Clegg's legal advice is also in question. I find it staggering to hear that there was no detailed questioning and examination of the ballistics evidence. We have heard this morning about the 34 shots fired. There was also the question of who had been involved in the briefing that night. If the security forces knew that the car was driven by joyriders, why were the ordinary soldiers on the patrol not told, as Clegg maintained? Why did not the defence at Clegg's trial pursue that point?
It is clear that, at the time of Private Clegg's conviction, there was a rising tide of belief in the nationalist community that the security forces were out of control. I cannot help but feel that Clegg's murder charge had more to do with politics than justice. I have a suspicion that it was decided to make an example out of someone, and Lee Clegg happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If there was a problem with the security forces—I am in no position to judge either way—it was not that of an ordinary private soldier trying to do his duty in a difficult and dangerous situation.
Lee Clegg's legal advisers are collecting new evidence for presentation in the very near future. Lee Clegg does not want to be seen as a hero, but nor is he a murderer. The Law Lords in their judgment indicated the need for change in the law, and it is right for Parliament to consider such changes as required, in detail and not in haste. Never again should security forces face such a dilemma. Regulation of the security forces is definitely required, but it must be fair, and it must be just.
1000
The attempt to discredit Clegg should also be resisted. The courts found that he had no part in the perjury of the feigned injuries. He was also not connected with the infantile and insensitive actions of other companies in the Parachute Regiment.
Every day that Lee Clegg spends in jail is an indictment of British justice. I am pleased that the Ministry of Defence has agreed to pay for fresh examination of the ballistics evidence. Lee Clegg and his family have suffered enough. I hope that the Minister who has the jurisdiction will release Private Clegg as soon as possible. That, I believe, is the will of the overwhelming number of people in Britain.
I must also say, thank God we do not have capital punishment. Otherwise, we may have been arguing about somebody who could have been hanged. Conservative Members especially should note that, many of whom vote in favour of capital punishment. Clegg could have been an innocent victim. I hope that Ministers will look at the case and will release Clegg as soon as possible.
10.38 am
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) for raising this important subject so well. I think that, across the House, there is general agreement on many points. I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) that no injustice should be allowed to go unchallenged, which includes many of the people mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron). People have been unjustly treated by Diplock courts, but each case must be judged on its merits.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West asked many questions which I shall try to answer. I spent the best part of a year of my life as a British soldier in his constituency, and I have a certain affection for parts of it. I speak with a little knowledge of the subject. During that time, I operated under the rules of engagement—the so-called yellow card. The rules are very tight and clear. I always believed that they were legally binding, and that is extremely important.
For the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with the so-called yellow card, I will quote from a white photocopy of it:
"In all situations, you are to use the minimum force necessary. FIREARMS MUST ONLY BE USED AS A LAST RESORT."
A soldier is meant to challenge, if at all possible:
"'ARMY; STOP OR I FIRE'".
I suggest that that is difficult in the middle of a gunfight.
Paragraph 5 states:
"You may only open fire against a person:
if he* is committing, or about to commit an act LIKELY TO ENDANGER LIFE" .
Mr. Eric Martlew: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that the yellow card is a classified document.
Madam Speaker: Thank you. Apparently it is all right to quote from a classified document, so the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) is in order to do that. I learn something all the time.
Mr. Robathan: The document is indeed classified and restricted. I am afraid to say that I have one somewhere in my bottom drawer from my first tour in 1976.

1001
The card states:
"if he* is committing, or about to commit an act LIKELY TO ENDANGER LIFE, AND THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO PREVENT THE DANGER."
The asterisk informs the reader:
"*'She' can be read instead of 'he' if applicable."
I hope that that is not political correctness creeping into the military.
It is essential to have clearly understood rules, and soldiers are trained in respect of those rules. They are asked questions about the yellow card during their training. The yellow card also states that a soldier may "fire only aimed shots" and
"no more rounds than are necessary".
The hon. Member for Bradford, South referred to a shoot-to-kill policy. In the light of the yellow card, the idea of such a policy is ridiculous. When we talk about shooting, people expect the best trained marksmen to hit someone in the leg. We always hear people asking, "Why didn't they shoot him in the legs?"
I spent a lot of time shooting and I was damned lucky to hit the target. That is the case with nearly all soldiers, especially at 100 m in the dark. One is very lucky to hit the target in such circumstances, let alone inflict a neat flesh wound in someone's calf. People who talk about a shoot-to-kill policy and want to know why soldiers do not shoot at people's legs show a remarkable naivety and lack of understanding.
The rules of engagement state:
"FIREARMS MUST ONLY BE USED AS A LAST RESORT."
It is essential to understand that.
It is important to understand why soldiers are in Northern Ireland. They were sent there in 1969 to protect the nationalist population. Wiser and greyer heads on the Opposition Benches might remember these things better than me. They were sent to keep both communities apart. Their mission is, and remains, to support the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the defeat of terrorism. Every soldier knows that. Ask any soldier on the streets of Northern Ireland and he will confirm that. Incidentally, I am glad to see that soldiers are not allowed out in daylight these days, not because they are so ugly, but for other reasons.
As soldiers are aware of their mission, and as they walk around day in, day out—night in, night out, as it now is—for six months, they remember that they are supporting the RUC in the defeat of terrorism. Most soldiers are unlikely to see a terrorist. Most soldiers are issued with 30 rounds at the beginning of their tour, and they return the same 30 rounds at the end of their tour, which are carefully checked back in by the quartermaster.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West referred to millions of rounds being fired. That is simply not true. I was shot at, but I never fired a round. About 300 people have been killed by the security forces, but that must be balanced against the 2,800 or 3,000 who have been killed by terrorist action.
The problem about firing is that soldiers are sent to Northern Ireland to react. They can only react. They do not go out shooting. They can only react to an incident as they see it. I am delighted to say that there is currently a ceasefire, which I hope will continue. However, we do not send soldiers to Northern Ireland as targets. They must
1002
react when it comes to it. They must protect and support the RUC, but they are no good in Northern Ireland if they will not react when a terrorist appears, perhaps on the one occasion in six months of their tour.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury said, the difficulty is that soldiers are so concerned about the rules of engagement that they will not fire. It is very difficult to make them use their weapons. If that is the case, they should not be there. While we would all agree that it would be preferable if they were not there, they must be able to fire when the need arises.
To be honest, people are restrained, and I believe that that balance is about right. This debate is about keeping that balance right.
I have two examples, one of which took place in the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, West. In January 1976, a stolen car on the west circular road in Ballygomartin or Springmartin stopped beside two Protestants who were walking down the road and fired upon them. That car was stolen. The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that no joyrider has ever set out to kill soldiers. Well, one cannot ask everyone who steals a car whether that person is a joyrider.
Dr. Hendron: I referred to a joyrider's car travelling at speed. I was not talking about a stolen car. There are hundreds of stolen cars in Belfast. A joyrider's car travelling at speed has never been associated, or found to be associated, with paramilitary activity.
Mr. Robathan: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is very difficult to determine whether a joyrider is a terrorist.
With regard to the west circular road in January 1976, two people were murdering Protestants. None of us would welcome that. A patrol emerged from the bushes and saw what happened. It was able to fire at the car—we can all agree, quite rightly—and it killed the driver.
"And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."
I regret that man's death as I regret every death, but it must be right that the patrol reacted to someone committing murder. That involved the tragic death of Jim McGrillen. The car sped away.
Let us suppose that the soldiers emerged five seconds later and saw the car speeding away. Let us suppose that one of the soldiers said, "Get it, get it!" and the patrol opened fire. That is the difficulty with which soldiers are confronted.
Mr. Mallon: The soldiers knew that they were armed.
Mr. Robathan: Yes, but if the patrol had arrived five seconds later, the soldiers would not have known that those people were armed. Soldiers must obviously have the right to fire, and they must be well constrained. However, we must consider the confusion that may exist on the ground in darkness.
My second example relates to an incident in early 1989, when New Barnsley police station came under heavy fire—millions of rounds, to quote the hon. Member for Belfast, West—from somewhere in Springfield avenue. A patrol of soldiers rushed out, came under fire, went behind a house and looked down Springfield avenue. The soldiers saw two men running away with what they thought was a rifle. The soldiers fired and hit a man. Sadly, the

1003
ammunition was not much good, and the man got up—leaving, I am glad to say, the rifle behind. He got away without being charged.
We would all say that it was absolutely right for the soldiers to fire. They fired about 10 rounds, but hit the man only twice. It was dark, and the soldiers were perhaps fearful. There was confusion. One of the soldiers believed that the terrorist had got into a stationary car, and he shot at it. That is the kind of confusion that can occur. Luckily, no harm was done. We must understand the difficulties on the ground. The difficulties lie in applying the terms of the yellow card in the heat of the moment.
Our soldiers are public servants. They are sent by us to work out the rules of engagement. They are given lethal weapons, and they are sent to do our bidding.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's clarification of the soldier's position, and I share his argument. However, he referred earlier to Diplock courts and mistakes. As I objected to those courts at the very beginning, does he accept from me that, even in Great Britain, where there are juries, there have been mistakes in judgments, which have sometimes brought wrong convictions and which have sometimes released guilty people? It is not necessarily that Diplock courts are so wrong, it is a matter of the human influence.
Mr. Robathan: I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Any miscarriage of justice, be it in a jury trial or with a judge sitting without a jury, must be deprecated.
As I was saying, our soldiers are public servants and they have excellent training, but accountants, lawyers—I believe that there are some in the Chamber—and doctors have three, four, five or six years' training, and they occasionally make mistakes. It is nonsense to say that a soldier is so professional that he cannot make a mistake. I heard that mentioned recently. The difference between a soldier and an accountant is that, generally, accountants do not kill people when they make mistakes, although of course doctors might.
Our soldiers are public servants, and they are trying to do their best. They are not perfect—they get bored and they sometimes indulge in appalling practices, as was mentioned in respect of the montage of the car in the barracks. Occasionally, they have been involved in criminal activity in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Certainly, in Northern Ireland, there have been well-documented cases of appalling activity and murder, for which people deserve to be found guilty of murder. Such cases are very exceptional.
The case of Private Clegg also involved some disgraceful behaviour, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and others have mentioned. It involved one man being convicted of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. It involved a terrible lack of discipline. As a former officer, I think that an officer on that patrol was very lucky to get away without being punished. As I understand the facts, I would have wished him to be punished.
Obviously, wrong was done, but, in the Clegg case, there were two car thieves—that is a better term than "joyriders"—who refused to stop. Yes, there 'were joyriders there the whole time, but there were also patrols with red torches there the whole time who tried to stop people. They hardly deserved to die. I agree that it was not
1004
a fitting punishment for being in a stolen car. It transpires, according to the Daily Mail, that Karen Reilly's father was the same man, McGrillen, who was killed in January 1976. That is a double tragedy to be visited on that family, and they should have nothing but sympathy. It is yet more pain and more tragedy.
In that case, the yellow card was not followed. The Law Lords' judgment has great sense in it—I do not criticise it—but it was dark and there was confusion. Who can say that Clegg did not believe in good faith that he was following rule 5a(3), which states that one may fire if someone is
"deliberately driving a vehicle at a person and there is no other way of stopping him."
That rule may now be dropped from the yellow card because of the Clegg case.
Is young Clegg a murderer? Wrong was done, but is he in the same league as sectarian murderers? Is he in the same league as Mr. Kelly, who blew up the chip shop on the Shankill road? Is he in the same league as those who steal cars to kill? I suggest not. I very much hope that he will be freed as soon as possible.
Even Sinn Fein, even many members of the nationalist community in west Belfast, and even the hon. Member for Belfast, West will not say, even in moral outrage, that Clegg is in the same league. They will not seriously compare him with those terrorists. Our soldiers are servants of the public. They deserve our support, sympathy and understanding when errors are made, but that does not mean that they need excuses.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, I believe that the Select Committee should examine the matter. Members of that Committee may interview lawyers and, as legislators, decide on the best way to safeguard public servants who, in good faith, go about their duties. Private Clegg has been punished enough for any errors that he and others may have made on that night.
10.52 am
Mr. Eric Martlew: I raised my point of order to clarify the situation with regard to the yellow card. It is classified. The reason for its being classified is not to let the enemy know when our soldiers are going to open fire. From now on, thanks to the hon. Member for Blab:y (Mr. Robathan), all they have to do is to read Hansard. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would take the hint when I mentioned that the yellow card was classified.
I recently returned from a visit to my county regiment at Deny. I came back with nothing but admiration, not only for my own regiment but for our forces throughout Northern Ireland, especially those who have served for the past 25 years, patrolling the trouble spots of the Province and carrying out their duties with tremendous professionalism and dedication under enormous strain.
One must remember that, until the recent ceasefire, every member of the security forces was considered by IRA terrorists a target for assassination, whether on duty or not. That is the pressure that our soldiers lived with 24 hours a day, year after year. In many ways, it has been a forgotten war. As long as we managed to keep the lid on it and to contain it, we were quite happy for them to bear the brunt of the problem.
I have recently read and heard criticism that 300 people have been killed by the security forces, and that only two of the latter have been convicted of murder. That is a

1005
sign that people think that there has been a cover-up. It is nonsense. The reality is that 648 members of the security forces have been killed by terrorists. I am convinced that no other security force anywhere in the world would have been as tolerant as the British forces in dealing with such problems in Northern Ireland. Overall, the British security forces in Northern Ireland have a record of which they and we can be proud.
I now refer to the recent debate and controversy following the Law Lords' decision to turn down Private Clegg's appeal against his conviction for murder. We almost seem to have lost sight of the tragic loss of two young lives and the grief that must be felt by their families and their communities. Our condolences and sympathy should be expressed to the bereaved. We should have heard more about that from Conservative Members.
I am concerned also that the media and Parliament have not been objective. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) made that point. Five early-day motions refer to the case. I have sympathy with some, but the others are totally unacceptable.
I take this opportunity to compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) on the way in which he has represented his constituent Private Clegg and his parents. He has pursued the case vigorously, but he has not exaggerated the injustice that has been caused. As we have heard, he has acted most responsibly.
Early-day motion 422, which is about Private Clegg and the rules of engagement, is totally unacceptable. It appears to say that there are no occasions when, on killing someone, security forces can be brought before the courts, and that there should be no public accountability for the security forces. The Army does not want that, and I am sure that the people of this country do not want that.
That early-day motion also states that the rules of engagement should be enshrined in the criminal law. As I have already pointed out, that information is classified, and for good reason. It is nonsense that the rules should be enshrined within the criminal law.
Mr. Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Martlew: The hon. Gentleman spoke for 20 minutes. I have been told to keep my speech short.
As for further action in Private Clegg's case, there are three possibilities. First, if there is new evidence that has not been before the court, it should be brought before the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to decide whether there is sufficient ground to resubmit his case to the Court of Appeal. Secondly, in future, the Secretary of State, who has jurisdiction, could release Private Clegg on licence. I am sure that that option will be considered. Thirdly, there could be a change in the law.
We support the Home Secretary's decision to review the existing law. Of course, a change in the law would not have a direct bearing on Private Clegg's case, but it would obviously be a major factor in a ministerial decision on early release. There is a strong case for a review, as, in the heat of the moment, it is impossible to determine the amount of force to be used.
It would be sensible to allow judges to be able to bring in lesser verdicts—for example, manslaughter—rather than the verdict of murder. Senior officers in Northern
1006
Ireland have always resisted that possibility, but their intransigence has contributed to the verdict of murder, which carries a mandatory life sentence, being passed on Private Clegg. There is no flexibility. If there had been flexibility, I am sure that there would have been a fairer sentence in the case.
I am unhappy that senior Ministers—I refer to the Secretary of State for Defence—appear to have been allowing people to issue briefs on their behalf saying that they are in favour of the immediate release of Private Clegg. While politicians have the right to reflect public opinion, it is dangerous for Ministers to appear to be interfering with the responsibilities of judges.
The Opposition totally support the Home Secretary's decision to review the law regarding sentences. I hope that the high-profile campaign of the case is not counter-productive, although I have a feeling that it may be. The campaign may delay the decision of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to exercise leniency. I hope that it will not have any affect.
I remind the House of something that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South mentioned. If it had not been for Opposition Members—plus some Conservative Members—when we discussed the return of capital punishment in 1990, Private Clegg could have been sentenced to death. I make an exception of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who has a very good record of opposing the death sentence. The same cannot be said of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who is a strong believer in the death penalty. He should reflect that his actions in 1990 could well have had a serious bearing on the case of Private Clegg.
11.1 am
Mr. David Trimble: I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on obtaining this debate. I echo the praise which has been given to the Army and its record in Northern Ireland. I believe that its record as a whole is without reproach, and it is deeply appreciated by my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, and by most people in Northern Ireland.
I also sympathise with Private Clegg in the dilemma he was in, and also in the situation in which he now finds himself. I quite understand that there are feelings that an injustice has been done in this case. It is not, I regret to say, the only injustice. Hon. Members will appreciate that I am keenly aware of what I regard as a much greater injustice done to a man who has now spent nearly 10 years in prison for a murder that he did not commit. The man is a serving member of the British Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment—I refer, of course, to Neil Latimer. I shall not discuss that subject, in view of the time available today.
I agree with one point which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) made. It was admitted in, and agreed by, the court that the initial shots fired by the soldier were lawful. The soldier, with his instincts and reactions, fired three shots which were lawful and then, a split second later—we do not know the exact time—fired a fourth shot which, in a cold courtroom, was dissected and was said to be unlawful. As the hon. Member said, that is an unrealistic approach.
I appreciate that there are great difficulties in saying that a series of events which have been entered into lawfully should continue to be lawful even when the last

1007
elements of that series have been separated and, when regarded in isolation, appear to be unlawful. Obviously, there could be considerable difficulty in drawing lines in this area, but perhaps too fine a judgment of the facts was exercised by the court.
I am not sure that the other factors mentioned by the hon. Member for Bradford, South on the ballistic evidence were right. I would ask the hon. Member, and other hon. Members, to please read the judgment. This was not a jury case, but a Diplock case in which the judge had to issue a considered judgment. The judgment of Mr. Justice Campbell is in the Library, as is the decision of the Court of Appeal. Hon. Members who read the judgment may begin to appreciate some of the difficulties not only of the patrol but of the court in dealing with the situation.
I shall now deal with more general issues. Hon. Members have referred to the yellow card, or the rules of engagement. We are in danger of getting ourselves into an extremely difficult and untenable situation if we go down the line suggested by the hon. Member for Canterbury. The yellow card, which is probably getting too precise and detailed, is an attempt to state the law. In so far as it states the law, it is more restrictive than the law.
The law enshrined in the yellow card is the same here as it is in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members will remember that we are dealing with a matter in which the la .w in Northern Ireland is exactly the same as the law in England and Wales. The use of firearms by policemen and soldiers can occur in England and Wales, as it does in Northern Ireland. If changes are made to the law in Northern Ireland, there would be an irresistible case for making the same changes in England and Wales, and that should be borne in mind.
The law enshrined in section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 is identical in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, and it goes wider than the yellow card. There are circumstances in which a soldier can open fire in breach of the yellow card and be within the law as stated in section 3 of the Criminal Law Act. The hon. Member for Canterbury said that a soldier acting in the reasonable belief that he was within the terms of the yellow card could use that as a defence. However, a soldier acting with an honest belief that he was in circumstances outlined within section 3 of the Act could also use that as a defence. That is the law as it is at the moment, and there is no need to make a change in that respect.
The problem facing Private Clegg is that—on the facts presented to the court—he was within the terms of neither the yellow card nor section 3. The hon. Member for Bradford, South said that Private Clegg believed that the car contained a terrorist. I do not know whether he believed that or not, but, had that been his defence, it is possible that he could have been acting within the terms of section 3 if he had an honest belief, and there were reasonable grounds to support that belief. That is a different view of the matter.
Remedies to the situation have been suggested, including the introduction of a new offence of manslaughter. I think that that is entirely wrong, and it would bring about a worse situation. That cure would be worse than the disease. At present, if a person has committed murder, murder is the appropriate charge. To introduce a lesser offence would have the effect only of saying that persons who, at present, are entitled to be acquitted of murder could be convicted of the lesser
1008
offence. The sole consequence of introducing a lesser offence would be that more soldiers would be in prison, and those soldiers—under the law at present—would be innocent.
The measure would simply be a means by which certain members of the community would pursue a desire for revenge, rather than justice. That is an important aspect of the case. If the actions of a soldier or a policeman fall within the law of murder as it is presently defined, murder is the right charge. If a court finds such people guilty, that is the just result. If their actions are not within the law of murder as it is presently defined, they are entitled to be acquitted. That should continue to be the case.
There is a dilemma in the present situation. A person who is not a terrorist has been convicted of murder, but he did not go out intending to commit murder. That person made a mistake in circumstances where fine judgments were called for and in which it was extremely difficult for an individual to make a snap decision. Consequently, there were extenuating circumstances. In the normal course of events, those facts ought to be taken into account in sentencing, but there is no discretion in sentencing. The Secretary of State and the Home Secretary have discretion, as was exercised properly in the case of Private Thain; but when that discretion has been exercised by the Secretary of State, politically motivated people make accusations that the laws have been bent.
A solution may be to return to the discussions of the House of Lords Select Committee on murder several years ago, where the Committee suggested that we drop the mandatory sentence for murder and replace it with a discretion for the judge to make determinate sentences where appropriate. If that had occurred in the case of Private Clegg, it is likely that the judge would have reflected the extenuating circumstances and the difficulties of the case in his sentence. The normal procedures for remission and early release could then follow their course without accusations of political interference in the course of justice. That is the option at which we should look again.
I hope that the Home Secretary's review of the law of murder will not go down the foolish road of introducing a new offence simply to have more soldiers and policemen behind bars.
11.9 am
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I am aware that I have limited time, and I want my hon. Friend the Minister to have as much time as possible to respond to the debate, so I shall skim quickly through my notes. I am grateful to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on the Front Bench, because I have a great regard for him in this matter and hope that he can respond fully to what has been said.
If we make a special charge of manslaughter, soldiers serving in Northern Ireland may be increasingly drawn into spates of prosecutions where they are brought before the courts for many marginal issues with regard to the use of their personal weapons. We would then be placed in a position where we were seriously questioning the purpose of their existence on the streets. They are not police, but soldiers. They are not as highly trained as police in police responsibilities. They are armed and trained for combat, and no matter how much secondary training takes place, they will never be police. There is, therefore, always that

1009
compromise. They are there because the situation is imperfect—people have chosen to use violence against civilians and police—and it would be far better if we had thousands of police able to act as our soldiers do now; but we do not, so we compromise.
The key point arises from the Law Lords' report, which said:
"He did not kill Karen Reilly from an evil motive but because his duties as a soldier had placed him on the Glen road armed with a high velocity rifle".
We must be careful not to proceed down a road whereby we deny the very purpose of soldiers being there, for there can be no purpose if they hesitate every time they need to use their personal weapon.
I shall not go through the changes to the rules of engagement discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I agree with what he said. I disagree with what the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), said about that business being confidential and restricted. It is not. The key fact is that yellow cards are meant to reflect the criminal law and the confidentiality of those items is not really at stake. Somehow, soldiers must feel confident that they are acting under the law and that what they are doing is justiciable.
In the case of Private Clegg, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) said that those were joyriders like joyriders anywhere in the United Kingdom. He said that, particularly in Northern Ireland, joyriders steal cars night after night, act recklessly and endanger other people's lives, but they are not terrorists and are not shot dead elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman missed one major factor. In Northern Ireland on the night of that incident, going through the mind of every soldier was the fact that he was there because terrorists were on the street. It was likely and possible that terrorists could have been in that car. It is no defence to say that the joyriders were not terrorists, because the soldiers were not to know that. That is an important fact and the Law Lords said that the soldiers were not even told at the time that they were specifically out stopping joyriders.
Dr. Hendron: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I do not have time to give way.
The point is simply that they were special circumstances, and we must not lose sight of that fact. We cannot simply say that justice has been done, for justice, as always, must be seen to be done. But justice can be the day in court, and the decision is not necessarily justice. Private Clegg's release is simply about right being done. The public and anybody who cares about the matter will see that his case is about right being done.
We need to reassure soldiers because we ask much, and much is given. We have the finest trained soldiers and, as the hon. Member for Carlisle said, they behave with the greatest restraint on the streets of Northern Ireland. I know of no other armed force that would act as they have, yet they do make mistakes and we need to show tolerance and lenience and make them understand that we shall support them.
1010
We need to reassure soldiers as they so often feel that they have been misunderstood and will not be protected by the very powers that put them there. Some lines from Kipling are apposite in those circumstances:
"For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute!';
But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool—you bet that Tommy sees!"
11.14 am
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): That was a powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), who spoke with a good deal of highly relevant experience, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and others who have taken part in this important debate, particularly the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe). I note what he said about his constituent and I know that he is pursuing the case vigorously.
For good reasons, I do not have as much time as I should like to reply to all the points that have been made. This matter deserves careful analysis. The role of the armed forces in Northern Ireland is well known to everyone here this morning and was well set out by my hon. Friends the Members for Blaby and for Canterbury. I speak on behalf of the whole House, and of informed and decent opinion throughout the nation, when I express my profound admiration and gratitude for the exceptional professionalism, dedication and courage of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the armed forces in the conduct of their duties over the past 25 years.
Over that period, apart from horrific civilian casualties, more than 640 soldiers have been killed and more than 5,500 have been wounded. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford rightly said, our soldiers have combated the terrorists in a way that no other army anywhere in the world could have done. They have combated them within the rule of law of a democratic society, with huge and almost unbelievable restraint, great discipline and enormous courage. We should be, and are, extremely proud of them.
It is right that, whenever the security forces cause death or serious injury by the use of armed force in Northern Ireland, knowing that they must comply with the law, they be investigated fully and impartially—none of us disagrees on that—and it is right that, where there appears to be a case to answer under the law, it is reported to the independent Director of Public Prosecutions to determine whether the matter should be put before the courts and the courts should deal with the legal issues before them.
It is also important to keep constantly in mind the fact that it has been a cardinal principle of successive Administrations of all political persuasions that the security forces should act within the criminal law and within such additional anti-terrorist powers as are enacted by Parliament after the most careful and detailed consideration.
This Government—and all previous Administrations in the past 25 years—have recognised the need to ensure that our soldiers are given the best training and guidance on the conduct of operations in Northern Ireland in these

1011
difficult circumstances, and I shall say a few words about how the Ministry of Defence prepares soldiers for tours of duty there.
Soldiers receive extensive training before they are deployed to prepare them for the unique circumstances in which they will find themselves. I note the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury about his visit to the Princess of Wales Regiment. In those difficult circumstances, we shall always find people who find that they are not adequately prepared, but we are satisfied that the degree of training, guidance, advice and leadership—
Mr. Brazier: I apologise to my hon. Friend, but I must intervene for a moment on that matter. The battalion made no complaint about preparation. It was excellently prepared and had done an excellent job with no complaints from the public. The point that was made to me by people in the battalion and in many other regiments was that there is still uncertainty about whether the yellow card covers the law. The Clegg case has accentuated that uncertainty. I am sorry to have had to intervene in my hon. Friend's speech.
Mr. Soames: I am glad that my hon. Friend is sorry.
Training includes, for example, testing the soldiers' understanding of the law in a range of realistic scenarios. All possible measures are therefore taken to ensure that soldiers are fully aware of their role in Northern Ireland and of the rule of law. My hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and for Blaby will acknowledge that that is the case. The matter is dealt with extremely thoroughly. The rules governing the conduct of operations, including the use of lethal force—the rules of engagement—are summarised in the yellow card, which is issued to soldiers in Northern Ireland and gives guidance on the rules of opening fire.
It is important to understand and to put into context the nature of the guidance in the yellow card. It is impressed upon all service men deploying to Northern Ireland that in all situations which they may face there they are to use the minimum of force, and that firearms must be used only as a last resort. On those points, there is no uncertainty.
The purpose of the yellow card is to provide soldiers with an easily carried document which summarises the detailed guidance on the law of the United Kingdom with which they have been provided in training. The purpose of the guidance is to enable a soldier to understand the law and to minimise the risk that a soldier might open fire unlawfully. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby explained in graphic detail the huge real difficulties which soldiers face every day in that regard. We keep a constant eye on the scope for improving the guidance which is provided. However, as a form of guidance the yellow card has no legal status and, of course, cannot create independent legal rights.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury described the Army as being in a state of uncertainty about the law which has been exacerbated by the Clegg case. I am afraid that I cannot agree with that description. The Army as a whole is quite clear about the nature of criminal law that applies in Northern Ireland, but it is right to acknowledge the difficult split-second judgments which are required of all those—whether members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or of the Army—who have to operate within the law in countering terrorism in Northern Ireland.
1012
I know that it is not an easy or a pleasant task to be on the streets or in the deceptively beautiful countryside of Northern Ireland knowing that at any moment one—or others whom it is one's duty to protect—may be the subject of a premeditated, murderous and cowardly attack and knowing also that one may use only reasonable force if one is to stay within the law.
As my hon. Friends know, the reality is that there is no simple solution to those difficulties. For that reason, members of the security forces are given the most detailed and profound training and guidance based on 25 years of hard-won, bitter and painful experience of countering terrorism. For 25 years, the House and all decent public opinion have maintained as a matter of principle the need for the security forces in Northern Ireland to act within the law and to suffer the relevant legal consequences if they digress. That guidance and training incorporate the lessons learned over 25 years; but, given the circumstances in which the security forces in Northern Ireland are required to operate, those factors can never resolve all the dilemmas to which I have referred.
I now turn to the concerns about the wording of the yellow card expressed by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland when he gave his judgment last year on Private Clegg's appeal against conviction for murder. He recommended that the card be amended
"to make it clear that the mere fact that actual injury has been caused by a car does not justify a soldier in opening fire".
In giving its judgment on appeal, the House of Lords made it plain that
"a minor injury caused by a car"
does not in itself justify a soldier opening fire.
When the current yellow card was drafted, it was not intended or judged likely that it would be open to the interpretation that use of lethal force could be justified simply because an injury, particularly a minor injury, had been caused. The guidance and training which I described earlier have always sought to ensure that there is no doubt about the detailed application of the law.
As I have said, an injury has never been considered' to be sufficient justification on its own for opening fire. Nevertheless, we reacted immediately to the Lord Chief Justice's comments by issuing further written guidance to make that even more explicit.
The House may find it helpful also to note that, in giving evidence at his trial, Private Clegg claimed that he had opened fire because he believed that a colleague's life was endangered. The yellow card makes it clear that opening fire may be justified in those circumstances if there is no other way to prevent the danger; but the court did not accept that the fourth shot fired by Private Clegg was justified.
A number of hon. Members and others have suggested that—my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has been very good at keeping me in touch with his evolving views on the matter—the Clegg case demonstrates that the present law is inappropriate to circumstances such as those that resulted in Private Clegg's trial and conviction for murder. It has also been suggested, as my hon. Friend did today, that the yellow card should be given legal status so that compliance with its terms would provide immunity against criminal charges.
While recognising the very genuine concerns behind those requests, we believe that it is important to the credibility of the actions of the security forces in Northern

1013
Ireland that, except where there is a clear need to give them additional powers, they are seen to be operating within exactly the same laws as those applying to any other citizen. Of course, there is a respectable opinion that the situation which they face in carrying out their specific duty to maintain law and order should be recognised in the construction and application of the criminal law; equally, there are many who would think it wrong in principle to accord them exceptional status of that kind.
Of course, those issues require the most difficult judgments. In response to the renewed debate on the issues which Private Clegg's conviction has generated, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced that he has initiated a review that will examine the law governing the use of lethal force in the maintenance of law and order. I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend, who has raised the question of service and Ministry of Defence involvement, that we shall be involved very closely in the review.
The review will consider the position of both policemen and soldiers. It would be quite wrong to decide in advance of the review that there can be no case for considering whether the creation of a lesser offence than murder might apply to those who use lethal force in the course of carrying out their duty to maintain law and order. The concept that the yellow card should be given legal status will also be addressed during the review which my right hon. and learned Friend has set in train.
I am quite sure that the correct course is to proceed with that review and I cannot agree with the suggestion that it be postponed to permit the Defence Committee to carry out its own inquiries first, although views will be expressed to the Committee in the usual manner.
I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to await the review's conclusions, which my right hon. and learned Friend has undertaken to announce in due course. I know that he will take note of the strong views expressed in today's debate about the need for a reform of the law and the form which such changes might take.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury also raised the difficult question of expediting court hearings and I sympathise with his motivation in raising that point. No one would wish there to be extensive delay—with all the attendant anxiety that that can cause—before such difficult cases come to court.
I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be taking note of the views that have been expressed today. He is aware of the concerns and is keen to keep to a minimum the time before cases—whoever the accused—come to trial.
I believe that it is of the utmost importance that the Government do all they can to protect the lives of those decent and courageous men and women who serve their country so well in Northern Ireland.
1014
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury for the courtesy with which he has dealt with the matter and kept us informed of his thinking. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) said, although I am unable to agree with many of his comments. However, he presents his views with clarity and precision. The hon. Member for Bradford, South presented his constituent's interests clearly and boldly.
My hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and for Blaby bring to the House very real experience of the split-second decision making that is required while soldiering in Northern Ireland. Their experience is highly relevant and I am thankful that people who have served in difficult circumstances in our armed forces can bring a measure of authority to our debates. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), in his excellent and admirable speech, outlined and dealt with many of the real difficulties that we face in this area.
All hon. Members agree that keeping the peace is a crucial and critical task in which British soldiers have played a glorious and an heroic part. That is why we will always be prepared to examine any evidence that is brought before us by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and by others to see how we can continue to refine the training and experience that we give to our soldiers before and upon deployment.
As my hon. Friend knows, we ask very young men who are armed with high-velocity weapons to make difficult decisions in a split second in the dark when it is raining, when their adrenalin is pumping and when they may be very frightened. Their discipline and training over the years have proved successful. They have given the British Army and services a record of which they can be proud in Northern Ireland—a fact for which our nation and the House are grateful.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) on the tribute that he paid to his regiment. I am glad that he found its members in good heart. I am grateful to all who have taken part in this debate for the measured, clear way in which they expressed their views. The Government will take note of all of them. I assure the hon. Member for Bradford, South that his points about Private Clegg will be considered and referred to the proper quarters. Again, I thank all who have taken part—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury—for giving me the opportunity to respond to this important debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): It may be convenient for the House to know that there is a fault in the Division Bell system. It is not a fire alarm.
We now move to—
Mr. Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is for the Chair, yes.
Mr. Brazier: There was a reference in the debate that has just closed to an early-day motion on the Order Paper. May I put on record the fact that it includes the words
"recognising that soldiers must obey the law"?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an abuse of the Chair.

Care in the Community
11.30 am
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss community care and mental health, on which there has been quite a lot of activity in the House recently. Adjournment debates have been held, and several private Members' Bills of significance have been introduced—by the hon. Members for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) and for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), for instance—all dealing with various aspects of care in the community.
It is therefore right, in the relatively calm atmosphere of this Adjournment debate on a Wednesday morning, that the House should have the chance to discuss these matters under the new Jopling procedures—
Mr. Don Dixon: I believe he is in America, and we were here late Monday night and Tuesday night.
Mr. Kirkwood: Possibly so; that might not be far enough away for some of us, but it is a matter for him.
This is a good chance to see how the community care changes are being implemented 18 months on. Community care is the right policy, and the Government have been right to implement it, although the way in which they have done so has caused some difficulties. I suspect, however, that those difficulties were inevitable given the radical nature of the changes. Any political Administration would have had problems getting from where we were to where we want to be.
I think that hon. Members agree that community care is right in principle and that the Government are right to adopt and promote it. It has a great deal of potential; we must be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater when dealing with some of the criticisms that have rightly been levelled at the implementation of the policy. Moving from what was always a service-based policy to a much more flexibly managed, needs-led approach certainly is a radical change, which has had profound effects for users of the service and for their carers. The effects have also been profound for health care professionals and social work and social services professionals, and there have been consequences for the way in which voluntary groups operate too. All these people have had to respond dramatically to the changes implemented in the past 18 months.
I acknowledge the value of the work done by counsellors in social work and social services committees throughout the country, although I suspect that the Minister may not quite share my enthusiasm. They have done a great deal to make the policies work in the face of considerable troubles and difficulties. Immense challenges have faced them and many demands have been put on them. The House owes them a debt for the work that they have done and for the diligence with which they have discharged their duties.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some Labour-run authorities, of which Lancashire is perhaps the worst example, have
1016
badly mishandled the implementation of community care, and that it is not right to give blanket approval to the work done by social security committees on county councils—
Mr. David Hinchliffe: Social services committees.
Mr. Hawkins: Social services committees in some counties have done a good job, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, but some county councils have misused the resources.
Mr. Kirkwood: I was desperately trying to avoid that kind of tone. Lancashire has lost £14 million. I do not know how it has husbanded its resources, but it would have been a clever trick for anyone to make a fist of the situation after losing £14 million. I am trying to stay above that sort of party political argument. Of course the hon. Gentleman's point was quite legitimate and I do not criticise him for making it, but I am trying to take a more philosophical approach to some of these problems. We owe that to the counsellors and to those who use the services—after all, it is the latter who suffer.
I was pleased to note that the Audit Commission's report, "Taking Stock"—I am sure that all hon. Members have read it—acknowledged that counsellors have shown themselves capable of responsible stewardship and of managing the process as well as might be expected. It is always easy to see things clearly with hindsight, but when Sir Roy Griffiths initiated the process he made it clear that he thought he was setting the agenda for a decade ahead. I think that the Government have been trying to travel too far too fast. The evidence in "Taking Stock", published in December, strongly suggests to me that some of the local authorities being asked to administer the new system do not possess the management information systems to enable them to cope with the uneven demand that they are facing in the first five or six years of the transition.
Local authorities are having to deal with existing protected clients under the old social security system—residential care—and with new clients who are coming on stream now. It is impossible to anticipate demand without sophisticated new techniques. The Audit Commission report makes it clear to my satisfaction that we expected local authorities to do too much without adequate tools. I should like the Minister to bear that thought in mind for the rest of the debate. Perhaps we should be thinking in terms of reaching our goals after 10 years instead of rushing in a manner that makes it difficult for people to cope.
Given all the evidence that we have it seems to me that there is an unanswerable case for setting up a standing working group that would involve local authority representatives, academics, departmental representatives and so on to oversee funding and many of the other issues which I expect to be covered in the next hour and a half. I hope to persuade the Minister of this idea. If he cannot respond to it today, perhaps he will respond to my suggestion later in writing. I am prepared to wait for the right answer. It is vital to get people to sit around a table in good faith to look at some of the problems of funding that are emerging and to deal with them as best they can.
The first issue that such a group would want to examine is the almost irresistible pressure that the 1990 legislation will place on health service professionals to cease providing long-term health care. The Department of

1017
Social Security transferred resources to local authorities to deal with residential care, and I understand the rationale behind that. As a consequence, the Government were able to control the budget, which was previously demand led.
Health care authorities are discharging long-term patients, including geriatric patients, into the community. I understand that care packages must be in place before such patients are allowed to be discharged, but when they are they become the responsibility of the local authority. At that stage, their needs are considered from a medical point of view, and their means are considered.
If the Government do not take a firm grip in the next few years, and if the process that I have described is allowed to develop unfettered, irresistible pressure will be placed on trusts, community health units and acute hospitals to divest themselves of long-term national health service patients, who hitherto have expected cradle-to-grave treatment. They have expected, rightly, because they have paid national insurance contributions, free long-term health care. That care will not be available to them in five or six years' time. I note that the Minister shakes his head in dissent. I shall be interested to hear him on this point. It will be a crucial part of and an influence on the funding that is available for community care in the hands of local authorities.
It is believed that funding is spiralling out of control, and the evidence suggests that the authorities are right. I spoke to the British Medical Association about the matter. I am sure that the Minister knows the figures. In 1990, 73,000 people were registered as national health service long-term care patients. In 1993, the total had fallen to 59,600. There must be a minimum level of national provision for long-term health care patients, but I see no evidence that the Government understand that. We cannot allow the number of long-term health care beds to fall indefinitely. I sense that the Minister wishes to intervene, and I am happy to give way to him.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): Has the hon. Gentleman seen the Government's continuing care guidance, which was drawn up as a result of the Leeds case? Has he submitted his views? Is he aware that there are NHS beds not only in hospitals but in nursing homes, which are not included in the figures that he has presented to the House?
Mr. Kirkwood: I understand the Minister's second point. I have been wrestling with some of the Government's guidance and positions on long-term health care. I am not alone in continuing to be slightly confused. Indeed, the BMA is slightly confused about exactly what the Government are saying about long-term health care.
The draft guidance that is supposed to be the subject of consultation states that
"the hospital will need to take account of the needs of other patients in determining how long the person can continue to occupy an NHS bed."
That is to be contrasted with the guidance in 1989, accompanying circular HC(89)5, which stated:
"No NHS patient should be placed in a private nursing or residential care home against his/her wishes if it means that he/she or a relative will be personally responsible for the home's charges."
1018
Over the past few years, various positions have been taken in guidance that has been issued by the Department of Health. The confusion continues to obtain. If the BMA is confused, I suspect that others are too. The Government have a duty to clarify exactly what is happening.
Some weasel words have been introduced into some of the guidance circulars on which consultation is now taking place. I refer to the NHS executive guidance, which for the first time says that the NHS remains responsible for care "within available resources". It says that every effort should be made to meet the preferences of the patient
"within the practical options and resources available."
These words are incapable of precise meaning. When the Minister and I have to throw ourselves at the mercy of the NHS in 20 or 30 years' time, in our twilight years, will we be entitled to know the exact circumstances in which the NHS will provide and those in which it will not?
The shunting—a terrible piece of jargon—of health care resources into the local authority area for community care is a matter of singular and continuing concern. The same can be said of the circular and consultation process. The Minister and his Department should urgently try to resolve and clarify the issue. Similarly, it should be considered urgently within the review process that I have proposed.
Mr. Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems about the interface between health services and social services is that in many counties, including Lancashire, social workers have insisted on contradicting the advice of general practitioners and allowing elderly people who have not been in very good health to stay at home? When those people have had suddenly to be admitted to hospitals as emergency cases, an intolerable burden has been placed on hospitals and health services generally. That is one of the difficulties that the new system has thrown up in areas where social workers have insisted on countermanding GPs' advice on the best places for their patients.
Mr. Kirkwood: If that is true, it would cause me some concern. I have never heard of such circumstances, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. If that has happened, we should examine it carefully.
Funding is the crucial and core issue. I do not want to demand unlimited amounts of money. It is too easy for Opposition politicians to say that we need blank cheques. We know that blank cheques are not available and it is stupid to try to operate on that basis.
The 1994–95 local government settlement meant a difficult year for local authorities—I think that everyone would accept that in his or her quiet moments. It would seem that 1995–96 will be an even more difficult year. It is unfortunate that we are entering a crucial phase of the transition in community care at a time when local authority budgets are severely constrained.
Mr. Matthew Banks: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is very important, in these days of public spending constraints, that local authorities spend the money allocated to them specifically for community care through the standard spending assessment? There are numerous examples of Liberal Democrat-controlled

1019
councils, or where the Liberal Democrats have a major hand in controlling policy within those local authorities, that show that they are not spending—
Mr. Hinchliffe: It is ring-fenced.
Mr. Banks: I will deal with that point. Indeed, it is not, and the hon. Gentleman should know that.
The fact is that if one looks at Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities—those in which the hon. Gentleman's party has a hand, and perhaps he will comment on this, in Cornwall—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman did not have the Floor for a speech. A brief intervention was appropriate.
Mr. Kirkwood: I invite the hon. Gentleman to make an intervention in another debate. It is not a worthwhile use of the time of the House to debate individual councils. I stand by the statement that I made: the Audit Commission found that, by and large, councils were doing a good job in difficult circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman wants to hire a hall in Cornwall, I would be happy, on a day and place of his choosing, to appear on a public platform and argue with him long and hard about the individual circumstances of Cornwall. But I do not want to do that this morning. I am trying to keep the debate slightly above the tone of our usual debates, but I do not think that I am succeeding.
Mr. Gary Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is succeeding, because I am not going to attack him on a party political basis, as he is making a thoughtful and helpful speech. These are serious issues.
To what extent, none the less, does the hon. Gentleman place the responsibility on local authorities to use their money wisely? I give him one example—I shall not mention the political party, although he is a member of it. In Devon, the Liberal Democrats took control in 1993, reversed a decision to close local authority homes and is now placing residents in local authority homes at a cost of £400 a week, when in the private sector they can get better care at £200 a week. Is that not something for which local councils have a responsibility? It is not all the Government's fault.
Mr. Kirkwood: Again, if the hon. Gentleman wants to hire a hall in Devon, I will happily debate individual circumstances with him. From memory, I recall that Devon lost about £16 million. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Of course I confirm that local authorities must act responsibly and spend money wisely. I have no evidence that the council in Devon has acted in anything other than the best interests of its users. The hon. Gentleman must understand that it is sustaining a loss. The rules changed, as he knows, unilaterally and unexpectedly. Losing £16 million is a pretty difficult row to hoe in terms of the provision of crucial services for people who are in a very vulnerable position.
Mr. Nick Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that Devon was the hardest hit of all the counties in the transfer of funds that resulted from the revision of the formula? Despite the attention that is rightly being given to Gloucester and the Isle of Wight, under the old arrangements Devon received 4.6 per cent. of national spend in this area, but under the new formula will receive only about 2 per cent. Whatever the merits of the
1020
argument of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter)—it is legitimate—he must appreciate that the total sum that he proposes is the merest skim of the sums about which we are talking. It is a blue herring.
Mr. Kirkwood: I am obviously failing miserably in my attempt to try to keep us out of a party political dog fight. There will, of course, be legitimate exchanges, but I am trying to concentrate on and accentuate the positive, because I am determined to try to get something out of the Government this morning, even if it is only a promise that they will reconsider my suggestion that a body should be created to consider these issues and that its advice should be made available to the Government.
The Government underestimate the impact on some counties of the unexpected change in the distribution of resources at the beginning of this financial year, and I hope that that will not be forgotten. It should be constantly kept under review, because of the impact—we have heard exchanges that reinforce the point—that it has had on the finances available to some local authorities.
More than anything else—the evidence appeared in the Audit Commission report, "Taking Stock", which was published in December—nobody correctly estimated the high demand that would be evident from the start of the new regime. Expectations, quite properly, have been raised. The Government cannot be held to account for every new demand or expectation encountered, but carers, users, voluntary groups and domiciliary services are experiencing quite unexpected interest and demand. The House and the Government must recognise that and take it into account, otherwise we will face severe examples of retrenchment, harsher eligibility criteria and withdrawal of services. In Gloucestershire, even the legal process is involved. We are heading rapidly towards a tangle of legal challenges in the courts. I do not believe that that is m anybody's interest.
As I understand it, there is no spare money in local authority budgets. No other funds are available from charging or from efficiency savings. The bottom line is that front-line services are now at risk.
Mr. Hawkins rose—
Mr. Kirkwood: I shall not give way. I have been speaking for far too long already.
The Government must look at that. I suggest strongly that they should set up some review machinery, involving local authorities, to oversee the process for at least the next few years.
The ten-minute Bill of the hon. Member for Dulwich, Community Care (Rights to Mental Health Services) Bill, is a very important measure, which I hope the Government are considering seriously. Evidence produced by the National Association for Mental Health—MIND—shows the need for a crisis service and that extra resources are cost-effective in terms of moving away from acute units to a decent crisis and emergency service.
As I said earlier, the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Croydon North-West, the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill, is an important measure. I hope that the Government are considering that as well. I hope, too, that they will look at some of the constraints that local authorities are under, in terms of the 85 per cent. restriction—the limit on the amount that can be spent from what previously was paid to the private sector. The lack of privately provided domiciliary services in many

1021
areas is making it difficult to ensure that that money is most flexibly used. The Audit Commission said that flexibility, responsiveness and sensitivity were the three key issues in the successful promotion of community care in the future. I am sure that that is right, but I do not think that the Government have got the process right. The funding will create immense problems for the rest of this year and from next year.
One of the best ways in which the Government could cope with the situation today is to say that they understand that some factors need to be considered on an on-going basis, and that they will agree to enter into some arrangement, by way of a working group or some other body, with local authorities and other interested parties, to work these things out for the remainder of the transitional period. If they did that, local authorities throughout the length and breadth of the land would have more confidence that the Government were aware of the difficulties that they face.
11.58 am
Mr. Piers Merchant: I am delighted that we are debating the important subject of community care, whose funding we should monitor to ensure that the objectives are adequately met. I must compliment the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on the restrained character of most of his remarks, and especially on his recognition of the value of this radical innovation.
Not only is community care delivering a better service, as it will continue to do; it represents an important devolution of power to local government. I particularly welcome that, and I am keen for it to work successfully. I pay tribute to people in my local authority of Bromley whom I know well: for instance, the director of social services, Mrs. Clare Marchant—I hasten to add that she is no relation—and other health professionals and administrators who have co-operated effectively in both setting up the system and making it work.
That is not to say that there have not been some transitional difficulties. Such difficulties were inevitable; indeed, I consider it miraculous that such a major change—such a huge innovation—has not involved more problems. In the borough of Bromley, certainly, most of those difficulties were overcome owing to the good will, flexibility and effort contributed by all who were keen for the system to work. I congratulate them on overcoming the problems at an early stage.
It is the easiest thing in the world to make a case for increasing spending on community care, as on any other programme. Again I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, who made a point of saying that he was trying not to make such a case—although his attempts were not entirely successful towards the end of his speech. My wife is very good at suggesting that spending should be increased in various areas, but she is outdone by Opposition Front Benchers, who daily call for more expenditure.
The one thing that those Opposition Members are never prepared to do, however, is announce the grand total of the extra spending for which they are calling and explain to the House, and the outside world, where they will find the money. It is incumbent on anyone who wishes to behave responsibly to explain how the more generous
1022
funds required are to be secured, either through revenue raising or through reductions in certain services. The Labour party, however, becomes very coy when the question is put.
Although wonderful things can be done in community care, are already being done and, no doubt, will be done increasingly in future years, demand is open-ended. Eventually, no doubt, anyone who needed the slightest support could be given 24-hour backing, but the cost would be disproportionate. Balance is needed: we must ensure that adequate provision is made for community care, and that it is recognised as an important step forward, but the budget must not be open-ended.
I do not criticise social workers, who do a tremendous amount of good work, but I feel that they sometimes lose sight of reality and fail to appreciate that budgets must be controlled. All services, by their nature, must be cash limited; otherwise it is impossible to plan, make commitments or make room for other priorities.
Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend has mentioned the important role played by social workers. I agree that some social workers do an excellent job, but in my part of Lancashire—and perhaps in my hon. Friend's constituency as well—certain of them are so ideologically opposed to the idea of placing anyone in a private sector home that they refuse even to contemplate it. That is a vast waste of taxpayers' and charge payers' money.
Mr. Merchant: I must say that that is not a problem in my area—I have never encountered such a case—but I know that it has happened elsewhere. In certain parts of the country, care in the community has been impeded by those with tunnel vision who have not been prepared to exercise the flexibility that is required if the system is to work.
We should not overlook the generous funds provided by the Government, which stem from a belief in the system and a conviction that enhanced flexibility and better standards of care are necessary. It is so important to free those who have been trapped in grey institutions, and give them the care that they need, that the Government have rightly set aside large extra sums. In 1995–96, £1.8 billion has been provided in specific additional funds for care in the community-44 per cent. more than in the previous year—while £2.5 billion has been provided for 1997–98. No one could describe that as anything other than generous.
That is not the whole picture, however. The amount available for social services spending generally—the biggest growth area in local government—has doubled since 1990–91, rising from £3.6 billion in that year to £6.4 billion in 1994–95. In 1995–96 it amounts to £7 billion: that is an increase of 9 per cent. in a single year.
Local authorities are free to decide their exact social services budgets. It would be absurd if they were not, given that powers have been devolved to them, and I believe that that is what they want. But to make community care a success in the first years of its introduction they were given a special transitional grant, which was ring-fenced and separate from the revenue support grant settlement.
That grant, however, is not the only source of community care funding, although some people appear to have made the mistake of thinking that it is. It is additional to what authorities can take out of their social

1023
services budgets. Some local authorities, including some that have recently complained about underfunding, have not spent up to their standard spending assessment, which makes their claim that they are not given enough by central Government look rather hypocritical.
Mr. Hinchliffe: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the transitional grant was intended to finance new functions and increased responsibilities? He talks of the Government's generosity; will he tell us what they would have spent if the old system had remained? In 1979, £9 million was spent on social service departments' funding of private care; by 1993 the figure was £2.5 billion. What would the figure for the next two or three years have been?
Mr. Merchant: The hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like. I assume that he is not suggesting that the old system should have been retained. Care in the community is a better system, and should not be compared with the old one. There is no doubt, however, that Government funding is excessively generous. It is more than adequate to cope with the extra demands placed on local government.
Mr. Bowis: The straight and simple answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) is that under the old system £160 million less would have been spent.
Mr. Merchant: The fact remains that some local authorities have complained about being insufficiently funded. We should, I think, examine their position more closely.
In the Audit Commission's recent second report on care in the community implementation, David Browning pointed to four areas of difficulty for local authorities. I shall refer to all four. He said that there were examples of poor local financial control and that there was increasing demand. That is undoubtedly true. He pointed to local decisions to allocate fewer funds to social services and, of course, he referred to changes in the Government formula.
I have mentioned all four lest someone suggests that I am selecting two that are particularly favourable to my case. However, I shall deal first with those two, the first of which is poor local control. There are undoubtedly examples of local authorities taking on the burden of care in the community, not managing it as efficiently as they should and slipping up on financial control. It is notable that it is those authorities which have screamed and complained most in the past few months. The complaints should be directed at their own internal systems rather than at their lack of grant. Of course, they attempt to find scapegoats for their own problems.
The second area causing difficulty is the decision to allocate fewer funds. As I said earlier, local authorities are free to choose how much they spend in different areas and there is no doubt that some local authorities—the one on the Isle of Wight is an example—have chosen not to spend up to their full SSA on personal social services. There again they have themselves to blame if they suddenly find that they are short of funds.
One of the two other areas is the growth in demand. That presents difficulties because no one can clearly predict demand. Pilot studies and predictions can be undertaken, but until people start knocking at the door requiring the support that local authorities are now duty
1024
bound to provide, one cannot know for sure what the pattern of demand will be. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be flexible and will continue to monitor demand as it arises.
The fourth issue relates to changes in the Government formula. Those changes have benefited many authorities, but they have also resulted in some authorities not getting as much as they might have expected from the previous year's formula. But as, in the first year at least, the formula was biased in their favour and there has merely been rectification to a fairer overall system, they should be thankful for the extra support that they received, perhaps unexpectedly, in the first year of operation.
I do not want to go into specific examples in great detail, but I am sure that some of my hon. Friends intend to do that. However, I will mention that there is a clear contrast between local authorities which have managed the system well, are working within their budgets and delivering an excellent service—my local authority in Bromley is an example—and some others. Hon. Members will know whether a system in their area is working effectively because we are often the first people to receive complaints if it is not.
I have had so few complaints about care in the community that there is clearly no severe underlying problem in my area. That is clear even if I did not believe the evidence that has been provided to me by those who are administering the system. The few complaints that I have received have related to individuals; the system is bound to slip up occasionally in such cases. As soon as those problems have been drawn to the attention of those responsible the difficulties have been put right.
We can contrast that with the experience in counties such as Gloucestershire because despite large increases in funding—for example, Gloucestershire had a 10 per cent. increase in 1994–95 over the previous year—some counties have managed to get themselves into the most extraordinary mess. According to The Independent Gloucestershire council appears to be spending about £1,000 a day on computer consultants who scrapped a community care computer system at a cost of £250,000 and promptly spent £200,000 on replacing it.
Mr. Nigel Jones: The hon. Gentleman talks about increases. Does not he realise that there has been a cut of £3 million in the community care grant in Gloucestershire? That was totally unexpected and occurred after it had arranged all the contracts. The article in Computer Weekly last week entitled "Careless in the Community" bears absolutely no relation to the truth. If the hon. Gentleman would like to speak to Deryk Mead, the social services director in Gloucestershire, I can arrange it.
Mr. Merchant: As I have said, there was a 10 per cent. increase between 1993–94 and 1994–95 in Gloucestershire's social services budget. That is a particularly large percentage in view of the restraints in other areas of local government expenditure. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's defence of poor financial control in that authority.
There are many other examples, but it will suffice to say that authorities that have managed the system well have not only coped but have produced a far better system than before. They have demonstrated that care in the community as a practice and not just as a theory is most

1025
effective. Authorities which have not managed the policy well need to look closely at their systems with a view to improving the standard of care for their people.
At the end of the day this is a major test for local government. As I said at the start of my speech, it represents a major devolution of power to local government, which I welcome. I should like to see local government having more responsibility and to see other functions that are currently carried out by central Government devolved to local government. That can be done only if we are confident that local government will be able to deliver those services at an adequate standard across the country.
This is a test for local government. If it is able—and I sincerely hope that it is—to ensure that the system works smoothly and effectively in the years to come, its case for handling other services will be greatly enhanced. However, if authorities drag their feet and are not able to deliver the efficiency that is expected of them in handling such a major area of policy, it will be difficult to support their understandable arguments that they should also handle other public services.
12.17 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I welcome this opportunity to speak on community care, albeit in a brief debate. I shall stick to the issue of available funding, because care in the community is so wide ranging. I shall address in particular the difficulties that we recognise in many parts of the country. Some local authorities face serious problems in meeting their statutory responsibilities on community care changes. The Opposition are especially concerned about the impact of that on some of our most vulnerable citizens—the users and carers and people who depend on vital services.
I shall start by briefly recalling the warnings that were flagged up by local authorities when the changes were introduced in April 1993. Although the Minister was not in post at the time, he will recall that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities warned that the changes were underfunded. I remind him that the Association of County Councils, which was then Conservative controlled, also warned the Government about that. At that time, it was concerned with cuts in the counties. The situation has markedly worsened—to be fair, that has been conceded by Conservative Members who have contributed to the debate—as a result of the change in the formula which was introduced with effect from this financial year.
Many metropolitan authorities are finding their base budgets under pressure and cutting services. At least a dozen county authorities—there may be more, but 12 have told me this—have run out of special transitional grant. The Association of County Councils predicts a funding shortfall for the next financial year of at least £200 million. The Minister will know that because he has met the association at least once, and possibly twice, recently. In every way, demand for care services has been beyond all expectations.
One of our concerns is with the way in which the Government have not been willing to consider the issue of unmet need, and to make some sort of measurement of that need. They have discouraged local authorities from doing that. The most sensible way of planning for future care provision is to look at where the gaps are and how
1026
we can plug those gaps. I appreciate that resources are not infinite and that we must consider how funding is used. My concern is that the Government have not planned properly on a national basis to deal with serious unmet need in various parts of the country.
Mr. Hawkins: I know of the hon. Gentleman's expertise in this matter, which he gained before coming to the House. Does he agree that immense responsibility is placed on all local authorities to manage their funding sensibly? Is not one of the most serious criticisms made of local authorities that so badly mishandle funding—Lancashire is a classic example—that they have allowed unlimited, incredibly expensive domiciliary care packages? They have not limited those packages to exceptional cases, as the guidelines from 1992–93 onwards clearly state they should. Purely for ideological reasons, they have not used much less expensive, much better residential care in the private sector.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I hope that people will note the hon. Gentleman's comments carefully. He said that people who have basic human rights should have the opportunity to be placed in institutional care when, as an alternative, his council is clearly and rightly attempting to ensure that they are given the right to remain in the community, which is the aim of the community care changes. He cannot honestly say that authorities have allowed unlimited packages. I have met his colleagues in Lancashire and many local authorities.
I worry about the message that the hon. Gentleman has got across. If he found himself in those circumstances and had certain needs, would he prefer to have services and support supplied to him in his home, and carers in the community to visit him at home, where he has lived all his life? Or would he prefer to be shunted into a private institutional care home, miles from where he lived, as is happening in many instances? It is a human rights issue. The hon. Gentleman said on the record that he would deny human rights. I hope that his constituents will note that.
Mr. Hawkins rose—
Mr. Hinchliffe: I must continue because my time is limited. I shall cover a number of points that the hon. Gentleman has made, if he will listen.
I recognise that, in many parts of Britain, a serious problem exists in relation to community care and it needs an urgent response. I listened carefully to the suggestions of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who opened the debate. I want to make some constructive suggestions. I hope that the Minister will listen to them in a non-partisan and constructive way and that he will respond in some detail to my points.
It is important to remember that the difficulties arise directly from the implementation of the care elements of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Those elements were clearly Treasury driven. I want to go back a bit further than the Liberal spokesman and to consider why we are in this position with these changes. The 1990 legislation attempted to unravel the mess that the Government had got into during the 1980s and 1990s in relation to the wholesale privatisation of the care of old people. That is why we have the problems.
Earlier in an intervention, I mentioned that private care in residential and nursing homes cost £9 million per annum when the Government came to power, but when

1027
the changes were introduced, it cost the Department of Health and Social Security some £2.5 billion, an enormous increase, which was caused by a deliberate policy of privatisation.
Mr. Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hinchliffe: No. I am sorry. I must continue with my speech. I shall probably give way later if we get to an appropriate point.
The problems arise because of the deliberate policy of the privatisation of the care of elderly people. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) said that we should push people into institutional care in the private sector, but they should have the opportunity to remain in their own homes in the community where they have lived all their lives. In 1979, there were 24,000 private care home places. That had grown to 135,000 by 1993. The comparable increase in the population of elderly, very elderly and vulnerable people is nowhere near that increase.
We are talking about choice. I was interested in the attack on local authority accommodation. That accommodation is part of an individual's choice. He can choose to go to whatever accommodation is appropriate to his particular needs. Many people positively want to choose local authority accommodation. During that period of massive increase in the private sector, the number of local authority home places fell from 102,000 to 63,000. To my knowledge, that figure has decreased even more.
The private institutional sector was deliberately expanded, with massive subsidies from the taxpayer, but national health service provision was deliberately reduced. The figures are on record. Following the implementation of the 1990 Act's care changes, the Government's formula for allocating the special transitional grant to individual local authorities caused immense difficulties, as everyone knows, whatever his or her politics. In the first year of the changes, it pushed money into regions with the most private care home places, despite the fact that, after the changes, residents in those homes had preserved entitlements to Department of Social Security benefits. The Government must have known that many people in homes came from different local authority areas, which were penalised by the formula.
The formula reflected the Government's care priorities: it propped up the business interests of the providers of private nursing and care homes. That is at the heart of many of the problems with which we are dealing this morning.
Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman does not recognise that, in areas like mine, the shunting is being done by ideologically driven social workers, who are denying choice and who are not even telling the elderly and vulnerable that they have the choice to go into a private nursing home, which is often located just around the corner from where they live and which has high standards. They are told to enter, at double the cost, local authority homes, which are further away. That is a vast waste of taxpayers' money. That is the shunting that is going on and that is the cost.
Mr. Hinchliffe: I think that the Industry and Parliament Trust should extend its scheme to include the placement of Tory Members of Parliament in social services departments, so that they will come to the Chamber
1028
knowing what they are talking about. I did more than 20 years in front-line social work before I came to this place. I know that what the hon. Gentleman has just said is nonsense. He does not deserve an intelligent response to some of the points that he has raised. Frankly, he is speaking through ignorance and I suspect that some of his briefing material is based on The Daily Telegraph rather than on any reasoned analysis of what is happening in social services. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be most grateful if the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) would contain himself.
Mr. Harvey: Is the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) aware that social services authorities have shunted people out of local authority homes, where they have lived happily for many years, and into other provision, which is often further away from their home and less satisfactory? People at an advanced age who feel frail are very much at home in places where they have lived for many years. At that stage of their lives, they find the shift into private care, which is made for ideological reasons, traumatic.
Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I have come across examples of that in various parts of the country. People have died by being moved in that way. It is a denial of choice and the Government insist that choice is at the root of the care changes. The choice, unfortunately, does not include that positive choice that many people make to enter local authority accommodation and to receive local authority services. There is a denial of choice, which is at the root of many elements of the Government's care policies.
I want a response on those points from the Minister in his winding-up speech. The changed formula that was introduced in the current financial year was geared more closely, as the Minister will tell us, to standard spending assessment calculations, but its introduction, without any form of phasing, has completely undermined the planning and assumptions of local authorities that were better off under the original formula—mainly the county areas, many of which changed political control last year. That is the reason why one or two Tory Members, who would not normally be in the Chamber to discuss something as important as community care, are showing an interest in the subject. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) is waving at the Benches behind me. He may not be aware that a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party is taking place. This is one of the unfortunate problems with meeting on a Wednesday morning. As he knows, my colleagues would be here in force but for that meeting upstairs, which is packed to the rafters.
We have talked about people spending money wrongly, and I hope that Tory Members will listen to this point. The continued preoccupation with the so-called independent sector has forced the councils to spend more money than should have been necessary in many instances. The requirement to spend the bulk of the special transitional grant in this sector is resulting in people being placed in expensive permanent care because, often, councils cannot use the special transitional grant on their own home care services and there is frequently none available in the local independent sector. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire made that point.

1029
Last year, I undertook a survey of directors of social services in England. The responses showed that a third of local authorities found that what was then the 85 per cent. requirement was preventing them from developing alternatives to residential care. Half of them had not spent as much as they wanted on domiciliary care because of the 85 per cent. rule and a fifth stated that they had placed people unnecessarily in residential care because of a shortage of home care services.
Mr. Hawkins: What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about the authorities—Lancashire is an example—that have never made any attempt to get anywhere near the 85 per cent. requirement and are continuing to ensure that all their local authority homes are full, at the expense of all the good private sector homes, many of which are going bankrupt? That will cause even more social problems of the kind that the hon. Gentleman claims to be trying to avoid.
Mr. Hinchliffe: The private sector would concede that in some areas there is an overprovision of private care places. I have met people in the private sector who have said that. There are reservations about the use of the independent sector. One of the problems that we should address is the lack of regulation in certain parts of that sector. The Minister will tell us in a moment how the Government are attempting to increase the provision of domiciliary care in the independent sector, but he will not tell me why the Government are not prepared to regulate and register people in that sector. We see people from private cleaning companies going into those homes to care for some vulnerable old people without any sort of check or inspection. That is one of the reasons why caring councils such as Lancashire are worried about using the independent sector.
Mr. Hawkins rose—
Mr. Hinchliffe: I shall not give way again. I have been reasonable with the hon. Gentleman.
The Government's dogmatic approach to the implementation of the care changes is actively preventing innovation within the community and the development of community alternatives to institutional care. It is also wasting scarce public resources. The Government should respond on that point. It is a valid point which has been made by directors of social services and by local authorities of various political persuasions.
Alongside those constraints, local authorities have had to face up to the impact of the introduction of the health market. The Labour party's most recent survey, "Passing the Buck", was published in December and found clear evidence that in 54 per cent. of the 80 councils that responded, shunting from health to local authorities was a major factor in the current financial difficulties. A third of the councils described the way in which the cost of palliative care was pushed on to them. There were examples of nursing cases being passed on to local authorities. Shorter hospital stays for acute treatment mean early discharges. How far are we going?
Last night, my local evening paper, Yorkshire Evening Post, told the story of an 86-year-old man who, last week, was shunted home from Leeds general infirmary in a taxi in a snowstorm dressed in only his pyjamas and slippers
1030
and wrapped in a towel. His family are, rightly, angry. That is happening not just in Leeds but all over the country. People want to know what is going on. It means that cases such as that have to be wrongly picked up by local authority social services departments. They are having to deal with an increased number of requests for support packages for dependent people who used to recuperate within the NHS.
Anyone here who does not believe that the NHS is being privatised should try to obtain recuperative or respite nursing care for an elderly relative. In my constituency of Wakefield and elsewhere, after a local authority means test, people now have to buy that care from the private sector. I have piles of letters from pensioners in Wakefield and other parts of the country asking why they now have to pay again for the care for which they have paid all their lives, through national insurance and taxation, since the inception of the NHS and, in some instances, even before that. The generation who are responsible for the introduction of the welfare state—people such as Cyril Turner, the 86-year-old I have mentioned—have found that it has deserted them when they are most in need. The privatisation of the health service and community care and the Government's obsession with the market are leaving thousands of people without access to the basic welfare services that they expected to be freely available when they needed them.
The answer to the present problems requires a marked change in direction by the Government. They must recognise that their health changes have led to enormous new demands on local authorities which were never anticipated when the funding arrangements for the care changes were considered. Funding must take account of the effect of the NHS changes on local authority budgets. It is crucial that when the new guidance on continuing care is completed by the Government, it should be made to stick. We should no longer hear of health authorities passing on their funding responsibilities to councils.
The Government must recognise the real difficulties arising in the current year in areas such as Lancashire and Essex—county areas in particular—which have arisen as a result of the sudden switch from one allocation formula to another. Spending plans have had to be scrapped and, in many areas, service cuts made. The Government must abandon the blanket requirement to spend set sums in the so-called independent sector and ensure that local authorities make the most cost-effective use of resources in a way that encourages the development of new services in all sectors.
I began my involvement in social work in the 1960s. I continued to be involved in social work in the 1970s and I placed people in private care homes although I was a member of the Labour party. There is nothing unusual about placing people in private care homes. Sadly, the Government seem to believe that the only care available is private institutional care. That is why many social workers are damned angry about remarks such as those made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). Those remarks are inaccurate and do not reflect what has taken place in local social services arrangements for many years.
The Government's handling of community care suffers from the same constraints as their handling of the health service. They are obsessed with a private market model and, as a direct consequence, we are prevented from realising the enormous potential of community care. That

1031
type of care has immense potential for many people with a variety of needs. Community care could enhance the basic human rights of millions of people.
12.37 pm
Mr. Nick Harvey: I will not detain the House for long, because I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Care in the community was introduced with all-party support and with the support of professionals and voluntary and private sector providers. In the county of Devon, it has been a success story in its first year. It was embraced with enthusiasm by the county council, whose efforts have been given plaudits and whose work has been commended by the district auditor. In that first year, I believed that it would be a success story.
However, the revision of the funding formula for the second year has been an absolute disaster for Devon. It has taken no less than 20 per cent. of the overall transfer brought about by the change in formula. It is impossible to meet the demands in that county when all the plans, all the contracts and all the work being undertaken can be interrupted by such an extraordinarily huge loss of budget.
Many of those involved outside the county council have been hit. Some carers started up new operations, in some cases putting their life savings on the line to get a new facility up and running. They are finding that they are having to cut the level of client service that they had expected to be able to provide and, in some instances, the enterprise upon which they have embarked has been put in peril.
The county of Devon has a very large elderly population which is not only indigenous but comprises many people who choose to retire there. Since the introduction of care in the community, the demand for new residential places has risen by no less than 85 per cent. It is impossible for the social services department to meet its obligations under the care in the community legislation while suffering such a cut in its resources.
To put matters into perspective, I shall cite a few figures. Under the previous arrangements, 4.65 per cent. of the Department of Social Security's spending on residential care was spent in Devon. Under the new arrangements, Devon county council is being provided with only 2 per cent. of the national spend, which means that its share of the national spend has been more than halved.
I implore the Minister to review the situation. If the quotas are not to be reversed, could the Government at least reconsider the capping limits so that the elected authority can take its case to the people of the county so that they can decide whether they want such appalling cuts in the provision of care?
12.40 pm
Dr. Robert Spink: Essex did rather well in terms of Government funding, which was increased this year by 22 per cent., or £32 million, for which we are grateful. In 1991, the amount spent on social services in Essex was £82.54 million; this year it is £174.89 million; and next year, it will be £192.35 million. Those represent generous real terms and cash increases.
I entirely accept that the social services department has had to take on new functions. By and large, it is doing its best to carry them out, although there have recently been
1032
some hiccups, with which I shall deal in a moment. Essex's proportion of the total national resource has been very generous, and I thank the Minister for that.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) made a thoughtful and helpful contribution, and its tone was excellent. I do not think that he accused the Government directly of underfunding the system, but he said that they had gone too far, too fast. He suggested that the changes could be slowed down and introduced over a 10-year period. If that is Liberal policy, what would he do about the current generation of elderly people who would be betrayed by such a time scale? They require help now, and might not be here to benefit from Liberal policy in 10 years' time.
Essex did very well under the new arrangements, but what did the Liberal and Labour parties in Essex do with all the extra money? They lost it though inadequate and incompetent budgeting, by following profligate socialist policies, by bad management and having too many managers, and by taking disastrous decisions. I hope to raise one instance in particular in an Adjournment debate very soon.
Budgeting in Essex gave rise to particular problems. Those involved in social services management there did not realise that there are 12 months in a year. The Audit Commission warned in its report of the lack of proper and sensible financial controls and budgeting in a few county councils, including Essex. It called for better budgeting to manage fluctuations in demand and to ensure that the financial consequences of past commitments were properly anticipated and allowed for.
The Audit Commission also called for county councils to make better use of independent sector provision, which is often more cost-effective, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) pointed out. Independent sector provision is often of a higher quality, but not necessarily so; there is some excellent state provision in my constituency, which I welcome.
The commission called for increasing flexibility and more prudent policies. Its report, entitled "Paying the Piper", identified potential savings of £500 million which could be made through better management control of local government pay bills, and would involve no cuts in front-line services.
Essex got its budgeting wrong, but that is not the whole story. Liberal and Labour control in the county meant a procession of eccentric, politically correct, madcap and profligate policies, which were followed not by mistake but on purpose, out of socialist dogma. I reviewed some of these incompetent and dogmatic socialist schemes in my Adjournment debate of 11 January. I do not have time to repeat them, but they are on the record.
Essex social services lost a total of £8.5 million. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that the money was thrown away on mad ideas. To its great and permanent shame, the county council took some cruel and insensitive action to cover its loony left incompetence. It cut care in the community provision and front-line service delivery to the old, the frail, the disabled and even children—the most vulnerable people in society whom the council should be protecting.
Those whose need was greatest had their services cruelly cut, while incompetent social services managers, who cannot even count the number of months in a year, have increased their already very high salaries this year.

1033
Socialist and Liberal Democrat councillors are reinforcing their wasteful, profligate and dogmatic policies unchecked, and are not in the least humbled by their disasters.
To solve the problem, the council should use its £28 million reserves this year to reinstate the services that it so cruelly cut. It must also drop its madcap, profligate policies, and reduce management levels. It should also reduce management salaries by 6 per cent. in order to save money to protect vulnerable people in future, as I pointed out in my Adjournment debate. There should be no cuts in staff levels or staff wages in the front-line services in Essex, because those people are the deliverers of care such as home helps. They are good people.
One consequence of socialist dogma and incompetence in community care in Essex has been hospital bed blocking. Again, I alluded to it in my Adjournment debate on 11 January, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), for Rochford (Dr. Clark) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and many others.
I conclude at this point, because I know that the Minister is anxious to deal with the points that have been raised. However, I call on Essex county council to change its madcap policies, and to use its reserves of £28 million to make good the cruel cuts that it has imposed.
12.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for providing the opportunity for this debate, not least because, on this morning of Back Benchers' debates, he has abandoned his constituents and come south, referring to the constituents of hon. Members in the English counties and metropolitan areas. The hon. Gentleman entitled the debate "Care in the Community", a phrase that applies specifically to mental health. However, he dealt also with community care, and I shall respond on both counts.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the financing of mental health care, which is the domain of the health service and social services. This year, we have invested £2.5 billion in mental health care. Since 1979, there has been a 40 per cent. real terms increase in national health spending and a 171 per cent. real terms increase in social service spending.
I agree that we need to do more and ensure that mental health is moved up the list of priorities. Indeed, the White Paper "The Health of the Nation" made it one of five key areas of activity. That is why we introduced the mental illness specific grant, which is widely recognised as having initiated good practice locally.
There are more than a thousand new projects, and more than 100,000 people being helped by this scheme already. This year, £36 million of Government money is supporting spending of £50 million. Next year, we shall announce Government spending of £47.3 million supporting £66 million. That is a 30 per cent. increase, which is good news for spending on mental health. In addition, this year the Government are spending some £2.4 million through section 64 grants to voluntary organisations.
1034
We are putting the money into medium secure beds, which are perceived to be the gap in provision. The Glancy report, which was mentioned last night, reported that there were no such beds by 1979. There are now 1,300 secure and interim secure beds available, and we are building on that achievement this year and next year. In addition, we are putting an extra £10 million into London services, as a result of our task forces and London Implementation Group surveys of the health service, which will be helpful.
It is a question of joint commissioning between health and social services, and working with the independent sector. No one in the House would disagree with the need to involve the independent sector as well. MIND has been mentioned, which is a provider as well as a lobbyist. Many others help us in this area, and it is an important area for those who are severely mentally ill and, of course, for those who suffer from dementia. As the population ages, more people will be frail of mind as well as of body, and will need social care as well as medical care. We need to ensure that there is provision in the community as well as provision in hospitals.
Getting clinical discharge right is important. That is why we issued the new guidance on that. The care programme approach is central to management in the community. We are putting a lot of emphasis on key work and key worker training. We shall be bringing forward the supervised discharge proposal, which has now been endorsed by the report of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, to the House in the very near future, together with other measures in that area.
I shall move on to the bulk of the debate, which in many ways has summed up the reality of community care. I acknowledge the opening words of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. Tributes have been paid to the start of community care, and that is right. The hon. Gentleman welcomed the policy, and that is right. I know of nobody who disagrees with the policy. There is perhaps some disagreement on emphasis in the practice and implementation of it, but the policy is right, and progress has been made.
Of course, some concerns about that progress have been rightly identified across the House, and we shall look at them. Hon. Members from all parties have also mentioned some poor performances. My hon. Friends who have raised those matters are fair in raising some of the motives behind some of the problems. There has been an element of dogma in some of the decision making in community care, which my hon. Friends have raised in speeches and interventions. It would be absurd to suggest that that problem does not exist. We must try to nail the dogma when it emerges and ensure that decisions are taken through good financial and care management throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also paid tribute to counsellors, and I echo that tribute. I would start by paying tribute to the directors of social services around the country and their teams, who have put care in the community into practice. Many councillors around the country of all parties are sincerely trying to make it work.
Again, my hon. Friends were right to point out those councillors who are trying to put obstacles in the way and use community care as an excuse to blame the

1035
Government for all the ills of the nation and all the funding ills, which those councillors choose to highlight for any local newspaper headline of the day.
Mr. Kirkwood indicated assent.
Mr. Bowis: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman clearly recognises that.
I shall pin down one or two funding issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. He said that Lancashire and Devon had lost £14 million and £16 million respectively, the latter of which was also mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey). I do not know where those figures come from. Those counties have not lost any money at all. They have gained money. What the hon. Gentlemen are trying to say is that the counties have not gained as much as they would have liked, or, indeed, gained as much, in some cases, as they perhaps led themselves to expect.
Far from Lancashire losing £14 million, wherever that came from, it in fact, with the special transitional grant changes, received a reduction of £8 million. But, in the standard spending assessment change, implemented in the same year, it got £7 million more than it could have expected. We need to take that into account. Overall. from having £62 million to spend in 1991, it had £108 million in 1993–94 and that figure has risen to £126 million this year, which is a 15.4 per cent. increase on the previous year. It is due to have £142 million in the coming year. That represents a 66 per cent. increase compared with the national increase in England as a whole, and that is good news.
Mr. Hinchliffe rose—
Mr. Bowis: I am sorry, but I want to answer the points that have been made.
The same goes for Devon, although it involves bigger figures. Essentially, it lost £9 million in the STG and gained £6 million in the SSA. That needs to be put into context. I know that there are one or two problems in Devon, not least because of the pressures of the elderly and mentally ill coming into the county. But in Devon, the figures have risen from £63 million to £108 million—the same pattern as in Lancashire—to £122 million, which is a 13.5 per cent. increase this year, and up to £136 million next year, representing a 77 per cent. increase over those five years.
I suggest that the hon. Member for North Devon goes back to Devon and says to the council that it receives generous funding, and asks it why it is planning to underspend. If it is under such pressure, why is it planning to spend 5 per cent. less than the SSA indicates it needs to spend, which is provided for in central and local funding? That does not make sense.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire requested something that I can easily fulfil, because it has already been announced. He rightly asked for careful consideration of community care, and he wanted everybody to take part in those discussions. I agree with that. As hon. Members from all parties have said, we are talking about a policy which was originally intended to be implemented over a decade. Of course, through all our monitoring, we have identified areas which need strengthening, such as housing, information, the involvement of users and carers, and better involvement of the independent sector.
1036
We need to plan ahead. That is why, at the social services conference, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that we would be taking that issue forward and arranging a forum to look at how we should proceed. Indeed, when I met the local associations, the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, including Councillor Ann Peniket, who is one of the hon. Gentleman's party colleagues in local government, I said that the local authority associations would be involved with our officials in that forum. They were made that offer, and I know that they will take part, because they accepted it on the spot. We will be able to plan future development together.
Mr. Kirkwood: I want to push the Minister on that point. Is the forum a standing mechanism, which, over a period, will address common problems raised by Government, local authorities and other interested parties?
Mr. Bowis: It is to see how we develop, where the pressures are and how we should plan for the future.
Mr. Kirkwood: Is it a standing mechanism?
Mr. Bowis: It is a forum that we have set up. It does not matter whether it is standing or sitting. It will enable co-operation and co-ordination.
It is right to draw attention to long-term health care, as we are doing, not least with the Leeds case. We have issued the draft discharge guidance. The Department has listened very carefully to the points made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, my hon. Friends and many others. We shall be refining that guidance, with which I think that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased.
Let me make it very clear that cradle-to-grave health care will remain. Most people's health care is carried out by GPs and primary health care. When that is necessary, it applies wherever one lives, in one's own home or in residential care. That will stay, and the same goes for the need for health care which involves hospitalisation or national health service cover in the residential sector. We must get the area between health and social services right, and we are working on it through the guidance and good practice of the work of the NHS executive.
I cannot answer all the points made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. He made many good points and one or two contentious points, which were answered by my hon. Friends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) also raised a number of important points. He exemplified Bromley as showing a good record of implementation, overcoming problems and managing with the funds available. Funding is generous. Funding for community care is not only special transitional grants. That element represented what had previously gone from the Department of Social Security through income support to residents in the independent sector. It was important to give stability to that sector and to the residents in it. That is why there was an 85 per cent. requirement for the opening years, and why we have the same requirement for next year alongside the hospital discharge agreement between health and social services.
The Audit Commission has produced two reports, one of which emphasises the £500 million to be saved through better staff cost management. The other report considers

1037
better financial control to improve community care, better use of the independent sector and ensuring that the available money is spent on social services.
The policy is popular, and it is well resourced. It is not Treasury driven; it is user driven. It is run by local authorities, because they asked to run it. They must show that they can deliver and most of them are doing just that. A few are having difficulties—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.

Police Budget (Suffolk)
1 pm
Mr. Jamie Cann: Disquiet was expressed by several hon. Members in a debate in this place yesterday about the impact of police grants on the police services in various counties. My next door neighbour, the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), intervened in that debate. It is therefore useful today to examine a fairly representative shire county to consider the difficulties which have arisen as a result of the settlement that has been achieved.
Before I go any further, I must state that the debate is not about the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. I shall not go on about independent people being members of the police authorities. The issue is not about the principle of cash limits or the desirability, or otherwise, of using the formula. It is not about whether it is appropriate to devolve such matters to the chief constable.
The debate is not about politics in a party political sense. I represent the view of many Suffolk people of all political persuasions. The police authority in Suffolk is unanimous in its view, and that involves the magistrates, Conservatives, Liberals, Labour members and independents appointed by the Hone Secretary. They believe that there is a case to be answered.
In the Home Office press release 241/94, the Home Secretary stated:
"Provision for the police service in England and Wales will increase by approximately 3 per cent. over 1994–95. This is fully sufficient to enable the present number of police officers to be maintained across the country, if chief officers, in consultation with police authorities, choose to do so."
I contend that that statement is incorrect when the figures are worked out.
Much of the problem relates to the formula. Everyone recognises that no formula could conceivably treat everyone fairly across the nation, because of the immense differences that exist. What is more, the formula is new and new formulae are even worse than older ones in that they have not been tried and there are bound to be teething problems.
Concern was expressed when the formula was first introduced. The Association of Chief Police Officers had 15 meetings about the formula. ACPO states:
"the outcome of the current formula cannot be construed, in any terms, as a sound basis for the equitable distribution of resources to police forces in the future. The anomalies are clearly apparent even to the lay observer".
The representatives of police officers had no faith in the formula even when it was first introduced.
Suffolk has suffered particularly badly as a result of the formula. Suffolk is the second lowest spender per head of population on its police services in the whole of Britain. Some 23p per head per day is all that is spent on the police services in Suffolk. However, Suffolk finds itself with a cash increase of only £2,086,000, when it has extra costs which have been calculated as follows: between £2 million and £2.5 million extra is required for lump sum pensions; in respect of pay, from September 1994 full year consequences require an extra £0.4 million; in September 1995, the probable half-yearly pay increase will be between £300,000 and £500,000.
In addition, Suffolk has had to establish a contingency fund because it has been separated from the county council on which it used to rely. That will cost between

1039
£500,000 and £700,000. If we include other factors, such as price increases, pay increases for civilian employees and the capital programme, it is estimated that Suffolk has a £3 million shortfall.
It is probably appropriate at this stage to quote the chief constable of Suffolk. He stated:
"The major difficulty for the Constabulary arises from the considerable increase in funding requirements to deal with police pensions, particularly the payment of lump sums to which all ranks are entitled following their completion of appropriate pensionable service. The increase in Suffolk to make adequate provision for 1995–96 is in the region of £3 million and this is not atypical of other constabularies.
When this increase is matched to the requirement to absorb the impact of a pay award of 3 per cent. and the requirement to maintain adequate reserves following the creation of autonomous police authorities …the position is further aggravated. If this is then placed alongside a formula which has redistributed resources such that a small number are showing considerable gains while others are facing heavy losses, one can readily see the extent of our difficulties. Recent research has indicated that when comparing the costs of policing per person of population only one other force, West Mercia, shows a lower figure than that for Suffolk, with some forces (particularly the Metropolitan forces) spending over twice as much per person."
That is the problem that the police authority and the chief constable face in Suffolk because of the settlement announced yesterday.
How is the police authority going to cope? The chairman is not a politician but a magistrate. He was elected by the independent members of the authority who were appointed by the Home Secretary. I think that the Minister should listen carefully to what the police authority chairman has to say. He said:
"The existing authority has made substantial savings during 1994–95—about £1 million. These have been achieved through a range of efficiency and value for money measures. But they have also meant holding vacant 43 police officer posts out of an establishment of 1,234.
Last week, the new authority reached the conclusion that another £3 million of savings would be needed if the maximum budget requirement for 1995–96 permitted under the capping regime is around £58 million.
About £1 million of these savings will come from the leaner structure being introduced by the Chief Constable and front some savings on overtime.
A further £1 million will come from reducing expenditure on a wide range of operational and administrative items. These include reducing overtime for police officers and civilians, reducing police officer training, reducing building maintenance"—
to emergency repairs only—
"reducing transport costs and increasing charges.
These reductions will of course have an effect on the policing of Suffolk.
The third £1 million can only come from reducing the number of police officers (by a further 60) and civilian employees (by 20), by closing two police stations and deferring construction of a new station. The total number of police officer vacancies would rise to just over 100.
HM Inspector of Constabulary has regularly commended the efficiency and effectiveness of Suffolk Constabulary. Both would be severely affected by the scale of reductions in police officers now facing the Authority and which are totally at odds with the Home Secretary's statement."
It is projected that, in 1996–97, a further 40 jobs will be lost in the police force. That would make a total of 143 job losses in three years out of an establishment, agreed only two years ago with the Home Office, of 1,234. It does not take an Einstein to calculate that that is an 11 per cent. reduction in the operational police force.
1040
The word "decimate" is about 2,500 years old. Nowadays, it is misused. People think that it means to destroy something. Originally, when a Roman legion did not perform correctly in battle, one man out of every 10 was chosen by lot to be executed. They were decimated. The Home Secretary would not wish to go down in history as the man who decimated the Suffolk police force, but he is in danger of so doing.
1.9 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Judging by the way in which the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) presented his case, the House could be forgiven for thinking that the police have had a poor deal in this year's settlement, but this year's settlement is very fair and very generous. It represents an increase on last year's settlement for the police throughout the whole of England and Wales of an average of more than 3 per cent., or nearly £200 million. It is a clear demonstration of the Government's continuing commitment to the police service in England and Wales. That is the national average across the country—a settlement of more than 3 per cent., when inflation is about 2.5 per cent., and police pay is increased by about 2.5 per cent.
Suffolk, however, has not had an increase of 3 per cent. Suffolk has had its fair share of resources, and the result is that the Suffolk police force will have available to it 4.7 per cent. more than last year. By any standards, can anyone seriously suggest that that is a cut in funding?
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point: the word "decimate" is wildly overused. When Suffolk can spend 4.7 per cent. more on its police this year than it did last year, and bearing in mind the two crucial points that the general rate of inflation is 2.5 per cent. and that the bulk of police expenditure, which is on pay and salaries, is increasing by 2.5 per cent., there is no way in which that could be called a cut in funding or a decimation of the force.
Mr. Cann: Perhaps the Minister would like to check Hansard tomorrow, but I do not think that he will find that I used the word "cut" in any circumstances. I have tried to put it to the Minister that the Government, through the formula, have not taken account of expenditure which will be necessary.
Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman has not used the word "cut", of course I accept that, but he floated the word "decimate". Let us not argue about which word sounds worse. It will scare the people of Suffolk more to hear that a Suffolk Member of Parliament has talked about the possibility of the force being decimated when it has had a 4.7 per cent. increase in funding. I accept that the hon. Gentleman said that he might not have used the word "cut". There were certainly some colleagues last night who, when looking at the increase that their force had and comparing it with the increase that they would have liked it to have if money were no object, called the difference a cut.
Mr. Michael Lord: Obviously, as my hon. Friend knows, I represent Suffolk, and I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) that Suffolk should be properly policed. I have been struggling with the conundrum of how a 4.7 per cent. increase can be described as a cut. Although the hon.

1041
Gentleman has not described it as such, newspapers in Suffolk have carried banner headlines stating that there will be severe cuts. Our chief constable and the committee are talking about removing the police launch and closing police stations. The general public are extremely worried about the situation, including the hon. Gentleman's points about fewer police on the beat.
I do not know whether I am posing an impossible question in the time available, but, as a Back-Bench Member with a Suffolk constituency, I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to explain how the problem has arisen. Is it pensions? Is it the sparsity part of the formula? Why is the chief constable saying that things are so drastic, when the county has received a 4.7 per cent. increase?
Mr. Maclean: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's valid point, because that would require my going into the detailed budgeting of his police force and the calculations that his excellent chief constable has made. I do not have those figures, and it would not be appropriate for me to seek to challenge them even if I had them. All I can say is that my hon. Friend and our colleagues from Suffolk must put those same points to their own police authority. They should ask, "At a time of inflation of 2.5 per cent. and when the biggest item of police expenditure, police pay, is going up by 2.5 per cent., what is the difficulty of a force living within an increase of 4.7 per cent?"
I accept that, throughout the country, the police pensions element is a big contributor, but I do not think that it is any worse in Suffolk than in other areas. Difficulties are caused by the huge amount of money that must go on police pensions. In some forces which have had increases of 2 per cent. to 5 per cent. and which are not quite as generously funded as Suffolk, chief constables are juggling priorities and coming up with an à la carte menu of things that they might do to live within their increase. That is why newspapers can print banner headlines saying that 20 rural police stations may close or that 50 bobbies may be lost, as chief constables understandably and rightly float their ideas on how to keep their expenditure within that increase. I am sorry that I cannot be absolutely specific with my hon. Friend or with the hon. Member for Ipswich, but it would be wrong to go into the detail of the local police authority's budget and say, "Aha, that's what is wrong; that's what you must change." I cannot and would not do that.
Mr. Lord: I ask my hon. Friend a further question which perhaps falls within his responsibility. Is there a peculiar reason why the position this year is so different from that of former years? The situation in Suffolk is unusual.
Mr. Maclean: There is no peculiar reason why it is different this year. We have introduced a new formula to try to distribute all the extra money more fairly, and we have tried to base it on need. I should love our being able to justify a rural sparsity element—not that I am biased, of course, but colleagues have pressed me on that matter—but I should not do that out of political judgment. I must have proof that there is a statistically valid reason for a force receiving more money because its policing needs are greater because of its rural area. If that could be proved, I would happily do that. Nevertheless, the net result of the new formula is that Suffolk receives 4.7 per cent.
1042
Let us suppose that we do not have the new formula, that the Home Secretary has acquired the extra 3 per cent. this year, and that we decide to have a flat-rate increase—no fancy formulae for trying to distribute according to need. Suffolk would receive 3 per cent. this year—everywhere would receive 3 per cent. Although that might remove colleagues' arguments such as, "Why did your lot get more than my lot?", Suffolk would not be as well off as it is now.
Without criticising or questioning any of our excellent chief constables, if, over the past 12 months, considering the financial climate, the general level of inflation and the police pay settlement of 2.5 per cent., any police force expected that the Government were going to find 5, 6 or even 8 per cent. as a standstill budget, that would be cloud cuckoo land economics.
Mr. Cann: It might be my fault, but the Minister does not seem to understand what I said. It is not so much the formula that is the problem. The chief constable and the police authority have said that they could probably cope if the problem were just the formula. The essential problem, and the answer to the query of the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), is that there are different things this year for Suffolk, just as there are throughout the land.
This is the first time that we have had an autonomous police authority. It does not have the contingency cover from the county council that it used to have. Therefore, it has to build its own general reserve for such purposes. It has problems with the payment of the lump sum element of pensions, which it did not have previously. That is the contention of the police authority, and that is why it is having to put up its estimate of expenditure to a figure way above what the Minister is talking about.
Mr. Maclean: Let us come straight to the point. First, let us deal with the question of reserves, which some people are misunderstanding. There is no statutory requirement on any authority to put money into reserves. I know that some people say that they have to take 2 per cent. to put into reserves, but there is no requirement to do so. It may be wise for an authority to do so if it can afford it—the Audit Commission recommends that that should take place—but if some forces are not capable of doing that, there is no compulsion on them.
Admittedly, every force and organisation would want reserves. My bank manager would like me to have some reserves, rather than an overdraft. All authorities want to have money in reserves in case they are faced with a police or education contingency. It is not right for an authority to say that a 4 or 5 per cent. increase is, in fact, a cut, because it has to put 2 per cent. in reserves.
Mr. Cann: Is the Minister really saying that he does not think that the Suffolk police authority needs to establish a reserve in case an event such as occurred at Brightlingsea happens in the area? Can I tell the authority that the Minister says not to worry, as the Government will bail it out at the end of year if it goes over budget because of unforeseen circumstances? I think not. Is it not the case that the Government have a contingency reserve of 4 per cent., or £7 billion out of £286 billion, in this financial year?
Mr. Maclean: I stand by what I said. It is sensible, prudent and desirable to set money into reserves, but if an authority has to decide between its priorities—some chiefs

1043
may be floating threats to close some rural police stations or to reduce the number of officers—it cannot say that the Government have told it to put money into reserves. That is not the case. It is up to the authority to decide what it wants to do in the circumstances.
We recognise the difficulty caused for police budgets by the large and rapid growth in the police pensions bill, which is increasing exponentially each year. That is not unique to Suffolk.
The way in which we have dealt with pensions in this year's formula is the way the police service wanted it done. Nine per cent. of funding is allocated in relation to pension payments. That figure comes from police budget statistics produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. It is the proportion of national police funding which is spent on pensions. The decision to use this figure was taken following discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers, and local authority representatives.
As the police themselves were keen to ensure, however, this funding is not hypothecated. Those forces which need to spend more than 9 per cent. of their funding on pensions can do so, while those forces in the fortunate position of having lower than average pension commitments can spend the remainder of their pensions allocation on other policing services.
Having decided that 9 per cent. of the global pot—all the available funding—should be allocated to cover, nominally, pensions expenditure, a model was developed for the projection of pensions expenditure in each force area so that the 9 per cent. of funding could be allocated according to the relative need in each area.
The Government Actuary's department developed a pensions model which uses data on the age, gender, rank and length of service distribution of each force which were collected in August 1992 to make these forward projections of pensions expenditure. During the consultation period on the police funding settlement—we have similar consultation periods on local government finance—several points came to light in the pensions model which required revision.
The model had not fully taken into account the costs of pensions which were borne by a force other than the force actually making the payment. It had also inadvertently taken the higher costs of some London pensions into account twice. Suffolk benefited from the change we made there. These points were revised before the police grant report was laid before Parliament on 30 January. I am pleased to say that Suffolk gained a further £270,000 from the first change and another £240,000 from the second, making a total increase in the funding of more than £500,000.
We recognise the difficulty caused for police budgets by the large and rapid growth in the police pensions bill throughout the whole of England and Wales. The way in which we have dealt with it in this year's formula is the way the police service itself wanted it done. I have already promised that we will look very carefully at this for 1996–97 in conjunction with ACPO.
The hon. Member for Ipswich said that ACPO had 15 meetings before criticising the formula. It is interesting that, after 15 meetings, its ultimate conclusion was that it did not like the end product. That shows the difficulty of constructing a formula that pleases everyone. Nevertheless, the police service generally does not want
1044
the former allocated system, which I intended to describe last week as negotiation by megaphone. Those forces which shouted the loudest for bobbies got them, while those which did not shout—irrespective of need—did not. Derbyshire is a classic example. In the early 1980s, Derbyshire did not ask for bobbies. It did not get them and it is now suffering terrible consequences. That method could not continue.
The Government and the police service wanted a formula. The formula is not for my benefit of for the Government's benefit; it is for the benefit of the police service. This year, there is extra money for the police service above the level of inflation—Suffolk receives 4.7 per cent.—so the formula will not save the Treasury money. It is intended to try to allocate the extra resources fairly. I shall be delighted to take representations from all colleagues and from the police service on how to refine and improve the formula. It may be able to take into account factors which, some people allege, are not taken into account at present.
Rural sparsity is one of those factors. I recognise—coming, as I do, from Cumbria, a county that is even more rural than Suffolk—the particular difficulties faced by forces with sparse populations. We have to look again at whether the formula can more adequately reflect these difficulties. It is a matter not of independent or political will but of thorough work on the facts and figures to establish the true picture.
I know that the hon. Member for Ipswich did not raise this matter, and I did not have a chance to respond to it last night, but some Opposition Members have alleged that we made a £30 million error in the budget. That is absolute nonsense. The figure came in a report in The Guardian, and people who believe what they read in The Guardian should not be surprised if it gets things absolutely wrong. There is no truth in that at all. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will draw that fact to the attention of the shadow Home Secretary, as I did not manage to respond to that point last night.
I shall conclude by referring to the successes of Suffolk. While we are talking about police funding—I well understand that the force would like more money, although it has, in the circumstances, come out well in comparison with the rest of the country with 4.7 per cent.—we must not forget that Suffolk has been tremendously successful as far as the police are concerned. The police in Suffolk are doing a good job.
To set the funding in context, we must look at the successes of last year. Our statistics show that there was a 6 per cent. drop in recorded offences in Suffolk for the 12 months ending in June 1994. Within that figure, robbery offences dropped by 23 per cent., and there was a 15 per cent. drop in vehicle offences. Burglaries—which worry many of the constituents of the hon. Member for Ipswich and my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord)—dropped by 12 per cent.
The report by Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary on the Suffolk force for 1994 described it as maintaining one of the highest detection rates for recorded crime in the country. I believe that the settlement that Suffolk is getting under the formula will ensure that there will be no change in that tremendous success rate and that its efficiency will not be affected at all.
Mr. Cann: Is not the point that everybody concerned with that great success story is saying that the

1045
Government are putting that in jeopardy in the coming year because of the settlement? It is not a success story that the number of police officers on the beat in Suffolk was reduced by 43 last year.
Mr. Maclean: Since the Government came into office, Suffolk has had an extra 132 police officers approved in its establishment.
I shall not be responsible on 1 April for deciding the number of police officers that Suffolk can have or recruit. We shall no longer play a role in fixing the establishment. However, despite the excellent success of Suffolk—I understand that it is now structuring—it could do a little more to release more bobbies for the beat. It could continue the civilianisation programme because Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary reports that, at the end of 1993, some 50 police officers were doing jobs that could have been done by civilians.
Throughout England and Wales, we have seen the restructuring and thinning out of senior and middle management ranks. Hundreds of chief superintendents and inspectors have gone, and we have more constables instead. In the first 10 months of 1994, England and Wales had 600 more bobbies on the beat—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The Minister's time is up.

Wyre Piddle Bypass
1.30 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: Do you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know the first two verses of one of my favourite poems?
"Yes. I remember Adlestrop—
The name, because one afternoon
Of heat the express-train drew up there
Unwontedly. It was late June.
The steam hissed. Someone cleared his throat.
No one left and no one came
On the bare platform. What I saw
Was Adlestrop—only the name."
Edward Thomas drew up at Adlestrop on the line from Oxford to Worcester, on a journey on the "Old Worse and Worse", or Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway to give it its more accurate name. Had he continued his journey just a few more miles, one of his most evocative contributions to poetry could have been very different:
"Yes. I remember Wyre Piddle—the name …"
Well, actually, it could not. The Great Western Railway, which in 1917 owned the "Old Worse and Worse", could not come to terms with the village's name, preferring the more anodyne "Wyre Halt". Sadly, little sign of Adlestrop now remains, and of Wyre Halt no trace is visible. But Wyre Piddle is as famous as Adlestrop, although probably for the wrong reasons. It is a case of once heard, never forgotten.
Sometimes, embarrassing or unfortunate names are shed by those to whom they belong. One thinks of Marion Morrison, better known as John Wayne. Whoever heard of a cowboy called Marion? Would Big Daddy, the all-in wrestler, have been taken quite as seriously had he been loyal to his given name—Shirley Crabtree? Would Elton John have been the phenomenon that he was and remains as just plain old Reg Dwight?
Wyre Piddle is proud of its name. Indeed, it has given the village a real advantage here in the House and at the Department of Transport as successive hon. Members representing the village, including my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), have lobbied for its long-overdue bypass.
Its name is celebrated in one local poem, attributed by some to one of my illustrious predecessors, Sir Gerald Nabarro:
"Upton Snodsbury, Tibberton and Crowle
Wyre Piddle, North Piddle and Piddle-in-the-hole".
The name of Piddle-in-the-hole is no more, although I believe that land there was once farmed by the grandfather of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education.
North Piddle lies on no main road and need not detain us today, but a little further south, on the same Piddle Brook, lies Wyre Piddle itself. Prehistoric men buried their dead here. It features in the Domesday book as the rather more discreet Wyre Pidele. It is not a large village, but neither is it small, with 386 electors. Its perfect church, with its early Norman chancel arch, is situated on a bank above the Avon, flowing from Stratford to its junction with the Severn.

1047
It is little wonder that the situation has inspired artists because the view across to Bredon hill, itself the subject of poetry by A.E. Housman, is captivating. Writing in 1949, L.T.C. Rolt, in his book "Worcestershire", said:
"Just below the village of Wyre Piddle is Wyre Lock with its curious diamond-shaped chamber, and here again the natural scene and human handiwork conspire together to reward the river traveller with a sight that no lover of England can easily forget. Over the outspread lock-beams a silver reach curves away between level water meadows, bordered by ranks of willow, which lead the eye towards the middle distance where, in perfect contrast to this level landscape, the glorious fourteenth century tower of Pershore soars upward, a benediction in stone. The scene is reminiscent of the view of Salisbury from another Avon".
Although the village still has several black and white houses, typical of Worcestershire, many are crumbling from vibrations generated by heavy traffic in the narrow main road. Structural problems are only one of the many reasons for the urgent construction of a road that will bring only benefit to my constituents and motorists alike.
The construction of a bypass will affect few businesses. We have an excellent pub in the village, the Anchor, situated between the main road and the Avon. It is a real local, but those coming from further afield to sample its charms—and its fine beer—will still be able to gain access from both directions, thanks to the design and route of the proposed new road. I know that one garage will lose passing trade, but I understand that the owner accepts that, and local authorities are attempting to minimise the impact.
The bypass will affect not just Wyre Piddle. We must not forget the plucky villagers of Upper Moor. That hamlet, with just 36 electors, is situated on the Evesham side of Wyre Piddle. Original plans for the bypass did not include Upper Moor. I am delighted that the lobbying skills of the villagers, who count among their number a literary agent and a BBC radio presenter, have led the county council to the wise conclusion that the bypass should relieve them, too. That was a wise decision by the county council, not just for the sake of my constituents but for the sake of all road users. The road at that point is particularly hazardous because a long bend conceals the houses of Upper Moor. A fatal accident occurred there recently and there would be many more if the bypass terminated between there and Wyre Piddle. Upper Moor residents feel that they are often overlooked. It is a pleasure to ensure that they are not overlooked in today's debate.
The road through Wyre Piddle is the old B4084, recently reclassified as the A4538. It forms part of the so-called Pershore corridor, and is a crucial link between the M5 at junction 6, north Worcester and Evesham. There it connects with the A435, currently the subject of a major improvement—the Norton Lenchwick bypass—by the Department of Transport, linking up to Redditch and junction 3 of the M42, and the A46 to Stratford, Warwick, the M40, Coventry and the M6.
Small additional works will be needed in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South just outside Evesham, at the so-called "Squires Link" to the A435 and the Evesham bypass when the Wyre Piddle bypass is built.
Mr. Michael Spicer: Does my hon. Friend recall that when
"Doctor Foster went to Gloucester
He stepped in a piddle right up to his middle"?
1048
The word that he has cleverly played on has now become "puddle".
My hon. Friend is right to say that we need a bypass around Wyre Piddle. As he said, I first raised this subject 20 years ago. Does he accept that it is particularly necessary for my constituency because of the pressure that it will take off traffic going through Pershore? Will he, at some point in his speech, refer to the fact that there is a pecking order for bypasses in our county and that Broadway has now reached the top of the pecking order? That should not be prejudiced and although the need for a Wyre Piddle bypass must be accepted, we must first go ahead with the Broadway bypass.
Mr. Luff: I am delighted to endorse what my hon. Friend said. I hope to return to precisely those points later in my speech.
The county council said in its July 1994 bid for transport supplementary grant:
"The present road network includes two broadly parallel routes between Worcester and Evesham, namely A44 and A4538 (formerly B4084). For particular journeys one route is more attractive than the other, but overall traffic volumes are similar on the two routes."
In a public consultation exercise in early 1992, which examined the traffic problems and strategy for the Pershore corridor as a whole, various options for relieving traffic congestion in that part of Worcestershire were floated. It is fair to say that some of those options aroused considerable public anger. For example, concern focused on a proposal to build viaducts and bridges across the meadows and the Avon to relieve traffic problems in Pershore and Wyre Piddle.
That consultation produced a clear consensus that the best strategy was to stick with the long-established plans to bypass Wyre Piddle to the north and build a short western bypass, which would enable Pershore's problems to be addressed, at least in part. This debate is about the northern, and more substantial, road but I will return to the western route.
In March 1994, a further public consultation was held on possible routes for the northern road. Again, it produced a clear consensus, subsequently endorsed by Hereford and Worcester county council.
Not surprisingly, local people have had their suspicions about the county council's real intentions. The road has been discussed for a long time and need for it is growing daily. The earliest date on which construction can realistically begin is early 1997, but the approach adopted by the county has commanded my complete confidence, and I pay tribute to the work done by Dr. Martin Heyes, whom I still think of as the county engineer but who now rejoices in the title, "Director of Environmental Services". I pay tribute to his staff—of course, it is easy for me to do so when they have come out in support of the route that my constituents and I favour. In its document produced t o support the March 1994 consultation, the county summed up the situation. It said:
"The existing route is of sub-standard width and poor alignment and falls short of standards required to carry the future predicted traffic on the A4538.
The centre of Wyre Piddle is a conservation area and there is a worsening environmental situation in an otherwise very pleasant village, caused particularly by heavy vehicles and growing congestion. To the east, the hamlet of Upper Moor suffers similarly with houses which front the road enduring noise and vibration. Direct access on to the A4538 is at times difficult and dangerous for those houses which abut the carriageway."

1049
That is a slightly dry way of putting it, to say the least. The existing main road through Wyre Piddle carries on average 12,850 vehicles a day. The predicted flows in the bypass design year of 2013 are between 17,250 and 14,750 vehicles on the bypass, with another 5,000 vehicles using the village itself. Such traffic is simply unsustainable without the bypass.
At the village war memorial the road narrows and turns towards the village hall. The bypass committee says that the road is already carrying up to 30 large refuse lorries per hour to the major landfill site to the north. It will not be long before two trucks meet head on or a car finds that there is not enough room to pass without mounting the pavement and killing a pedestrian. There is a serious accident just waiting to happen.
If an accident does not occur in the village itself, it will occur at one of the two railway bridges at either end of the village or in Upper Moor as a resident's car seeks to join the main road and is hit by a speeding driver, or a driver, despairing of ever getting on to the main road at the war memorial, takes a risk that does not pay off.
The county council has kindly provided me with the 10-year accident record for Wyre Piddle and Upper Moor. The words "failed to negotiate bend" feature more than once. In this 10-year period there have been 33 accidents, 12 of them serious, 61 vehicles have been involved and there have been 49 casualties. Mercifully, there has been only one fatality—at Upper Moor when a 16-year-old pedestrian was knocked down by a car in December 1993.
Every month that the bypass is delayed we are putting at risk the lives of more pedestrians, residents and other drivers. Leaving to one side the environmental issues, the benefits to Pershore and the need to cope with traffic to and from the newly widened M5, there is an overwhelming case for the road on safety grounds alone.
The road is increasingly dangerous not just because of volume but because of speed of traffic. The 30 mph limit through Wyre Piddle is widely flouted. The county council is in dialogue with the parish council and its chairman, Mr. Gary Robinson. The parish council has enthusiastically pushed the case for the road for more years than any of us care to remember. It knows that traffic calming and management measures are not a solution, but just a temporary palliative.
I am grateful to the Minster's officials for the help that I have received from them in explaining to the parish council the possibilities for traffic calming and speed limit enforcement. I hope that in the years until the new road is built some new measures can be introduced, but they will never be a substitute for the northern Wyre Piddle bypass.
The Minister will have heard me mention the railway through Wyre Piddle on a number of occasions. Engineered by Isambard Kingdom Brunel, it still offers a fine service to Oxford and London from the Worcester and Pershore stations in my constituency, which also serve the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South, and from Evesham, which is just along the line. Early morning InterCity 125s act as alarm clocks for residents of Wyre Piddle whose homes are close to the line. Wyre Halt may have closed, but the Pershore and Evesham stations are close by—at least if one has access to a car.
1050
Investment in new rolling stock has recently transformed the line. The better, more frequent services have resulted in a large increase in passenger traffic, sufficient to ensure that, for the first time in living memory, the railway covers its operating costs. I should like to see still more investment in the line, even though it would probably mean the end of the fine semaphore signals at Worcester Shrub Hill. New signalling and a few passing loops, well short of full redualling of that now single-track line, could increase volumes substantially.
Is that an alternative to the northern Wyre Piddle bypass? I think not. Traffic is being generated from the M5, from Evesham and the Cotswolds, from the landfill site and from the proposed new chicken farm on Throckmorton airfield—a disgraceful decision, but that is another story; perhaps for another Adjournment debate. More money is needed for the railway and it would bring real benefits. It would bring more mobility to my constituents who do not have cars—and there are many of them—but I fear that investing in the railway would have only a very slight effect on traffic volumes in Wyre Piddle.
We must also set the Wyre Piddle bypass in the context of the county's wider transport priorities—as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South has asked me to do—and that will also give me a chance to thank the Minister for a wise decision by his Department.
The Worcester western bypass was, until the announcement before Christmas by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the county's top priority. The confirmation that the road will begin to be built around the turn of the year, subject to the outcome of a public inquiry, has brought enormous relief to my constituents in Worcester. The attractive shopping centre of St. Johns will be able to breathe again as all the M5 to Hereford traffic moves to the new road. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which he listened to the bipartisan pleas about that road.
The Broadway bypass on the A44 was the other major scheme for which the county bid unsuccessfully last year. It now moves to the top of the priority list, closely followed by the Bordesley bypass on the A441 and Wyre Piddle.
However, we must not lose sight of the Wyre Piddle western bypass. Although the northern road will help enormously, I cannot let this opportunity pass without reminding the Minister that we regard the western road, which I have discussed with him in the past, as being of strategic significance too. The county's transport supplementary grant bid last year stated:
"the benefits to the village will not be maximised until the Wyre Piddle Western by-pass is also constructed."
That road would form a link between the B4083 from Pershore to the A4538 itself. It would maximise the benefit of the Wyre Piddle northern road to Pershore and bring local benefits. Those local benefits have led the Department to reject even supplementary credit approvals for the road, and that in turn has led to the loss of a generous private sector contribution to the cost of the road. I hope that I can persuade the Minister to reflect again on the western road, and sanction its construction before too long.
The Wyre Piddle bypass has never been closer to completion. Compulsory purchase orders could be made this autumn. Assuming a public inquiry is necessary—I believe it may not be—there is no reason why a decision

1051
could not be made by the Secretary of State on the planning issues next October, with tenders requested at about Christmas 1996. Construction could then begin in January or February 1997.
It would be the culmination of a campaign, probably spanning decades, begun by Sir Gerald Nabarro, conducted by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South and continued energetically by my predecessor, Lord Walker.
Wyre Piddle is moving up everyone's priority list, as today's debate shows, but just at our moment of victory, is the cup to be dashed from our lips? The tide seems to be turning against new road building. Will that tide sweep away the Wyre Piddle bypass and hundreds of equally important schemes up and down the country?
The first enemy of such schemes seems to be the Royal Commission on environmental pollution and its report on transport and the environment which was published on 26 October last year. Its radical proposals were seen as one of the most comprehensive attacks on road building ever made by any establishment body. Its press release made the point time and again:
"the report identifies as major adverse effects of the present transport system … the impact of road building."
"a road building programme which, although spending more money that ever before, would not stop congestion getting worse."
"Resources should be switched from road-building to public transport."
"A continuing spiral of further road building leading to further traffic growth would not be sustainable."
So it goes on. Alarm bells began to ring in Wyre Piddle and in similar villages and communities around the country, but worse was to come.
Shortly before Christmas, a new acronym struck further fear into the residents of Wyre Piddle. This time it was SACTRA—the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment. Published with the apparent endorsement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, its central conclusion was probably
"that it is possible for the provision of extra road capacity to induce extra traffic".
At that point I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seeking reassurances that the Government's guarded welcome for the report did not spell trouble for Wyre Piddle. It is important to record another of SACTRA's conclusions:
"there is still need to consider additions to road capacity where they are environmentally and economically justified."
The essence of the case that I have made today is that the Wyre Piddle bypass will not generate new traffic and that it is environmentally and economically justified.
I recognise that the concerns about the rising tide of opposition to new road building will be echoed up and down the country. That is one of the reasons why I have sought this debate today and why I am so grateful that it has been granted.
Wyre Piddle may bring a smile to the lips, but its problems are very real. They stand as examples of the problems of many rural communities that are apprehensive that they may have missed the opportunity of the bypass for which they, like Wyre Piddle and Upper Moor, have been working and campaigning for so long. This debate gives the Minister an opportunity to reassure not just Wyre Piddle, but many other communities too.
1052
My hon. Friend the Minster has to say two things today to reassure my constituents—and I hope those of many other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South in relation to the Broadway bypass. First, he should confirm that recent apparent changes in the Government's policy on road building have not changed the case for the Wyre Piddle bypass in any respect, and that the Wyre Piddle bypass and others like it will not generate new traffic, but rather relieve intolerable situations for the communities through which the traffic currently passes.
Secondly, I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that the Wyre Piddle northern bypass remains eligible for transport supplementary grant. Its £4 million cost is not large compared with the cost of major motorway schemes, but the benefits that it will bring will be enormous. I hope that the Minister will recognise that county councils have quite a backlog of such schemes, which are widely supported by the public.
As massive spending on motorways seems set to be scaled down, perhaps the Minister can tell me that not all the money saved will go back to the Chief Secretary but that some of it will go to small schemes such as the Wyre Piddle bypass. In other words, far from threatening Wyre Piddle, perhaps SACTRA and the rest will advance such schemes.
This debate has provided an opportunity for the Government to reassure many thousands of our fellow citizens who are crying out for bypasses that they need not despair: that the Government are still on their side. I hope that my hon. Friend will seize it when he replies.
1.49 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) will understand that, by the very nature of these debates, the more he talks, the less I am able to answer. If I cannot cover all his points in the time available, I shall write to him about them.
My hon. Friend spoke of Wyre Piddle moving up the national agenda. That, like the phrase about the Minister being a part-time dentist, struck me as the sort of remark that will go down in history as one of the least apt ever.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester has pursued this bypass assiduously. He came to see me last October to discuss chiefly the Worcester western bypass but he also mentioned the virtues of this scheme. I took careful note of what he had to say, as I have on this occasion.
I welcome my hon. Friend's explanation of the value of the scheme. He ably demonstrated that it is one of those bypass projects that it is universally accepted we should undertake.
My hon. Friend asked whether the recent royal commission or SACTRA reports would impinge on the scheme. There are of course many ways of dealing with the problems of congestion and pollution on our roads. There is much to be said for integrating transport solutions, centred on the provision of good public transport as well as the use of the private car. There may be alternatives to transporting goods by road—rail and water, where appropriate. But there will always remain traffic problems of this sort, which can be dealt with only by means of a bypass.
A cursory look at the map will show why the Wyre Piddle proposition is perfectly robust. I should like to say a word about the transport supplementary grant system

1053
first, however. It is the Department's main grant towards the cost of capital expenditure on local authority roads. Every July, local highway authorities make their bids for this capital expenditure for the following year. The Secretary of State then considers those plans and makes his announcement in December.
In determining how much of an authority's proposed expenditure to accept, the Secretary of State has to consider the extent to which the roads that would benefit are of more than local importance, and the extent to which people living or working in an authority's area would be relieved of the effects of heavy through traffic.
There is no upper financial limit for TSG, but the scope for funding more than a few very large schemes is restricted by the availability of resources and the need for a balanced national distribution. Grant is not paid for schemes that cost less, individually, than £2 million. These will be included in programmes of work funded with block allocations of credit approvals, covering all forms of transport infrastructure.
Schemes are not usually accepted for TSG until the settlement for the year in which their main works contract is due to start. Neither is TSG usually intended to be paid in support of expenditure on design costs, land acquisition or advanced works. For large schemes of great strategic importance with particularly high expenditure in advance of their main works, however, the Department has the option of providing support by means of credit approval.
It is obviously not possible to pay all the TSG for which local authorities bid. Whether a scheme is accepted in a particular year depends on the extent to which it would help to meet the Secretary of State's objectives, on its economic and environmental benefits, and on its merits compared with those of all the other schemes proposed for acceptance by the 108 highway authorities in the same settlement.
Authorities do not receive a fixed share of TSG each year and there is no such thing as a minimum amount that can be guaranteed. However, contractual commitments on previously accepted schemes have a first call—provided any cost increases have been justified and satisfactory progress has been maintained.
I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that the Wyre Piddle scheme is eligible for TSG. As he amply demonstrated, it would bring much needed relief to a community suffering from the unwelcome impact of traffic that is not, in the main, locally generated. I shall not, however, be able to take a fully informed view before the county council submits a detailed bid for TSG. Despite the now familiar anti-road hysteria, often stoked up by people who appear to have little else to contribute, I am well aware that many communities are only too glad to have a bypass to make their lives safer and more peaceful.
I should give my hon. Friend some idea of the difficulties that we face. This year, we received bids from highway authorities for TSG for about 80 eligible major schemes—seven times more than we could afford. As ever, many good candidates have had to be left out, and it was impossible to avoid disappointing several highway authorities.
In each of the past three years, we have made it clear in the annual guidance that we issue to local authorities that in view of the scarcity of public resources it would
1054
be exceptional for any authority to have more than one new major scheme accepted for TSG in a single settlement. That is why, in a year when only 25 new schemes succeeded in getting TSG, I was pleased that we could give approval for the Worcester western bypass scheme, the county's top priority.
I come next to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer). It is correct that one of the important considerations that we shall have to take into account will be the county council's priorities in respect of TSG approvals. I note what my hon. Friend said about Broadway. I was grateful to him for acknowledging, in that context, that Wyre Piddle may not be top of the county's list. That is, however, a matter for the county itself.
Mr. Luff: May I urge my hon. Friend to negotiate robustly with the Treasury this time around? If there is to be a reduction in motorway building, perhaps a few more bids from county councils will succeed instead.
Mr. Norris: I have promised my hon. Friend that, in my negotiations with the Treasury, Wyre Piddle will never be far from my mind. No doubt he will be able to make his own representations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in due course.
Another factor that my hon. Friend should bear in mind is the forecast date for the start of construction. I am advised that planning permission has not yet been secured for the scheme, and the necessary draft orders under the Highways Act have not yet been published. To consider the scheme for TSG in 1996–97 we would have to be confident that a start to construction in that year was likely. The county council will need to make good progress on the statutory procedures if that goal is to be achieved.
As my hon. Friend knows, we carefully considered the case for grant for the western bypass, but we concluded that it was not a road of more than local importance and hence did not qualify. The Department does not support expenditure on local roads generally; they are the responsibility of local highway authorities, which receive funding from the Department of the Environment for the upkeep of such roads. Hereford and Worcester county council may, if it wants to, use some of the resources that we allocate for minor works under the local transport capital settlement for the western bypass, but the money is unlikely to be sufficient for the purpose.
I quite understand the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed. I hope that he will appreciate that his representations have been listened to sympathetically and have borne fruit. We are prepared to consider the scheme for transport supplementary grant. It meets our criteria, and nothing in recent reports has rendered it less likely to be eligible. There are real questions about the extent to which bids for grant exceed the grants that are available. Indeed, it was ever thus. Financing is, therefore, by no means automatic. Approvals are generally granted only in the year in which the scheme is likely to start. There is some further work to be done in that regard in relation to the scheme.
I hope that my reply has been helpful to my hon. Friend. Given the crucial role of the county council in determining what should be its priorities for expenditure, it might be useful if my hon. Friends the Members for

1055
Worcester and for Worcestershire, South and their constituents direct their principal concerns to the county council. It is the council which—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Lockerbie
2 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My concerns about Lockerbie have been set out in Adjournment debates, foreign affairs debates and endless parliamentary questions over six years, most recently on 13 December in the Scottish Grand Committee at column 40, so I invite the Foreign Secretary to address the following questions, of which the Foreign Office has had 26 hours' notice.
Did the Scottish police request interviews with Ghadanfar and Dalkoumani? If not, why not? If so, were they denied access to the two men? Will the British Government object if Dalkoumani is released later this year? Did the British authorities ever interview Marwan Khreesat, briefly detained and then released in Neuss, Germany?
Considering two Libyans have been indicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, would the Foreign Secretary acknowledge contrary circumstantial evidence set out in recent days by Alan Francovitch, Con Coughlin and John Arlidge, and in their seminal, if derided, book "Trail of the Octopus" by Don Goddard and Lester Coleman? In particular, is the Foreign Secretary at ease, in the light of the "File on Four" programme, in respect of the pivotal witness, Toni Gauci, clothing shopkeeper from Malta?
If the Foreign Secretary is so sure about the Malta connection, how does he explain that Air Malta won an out-of-court settlement against Granada and The Independent, neither of which could substantiate its story of Maltese involvement?
Is the Foreign Secretary any more at ease in respect of another crucial witness, Edwin Bollier? Did he not sign a statement to the effect that his timing device had been sold only to the Libyans? But does not interrogation of Bollier's Stasi control reveal that that was a lie, as he had sold the same device to the Stasi?
What is the Foreign Secretary's assessment of the report of the air intelligence unit of the United States air force that Ali Akbar Motashemi paid the Al Abas and Abu Nidal groups $10 million in cash and gold to bomb Pan Am flight 103, in retaliation for the US "shoot-down" of the Iranian airbus?
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Crown Office received crucial American intelligence implicating Libya from Mr. Vincent Cannistraro of the CIA, who, by his own admission in the mid-1980s, ran a programme at the US National Security Council designed to destabilise and topple the regime of Colonel Gaddafi, and that one of the methods used in the campaign was the spreading of disinformation about Libya?
How can seemingly eternal United Nations sanctions against Libya be justified? Is the Foreign Secretary sure that the Crown Office "certainties" are not constructed on the quicksand of CIA disinformation?
How much reliance does the Crown Office put on the so-called testimony of Abdu Maged Jiacha, who worked at Luqa airport, who has received a $4 million reward and a new identity, and the benefits of the US federal witness protection programme? Apart from anything else, he seems to have quarrelled with the one of the two accused Libyans over a girl. That is about the level of it.

1057
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that after Lockerbie all the Drug Enforcement Agency chiefs in Europe were ordered to Washington, and told that there were DEA agents and a drug courier on flight 103, and that all DEA officers received a cable informing all agents that they were in no circumstances to talk to anyone about the DEA people on that plane, including Khalid Jaafar?
Were drugs found among the debris near Lockerbie, and were Americans involved in concealing the discovery of drugs?
Hansard records in column 522 on 21 December 1988 that at 8.30 pm I intervened on the suject of the crash. My concerns about Lockerbie became acute when a West Lothian police officer—a friend of mine and a constituent—observed to me on new year's eve, 1988 that he did not know how so many Americans could be on such a gruesome scene messing around with the evidence.
Why has the Crown Office not talked properly to Dr. David Fieldhouse, the distinguished Bradford police surgeon, especially to correlate his body count with its count?
Will the Foreign Secretary explain why the German authorities did not join their US and UK colleagues in indicting the two Libyans for a crime committed on German soil, at the Rhein-Main airport, where by any account the bomb went on board?
Is it not the case that, shortly after the Anglo-American indictment, the German public prosecutor, Volke Rath, was quoted as stating that the Federal Republic of Germany had declined to join the US and UK indictment on the ground, as he put it, "of lack of evidence"?
In the investigation of a crime, the police in Scotland act, and must act, on the directions and instructions of the procurator fiscal and the Crown Office. Have the Crown Office and the procurator fiscal given the police directions or instructions to investigate recent allegations of Iranian and Syrian involvement in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103? Again, if not, why not?
In deciding whether charges should be brought and in preparing a case for trial, it is the duty of the prosecuting authorities in Scotland to consider and investigate evidence which tends to exculpate a suspect or an accused as well as evidence which tends to incriminate the suspect. Have the prosecuting authorities complied with that duty in the case of the two Libyan suspects, and are they currently complying?
A petition charging named individuals with the Lockerbie bombing having been presented to the sheriff of Dumfries, presumably on evidence regarded by the Lord Advocate as sufficient at the time to justify that step, and arrest warrants having been granted, do the prosecuting authorities in Scotland regard their investigating functions as being at an end?
Should they not, for example, seek to interview officials of the US embassy in Nicosia who were there in 1988 to determine what they knew of the events leading up to the Lockerbie disaster? In particular, should they not seek to interview the 1988 CIA station chief and the DEA country attaché, both now retired from Government service?
1058
Have the Crown Office and the Scottish police investigated the possibility that the terrorists responsible took advantage of an American law enforcement operation to smuggle the bomb aboard flight 103?
Do the prosecuting authorities regard themselves as being free now to close their eyes to any new leads and decline to investigate any potential evidence which go counter to the allegations narrated in the petition or which appear to cast doubt thereon?
Do the prosecuting authorities really assert that the sole responsibility for investigating any such evidence rests on those entrusted with the task of representing the relatives if and when a trial takes place?
Ending with the relatives, six long years later, they want to know exactly why US personnel were withdrawn from flight 103, and exactly what US Government officials knew which was not made available to the youngsters going to their death.
2.7 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) because, as he said, he gave notice to my office of his line of questioning. He gave me plenty of time, but he has asked many detailed questions. If there are gaps between his questions and the fullness of my answers, I shall write to him to fill the gaps. I shall certainly deal with the main points that he raised.
I thought that it was right to reply to the debate myself for three reasons: first, because of my respect for the hon. Gentleman and for his integrity in this and other matters; secondly, because of the enormity of the crime at Lockerbie and the suffering which it caused and is causing; thirdly, because I wish to deal plainly and lay to rest certain suspicions and accusations which have arisen not so much from the hon. Gentleman's speech as from what he has copiously written in newspapers.
The Lockerbie investigation has been the most extensive ever carried out into one crime in Britain. On the basis of that criminal investigation and the vast amount of evidence uncovered, my noble and learned Friend the then Lord Advocate sought and was granted warrants for the arrest of two Libyan nationals accused of having carried out the bombing.
I must stress the total independence from Government of the investigation of the Lord Advocate in his responsibility for criminal prosecutions. Neither he nor his predecessor would have brooked any attempt to influence them in exercising their independent judgment. It is not the job of Ministers or the Foreign Office to decide who should be prosecuted for a crime. It is not the job of Ministers or the Foreign Office to pronounce opinions as to who is guilty. There is no place in the matter for diplomatic or political considerations, and we have not at any time allowed such considerations any place in our actions.
Neither the Foreign Office nor any agency for which I am responsible has attempted to steer the Lockerbie investigation or to shield any individual or state who may have been responsible. There is no hidden political influence behind the investigation, and there has been no censorship by the Foreign Office. All significant information relevant to Lockerbie obtained by the intelligence agencies—or anyone else, to my

1059
knowledge—is invariably and as a matter of course provided to those who are responsible for the investigation. It is for the prosecuting authorities and, ultimately, we hope, for the courts, not the Government, to weigh the evidence; so when the hon. Gentleman asks whether I am at ease with that, or whether I am satisfied with that, those are not questions for me. It is not for me to weigh or ponder the evidence or to allow those under my control to do so.
There have been many debates on this matter, and the hon. Gentleman has asked many questions. Most recently, there was a discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee on 13 December last year. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland explained why no Minister could discuss the detail of evidence into the Lockerbie bombing or, indeed, any other criminal case, because once we began to do that, it would jeopardise the prospect of a fair criminal trial and render worthless the painstaking work of the investigators.
Of course—this is one of the hon. Gentleman's main concerns—the books can never be closed. The Dumfries and Galloway constabulary must remain, and does remain, ready to consider any new evidence that might be relevant to the case. The investigation remains open. If anyone has any new information that he or she considers relevant to the case, he or she should give it to the police without delay. Minds cannot be closed to fresh evidence, even if it were to open up new ideas on who carried out the bombing or backed the bombers.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Can my right hon. Friend say, therefore, who has been responsible for denying Mr. Bollier the right to see the evidence about the timing devices? It is a very important part of the evidence. He has been denied the right to see it, because he believes that he could decide whether it was sold to the Libyans or others. Who makes that kind of decision? Is it political, judicial or made by the police?
Mr. Hurd: It is certainly not political. It is certainly not made by me or any other Minister. Let me inquire into that aspect of the case. I shall write to my hon. Friend. It is certainly not me who would have taken any such decision, or could have done so.
The Lord Advocate—this is on a point that the hon. Member for Linlithgow raised—has always been at pains to make it clear that he is not in a position to exonerate other nations or their nationals. He simply has not seen, in his judgment, credible evidence to implicate them.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Foreign Secretary has seen the replies to me in Hansard today from the Secretary of State for Scotland, which, briefly, say that the Crown authorities were not aware of the existence of the US air intelligence report until 23 January this year. The replies discount the report and say that it has no relevance to the inquiry. I ask a simple question: given that the Crown authorities were co-operating so closely with the American authorities, why were they not aware of the existence of that report? Can the Foreign Secretary offer an explanation?
Mr. Hurd: I shall come to that report in a minute.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked a number of detailed questions. I can reply to some of them. He spoke of the Palestinian terrorists who were arrested in Germany in October 1988. It is the firm policy of the Lord
1060
Advocate not to give details of what inquiries have or have not been carried out, but it is necessary to make an exception in this case. In the case of Dalkoumani and Ghadanfar, I can confirm that requests were made for both men to be interviewed, that those requests were granted and that Scottish police officers were present at the interviews.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me to acknowledge what he described as contrary circumstantial evidence put forward by various individuals. We all know that there are a host of alternative theories on the subject. It is not for me, I repeat, to assess those theories. That is and must be a matter for the prosecuting authorities and the Lord Advocate. It is clear that such theories can be based only on an incomplete knowledge and understanding of the mass of evidence that is available to the Lord Advocate, who remains in no doubt that the charges against the two Libyan accused are justified.
That covers the reliability and significance of any particular piece of evidence put before a criminal court by the prosecution, including such matters, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, as the sale of clothing in Malta, the testimony of Edwin Bollier and evidence obtained from staff at Luqa airport. Those are matters which, eventually, we hope, a jury will consider once it has heard all the evidence.
I now deal with the American document, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). It was released by the US Government under the Freedom of Information Act. It contains, as both hon. Members have said, the allegation that former Iranian Interior Minister, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi, paid the sum of $10 million to have the Lockerbie bombing carried out. I make two points on the report. The document, as the hon. Member for Banfford Buchan said and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told him, was available to the Crown Office on 24 January, but the allegation in it circulated well before that as a well-publicised rumour during the early stages of the investigation. It appeared in The Sunday Times in the second half of 1989. It appeared later in a book by David Leppard, "On The Trail of Terror", published in 1991.
As anyone who follows the case knows—certainly the two hon. Members do—during the early stages of the investigation, the possibility that Palestinian extremist groups might be responsible was extensively investigated, as were reports of Iranian involvement. No credible evidence—the assessment of the prosecuting authorities—has been found to substantiate either theory.
The document is not, as is sometimes made out, a statement of the views of the American authorities. It is a report of the views of an American intelligence agency source—in fact, an Iranian defector. He or she was reporting second or third-hand information. The source was untried and its reliability could not have been assessed. During the investigation, literally thousands of pieces of raw intelligence, often contradictory, were seen. When the document in question was assessed, as a US Government spokesman made clear last week, it was discarded as a "dud".
The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked a number of questions about the US Drug Enforcement Agency. I am assured that no DEA chiefs in Europe were recalled to Washington in the wake of the Lockerbie disaster. As regards the allegation that it was running an anti-narcotics

1061
operation, which went wrong, a copy of the film by Mr. Alan Francovitch, which contains those allegations, has been sent—I think by the hon. Gentleman—to the Crown Office. The matter was considered by the US House of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, Government Information Justice and Agriculture Sub-Committee in December 1990. I am arranging for a copy of the statement to that sub-committee by the assistant administrator of the DEA to be placed in the Library of the House.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the discovery of drugs. I think that the Lord Advocate wrote to him on 3 July 1992, saying that the only discovery of drugs at the Lockerbie site was a small quantity of cannabis.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Mr. David Fieldhouse. My understanding is that he has been interviewed several times by the Scottish police and that he gave evidence at the fatal accident inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to explain why the German authorities have not indicted the two Libyan accused. That clearly is a matter for the German prosecuting judicial authorities. It is not something that I can comment on, except to make the obvious point. Given that the bulk of the evidence is in the hands of the Scottish and American authorities, it seems clear to us that the trial should take place in one of those two countries. The German Government agree, as does the Security Council.
Incidentally, I understand that the comments that the hon. Member for Linlithgow attributed to the German state prosecutor were misquoted. The state prosecutor was referring not to the case brought by the Lord Advocate and the American authorities, but to the question of proceedings in Germany based on the evidence held there. The German state prosecutor is not familiar with the full details of the prosecution case.
Let me deal with a point of principle that I consider to be at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I can confirm to him that the prosecuting authorities would take any evidence that tended to exculpate the accused just as seriously as any further evidence that tended to incriminate them. The hon. Gentleman said that that was the authorities' duty, and they see it as their duty.
The hon. Gentleman talked about American personnel being withdrawn from flight 103. I understand that one American Government employee who was booked on the flight missed it because of traffic congestion at Frankfurt, but it is true that a further 23, sadly, were victims of the disaster.
Let me return to the central question of where we stand now. The hon. Gentleman asked how the United Nations sanctions against Libya could be justified. We have asked ourselves repeatedly how best to proceed. The painstaking work of the Scottish police and the Crown Office has led to charges being brought against two Libyan individuals; the case against them stands. It is not a case constructed by me, or by the Foreign Office, and it owes nothing to diplomatic or political considerations. It was put together after the most massive investigation ever to take place in respect of any crime in Britain, and sustained by the Lord Advocate in the warrants that he issued. In his judgment, the case stands.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is it the Government's view that one day the
1062
perpetrators of this terrible mass murder will stand trial in the High Court in Edinburgh—or a similar court elsewhere—or does the Foreign Secretary genuinely believe that they will never be brought to trial?
Mr. Hurd: I do not know the answer to that question, but I believe that it is our job to do our utmost to ensure that they do come to trial. They are outside our reach at present; we are making every effort to bring them within the reach of the court, but matters are not entirely under our control.
We and the American and French Governments—the French are currently concerned with another terrorist crime—have gone to unprecedented lengths to put diplomatic pressure on Libya to surrender the two Libyan citizens who are alleged to have carried out the bombing, and to satisfy the requirements of French justice over the bombing of flight UTA772 in September 1989.
Sir David Steel: Why do the British and French Governments set their faces so determinedly against the idea of trying the two individuals in some other place, such as The Hague, in the absence of an international criminal court?
Mr. Hurd: There are several answers to that. Primary legislation would be required in this country. I am not sure of the grounds on which a Minister would tell the House, "The instruments of justice in Scotland are inadequate for this purpose," but that would have to be the case. Nor, after all that has occurred, could we conceivably feel confident—whatever assurances were given in advance—that the Libyans would hand over those concerned to a court. We would go to the infinite trouble of constructing such a court, in the face of difficulty and controversy, when there could be no guarantee that those concerned would appear before it. We have considered the question, because—as the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) is aware—people have urged us in good faith to take such a course; but I do not think that it is a tenable answer.
Sanctions were imposed on Libya by the Security Council because of Libya's refusal to comply with resolution 731. We do not believe that they should or could be lifted until Libya has complied in full with Security Council resolutions. Let me explain the broader picture, to clear away any misunderstanding of what is involved on the part of the Libyan Government. In pursuing the sanctions and taking the view that I have just expressed, we have no hidden agenda; we are not involved in any vindictive campaign against either the Libyan people or their Government. Provided that Libya shows by concrete means that she has renounced all support for terrorism, we have no desire for sanctions to remain in force any longer than is necessary. On the contrary—I am not sure whether the House knows this—in an attempt to establish that the renunciation of terrorism is real, we have engaged in a number of meetings, at official level, with Libyan representatives to discuss their past links with the Provisional IRA. Although those discussions have not led to a fully satisfactory conclusion, they are evidence of our efforts to show that Libyan assurances in this matter are real.

1063
Once the Libyan Government have arranged for the two Lockerbie suspects to appear for trial in Scotland or the United States and have satisfied French justice over the UTA bombing, we stand ready to see the sanctions suspended immediately. Once Libya has complied with the other requirements of the Security Council resolutions, we expect the sanctions to be lifted without delay. Those who argue that sanctions should be lifted now would do better to help us to persuade the Libyan Government to comply with the Security Council resolutions without further delay.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow asked whether I entertained any serious hope about the outcome. There have been times over the past two years when, on the basis of the information that I had, I thought that we were quite close to the possibility that the Libyans would comply with the resolution and that the two accused would come forward. I have taken great trouble to explain to various intermediaries how Scottish law functions: I have been fully briefed on that—on the safeguards, the legal precautions, the rights of representation and the nature of evidence required. We have repeatedly given those assurances to the Libyans. Although I have sometimes felt that we are close to the possibility that I have described, we have never actually reached that point; instead, there have been numerous side proposals which I fear were designed simply to prolong delay and throw dust in the eyes of all concerned.
Nevertheless, I do not think that we should despair. I should be reluctant—as, I am sure, the Lord Advocate would be—ever to say, "We give up." I repeat, however, that this is not a political or diplomatic exercise on our part: the crime committed was unique in the history of crime in this country, and our concern is that justice should be done. We shall continue to pursue that objective, and the fewer ramifications or complications are introduced into that simple story, the better will be our chances of success. There may be some points of
1064
detail that I have not picked up from the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that I have managed to deal with the gravamen of his case.
Some people are worried that there has been political interference in this case. The hon. Gentleman has been worried that the Crown Office may not be taking account of all the evidence and all the information that is available. I hope that I have dealt from my own knowledge with the first point and, from the knowledge that has been made available to me, I hope that I have dealt with the second. I thank the House.
Mr. Dalyell: The Foreign Secretary refers to points of detail. The trouble is that it is not a detail that Toni Gauci, the owner of this clothing shop in Malta, on whom the whole case rests, is an exceedingly unreliable witness. Since Scots Members of Parliament cannot get at the Lord Advocate, I do not know what more we can do. The fact remains that what the Foreign Secretary says are details brought up by Mr. Francovitch and others are absolutely crucial to any kind of respectable case, and respectable case there is none. [Interruption.]
The professor of Scots law at the university of Edinburgh has publicly said not only does he think that a jury would not convict but that a judge in Scotland might well throw the case out on the ground that there is no case to answer. That is the situation that we have reached. I do not think that senior Cabinet Ministers can pass everything to the Lord Advocate in such a case.
Dr. Godman: Or worse, pass it to Washington.
Mr. Dalyell: Nor, as my hon. Friend says, can they pass it to Washington.
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his courtesy, but in a sense the gravamen of the case has not been responded to. I beg the Government to go to the Lord Advocate and ask him whether he is at ease—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    European Union
    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent representations he has received on the European Union.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I receive from different sources quite regularly representations on the European Union.
    Mr. Milburn: Is not it clear from recent interventions by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and Lord Howe that Ministers are simply caving in to the anti-European agenda of some Conservative Back Benchers and people in the Cabinet? Is it not obvious that Britain's interests in Europe are secondary in the Foreign Secretary's mind to the appeasement of competing factions inside the Conservative party? Why does not the Foreign Secretary stand up for what we all know he believes in rather than play footsie with those who clearly want him out of his current job?
    Madam Speaker: Order. We have just finished Adjournment debates and we are now in Question Time.
    Mr. Hurd: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. I thought it was becoming rather stale stuff. On the basis of the general principles which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister established in his speech at Leiden and which he has since elaborated, we are constructing specific and positive proposals which Britain will be able to put forward at the intergovernmental conference next year. That is the immediate task before us and I am sure that that is the right way to set about it.
    Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend endorse and follow the wise advice of Alain Lamassoure, the French European Affairs Minister, who yesterday suggested that central bank governors should keep quiet on EMU, or at least say less, and leave the decisions to the politicians in the member states, particularly as the enthusiasm for EMU is growing everywhere, with the constitutional exception of Denmark?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not agree. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister obtained freedom for this country to choose, yes or no, if and when the choice of a single bank and a single currency comes before us, which in our view will not be before 1999. For the moment, we have had enough purely political discussion of these points. What is now needed is a slightly more substantial account, perhaps not led by politicians, of the effect of the change—yes or no—on the freedom and prosperity of our constituents. The Governor's speech yesterday, which was analysed by some newspapers as being for and by others as being against the proposition, set out the pros and cons with admirable clarity.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Which does the Foreign Secretary regard as the more accurate commentary on the Government's policy on Europe: that of the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Howe, who said that the policy is being dragged into a ghetto of sentimentality and
    1066
    self-delusion, or that of the former Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who said that certain Cabinet Ministers are behaving as if they were members of the Flat Earth Society?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that either comment fills the bill.
    Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there is no question of any policies relating to Northern Ireland being constructed under the aegis or framework of a constitutional arrangement that gives effect to the proposals for an all-Ireland policy which would be consistent with any regional policy developed by the European Union?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is an hour in advance of his moment. That question could be properly addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to repeat his description of the manifesto of the nine rebel Members of Parliament as containing ideas that were unreal? Did he read yesterday's statement by the rebels that the concessions by the Cabinet to those unreal ideas were encouraging, but that it must make more? How many more unreal ideas is he prepared to accept, or is it time for the British Government to base their policy towards Europe on the interests of the 60 million people of Britain, not on the careers of the nine Tory Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Hurd: I am delighted if any of my hon. Friends, or former hon. Friends, are delighted with Government policy, which is not constructed on the basis of any document that they have issued. It is constructed on what the Prime Minister said at Leiden last November. In his basic statement on what the intergovernmental conference should be about, he said:
    "The IGC must be the anvil on which we forge a stronger union."
    That is our view.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: I pose this question specifically to the Foreign Secretary. Does he agree that the European Union is a club of sovereign states? If so, is it possible for one all-Ireland body to represent the views of two sovereign states'?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that that is envisaged even in the thoughts that are being discussed by the British and Irish Governments, but I advise the right hon. Member, as I advised my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), to put that specific point to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vision that he and the Prime Minister have set out of a Europe of nation states, freely co-operating to mutual advantage on a wide range of issues, not only commands the support of the vast majority of the British people, but is entirely consistent with everything that the Conservative party has said on the subject for the past 30 years? Does he further agree that that consistency contrasts starkly with the chopping and changing of the Labour party, whose leader and present Front-Bench

    1067
    spokesman are espousing positions on Europe which are totally the reverse of those that they adopted just a few years ago?
    Mr. Hurd: I may send my hon. Friend a wearisome sheaf of my speeches on the subject—he may have had a hand in some of them, for all I know. They bear out what he said. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have, for several years, been emphasising the point that my hon. Friend summarised about the working together of nation states.
    I share my hon. Friend's worries about the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition has been billing and cooing all over Brussels. The other day, yesterday perhaps, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made a speech that he could have borrowed from one of my archives. It is a bit worrying to Conservative Members that the main Opposition party should be so sadly divided on the subject.

    Macedonia
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Macedonia.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Promoting the political and economic stability of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia remains a key element in our preventive diplomacy in the southern Balkans. It is important that she should enjoy full international recognition and gain full access to the benefits of co-operation with international institutions.
    Ms Eagle: Does the Minister agree that destabilisation in Macedonia would cause a major problem and pose a major threat to peace and stability in Europe, especially as the threat could then spread to Greece and possibly further? Does he think the position there is getting better or worse?
    Mr. Hogg: I agree with the main thrust of the hon. Lady's intervention. Clearly, destabilisation in Macedonia could have serious repercussions in the southern Balkans. I am reasonably optimistic as to the stability of the country. That stability depends on the ability and willingness of the Albanians and Macedonians in Macedonia to work together. We shall do all that we can to impress on both communities the importance of co-operation, and to impress on President Gligorov, in particular, the importance of addressing seriously the concerns of the Albanian minority in the country. He is doing so, but he needs continual encouragement.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. and learned Friend have any plans for action within the European Union to bridge the stalemate over the blockade of Macedonia by the Greeks, bearing in mind the fact that it is bringing severe economic hardship?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. The European Court of Justice is today considering the case which has been brought before it by the Commission with the strong support of the British Government. The other way forward is through the mediation of Cyrus Vance.
    1068
    We hope that the Governments of both Macedonia and Greece will respond positively to the suggestions made by Cyrus Vance.
    Mr. O'Hara: Will the Minister recognise that, just as President Gligorov should be urged to resolve his differences with the Albanians, he should also be urged to address positively the serious concerns of the Greeks? He must recognise that the Greeks could be the key to the future security and prosperity of Macedonia.
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is right to stress the importance of good relations between Greece and Macedonia. He is right to imply that the blockade by Greece of Macedonia is having a serious impact on the economy of Macedonia. The hon. Gentleman's point reinforces the answer that I gave previously about the need for both Governments to address positively the proposals of Cyrus Vance.

    Middle East
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the progress being made towards achieving peace in the middle east.
    Mr. Hurd: We welcome the substantial progress that is being made, but we are concerned at the strains on the peace process in the wake of the dreadful bombing near Tel Aviv. The forthcoming visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Israel, the occupied territories and Jordan on 12 and 13 March will underline our continuing support for the peace process.
    Mr. Carrington: Although the responsibility for the problems in the peace process is complex, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the principal reasons for that is the new proposed settlements on the west hank? Will my right hon. Friend put maximum pressure on the Israeli Government to stop those proposed settlements and will he put maximum pressure on the American Government to exert what influence they have in Tel Aviv to ensure that the settlements do not carry on?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend about that. We persuaded our European partners on 5 January to set this out again. We expressed our concern and called for a total cessation of new settlements. We believe that all settlements in occupied territories—that includes east Jerusalem—are illegal and an obstacle to peace. We point that out consistently. I hope that my hon. Friend will not ignore the sense of shock over the terrorist bombing in Israel which makes Prime Minister Rabin's task much more difficult.
    Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the Foreign Secretary review his decision to lift the arms embargo on the state of Syria in view of its reluctance to join in the peace process? Will he ensure that that Government are aware of the British Government's condemnation of the murderous activities of Islamic Jihad—it is based in Damascus—in Netayna on 22 January?
    Mr. Hurd: We would not be justified in urging our European partners—it was a European decision—to reimpose that arms embargo. I have already made clear my views about the terrorist act in Israel which killed 21 people.

    1069
    On the Syrian track of the peace process, movement is needed from both sides. They will both have to show flexibility. I believe that they will achieve a settlement down that track, but the process of getting there is proving very slow.
    Sir Timothy Sainsbury: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the peace process is to continue to advance, as I know we all hope that it will, it is necessary not only for Syria and all Israel's neighbours to join in, but for states that paticipate in the process to not only condemn terrorism but take active steps to remove international terrorism from their territory?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, I agree. I do not think that one should underestimate the difficulties that Mr. Arafat has in Jericho and Gaza; we all know that they are real and formidable. We hope that the meeting in Cairo tomorrow between the leaders of the countries of the region and the PLO will serve to give fresh impetus to the peace process and in particular to the Palestinian track.
    Mr. Morgan: On the position of Iraq in the middle eastern peace process, what further action can the Government take against the Iraqi Government following the attempted assassination in Iraq of the defector from the Iraqi army, Major Safa al Battat, who is currently being treated for his attempted poisoning at Llandough hospital in Cardiff which serves my constituency? What is the Government's policy on defectors from the Iraqi army who are helping Shi'ite rebels against the Iraqi Government? Is there any Government assistance to the hospital to help it provide 24-hour security for Major al Battat?
    Mr. Hurd: That does not arise from the question and I do not think that it is within my responsibilities. However, it is clearly a serious matter so I shall look into it and ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a letter.
    Mr. Batiste: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Dr. Shaqaqi, the leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, claimed responsibility for the bombing from Damascus on 22 January and that no action has been taken against him by the Syrian authorities? How does that square with Syria's profession that it is no longer a terrorist state and wishes to participate in the peace process?
    Mr. Hurd: That is a fair question. I cannot confirm the facts as stated by my hon. Friend, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) said, it is clearly the responsibility of all the states that border Israel or which have any concern in the matter to ensure that terrorist activities are not planned from their territory.
    Mr. Cousins: The whole House supports the Foreign Secretary's condemnation of terrorist incidents and will welcome the Prime Minister's visit to Israel, Palestine and, especially, Gaza. But can the Foreign Secretary throw any light on what the Prime Minister will be taking with him by way of definite programmes of economic help which will assist the Palestinian authorities and the brave and beleaguered Israeli Government and bring hope in the immediate future to all the unemployed young men of Gaza whose lives and opportunities are a central element in resolving the crisis?
    Mr. Hurd: Certainly. We are providing £75 million in support of the peace process and the Palestinians over the next three financial years—that it is in bilateral British
    1070
    and multilateral assistance. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we have concentrated especially on what Mr. Arafat asked me to do, which was to provide help for the police force—£3 million for salaries, training courses for senior officers and 200 sets of equipment—and we are now seeking to finalise a further package of technical assistance worth £250,000.

    Far East
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of relationships with countries in the far east.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Our relations with the great majority of countries in the far east are excellent and we are working to enhance them further across a wide range of fields including trade, investment, education and culture. The strength of these relations is reflected in British exports to the Asia Pacific region, which rose by nearly 20 per cent. in the first 11 months of 1994 compared with the same period in 1993.
    Mr. Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the Foreign Office will next year give a high priority to improving our relationship where possible with the countries known as the tiger nations in the far east? Those countries are economically very successful; they offer a great many opportunities to this country and believe in the free market and the enterprise philosophy. Will he therefore give every possible support to those countries and our relationship with them?
    Mr. Goodlad: Yes. The Government have already reallocated resources to strengthen the commercial sections in the 11 posts in the region. New trade offices have been opened in Nagoya and Pusan and others are under consideration. Seventy-three trade-related ministerial visits to the Asian Pacific countries have been undertaken or are planned in the current financial year, many accompanied by business delegations. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the immense importance of those countries to us.
    Mr. Parry: Will the Minister make a statement on the relationship between the British Government and the democratic Government of Taiwan?
    Mr. Goodlad: We have no diplomatic relations with Taiwan.
    Mr. Elletson: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the state of our relations with Malaysia and, in particular, the prospects for further orders of defence equipment upon which many British Aerospace jobs in Lancashire depend?
    Mr. Goodlad: Our relations with Malaysia are good. The Malaysian Government made it clear that they regard last year's problems as a thing of the past. Our exports to Malaysia continue to grow strongly and in 1994 seem likely to have increased by some 40 per cent. over the previous year. I anticipate that the forthcoming year will be good as well.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: May I refer to the terse response concerning Taiwan given earlier? Is it not time that we started to take the lead as a nation to bring Taiwan, as a

    1071
    people and as a nation, into the democratic community and into the United Nations, in which it can at least contribute in comparison to other member countries that do not pay their way?
    Mr. Goodlad: Since 1972, this country has recognised the People's Republic of China as the sole representative of China at the United Nations. The claims of Taiwan are not so recognised.

    Russian Federation
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has been made of potential instability within the republics and other constituent units which currently comprise the Russian Federation.
    Mr. Hurd: The conflict in Chechnya could destabilise the north Caucasus, but has not yet done so. Despite calls for a regional uprising by General Dudayev, fighting has so far been confined to Chechnya. There is no evidence that the conflict has so far stirred up secessionist tendencies elsewhere in the federation.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: In the wake of the Chechnya disaster, does my right hon. Friend believe that the Russian Federation will be able to resist the significant number of secessionist movements elsewhere in the federation? Does he believe that the international community could make available further technical assistance to provide further stability in the former Soviet Union, which must be of paramount interest to this country?
    Mr. Hurd: It is not in our interests that the Russian Federation should degenerate into chaos, but my hon. Friend is right in calling what is happening in Chechnya a disaster. The Prime Minister has written to President Yeltsin on the matter and I have been in touch with Mr. Kozyrev. Some humanitarian help is getting through. The Overseas Development Administration, our organisation, has committed £1 million. Half of that will be channelled through the British Red Cross to the international appeal of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The latest tranche of European aid, amounting to a total of £8 million, was announced this morning.
    Mr. Robin Cook: May I press on the Foreign Secretary the grave concern across the nation at the scale of military violence in Chechnya? Does he agree that bombing hospitals and village markets serves no legitimate military role and that the west must support those in Russia who, with great personal courage, have condemned such attacks? May I specifically press the Foreign Secretary on the joint military exercise with Russia due to take place later this year? Will he assure the House that it would not be appropriate for British forces to be engaged in a joint exercise with the Russian army, unless the war in Chechnya is first brought to an end and the people of Chechnya are able to live in peace?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has the accent of this right. The point that he made about the disproportionate brutal use of force has already been made by the Prime Minister to President Yeltsin. It is also reflected in the declaration that my European colleagues and I issued at the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 January. There are a number of points coming up, on which we would have
    1072
    been very glad to co-operate with the Russians on specific matters over the coming year. We will still be glad if the Chechen situation can be quickly resolved along the lines set out by the Prime Minister.
    The hon. Gentleman has mentioned one area. There is also the signature of the interim agreement, which may be ready by March. At the Foreign Affairs Council we said that we would need to watch what is happening very carefully and judge what further steps might be needed.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while no individual country or international organisation has the right to encourage rebellion, it is very important that there is unequivocal condemnation of the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians and the destruction of their homes? Will he confirm that that violates the spirit and probably the letter of the Helsinki agreements? Will my right hon. Friend be a little more forthright in his condemnation of what has happened?
    Mr. Hurd: We have been very firm, as I was personally in a speech that I made last week. What the Europeans have said, and what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told President Yeltsin, has left Russia in no doubt about the cloud that Chechnya casts over the reform process and, therefore, over our support for the reform process. We are not supporting personalities in Russia; we are supporting the process of reform.

    Human Rights
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues the United Kingdom has raised at this week's United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The UN Commission on Human Rights runs from 30 January to 10 March. The commission will pass over 100 resolutions on a wide range of human rights themes and the human rights situation in various countries. The United Kingdom will participate in the drafting of some and in the negotiating of all of them. I will deliver the United Kingdom national statement on 8 February.
    Mr. Mullin: What position will we take over the illegal occupation of East Timor by Indonesia? Does the Minister think that our desire to sell Indonesia large quantities of weapons will in any way confuse the Indonesians about the seriousness with which we take the issue?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not think that the Indonesians are the least bit confused. We have made it very plain that we do not recognise Indonesian annexation of East Timor. Furthermore, we strongly support the intervention of the United Nations Secretary-General to resolve that point. We urge the parties to play an active and positive role in coming to terms under his auspices.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: While recognising local customs, traditions and values, may ask my right hon. and learned Friend to agree that the cause of universal human rights is set back by the selective attitude of certain countries to them? In particular, I mention the attitude of Muslim countries to those who proselytise or evangelicise

    1073
    for Christianity in their countries, especially in Iran, Egypt recently, and Pakistan. Will my right hon. and learned Friend make that an issue for discussions at the talks?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is entirely right to focus on the universality of human rights. There is a worrying disposition on the part of some countries to argue that the achievement of human rights can be postponed in relation to the achievement of other objectives, for example, economic progress. I believe that that is wrong. We are right to emphasise on every possible occasion that all countries have, as a paramount duty, the obligation to ensure a proper respect for human rights within their frontiers.
    Mrs. Clwyd: On the question of torture, will the Minister defend the export of electronic shock batons from the United Kingdom to overseas countries where torture is widespread? Why, when I asked the Government to list the companies to which export licences were granted for that purpose, was I told that the question could be answered only at disproportionate cost? Is not that just dodging the question once again? Does not it give the game away? Does not the Minister understand that nothing destroys the Government's credibility more than turning a blind eye to such a disgusting trade?
    Mr. Hogg: We do not turn a blind eye to those issues. Our position on those matters is crystal clear. During the speech that I will give, I will draw attention to the importance that we attach to combating torture wherever it is found. For that reason, we will also be supporting the re-adoption of the mandate for the rapporteur on that subject.

    European Union
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to prepare the United Kingdom for an expanded European Union.
    Mr. Hurd: One of our most important objectives in the rest of this century is the expansion of the European Union to the east. That will require the countries of central and eastern Europe to adapt their economies to the demands of the single market, but it will also involve fundamental reform of existing European Union policies, in particular the common agricultural policy and the structural funds. We shall be pressing for that.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that no Conservative Member is against enlargement and that the more we enlarge the more remote becomes the possibility of a single currency? Conservative Members also share some scepticism about the European Union, although none of us wants to leave it. Is there not a united party strategy on Europe which is very much in accord with the views of the British people? Is that not in sharp contrast with the Opposition, who are not only inconsistent about Europe but split three ways?
    Mr. Hurd: I have already made a puzzled comment on the position of the Opposition. My hon. Friend is perfectly right. There is much more common ground on such matters than commentators would like to believe. That will emerge as the immediately past tumult dies down and the serious policy work goes forward.
    1074
    We need to remember that the European Union is greatly attractive to those who live in the centre and east of Europe, as their strong interest in joining it makes clear. As my hon. Friend has said, we have always believed that the European Union's door should be open to those who wish to join the rest of Europe and are able to do so.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does the Foreign Secretary not understand that, out there in Britain, the centre of gravity in relation to attitudes to the Common Market has shifted dramatically in the past few years? From Brightlingsea to Shoreham, the Cornish fishermen and all the rest around Britain, it is significant that, after 21 years of the Common Market and 16 years of the Tory Government, people are fed up to the back teeth.
    Mr. Hurd: I understand the hon. Gentleman's motives in this matter, but his rant should be directed at the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, within the expanded European Union, there will be great scope for much better co-ordination of defence policy? Is it not absurd that industries are co-ordinated but that defence industries are specifically excluded? Does that not play into the hands of the United States, where competition is intense?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend may have read the admirable speech on defence policies in Europe made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in Brussels the day before yesterday. It was a painstaking and thorough analysis with some very interesting thoughts in it, to which should certainly be added the consideration that my hon. Friend has brought forward.
    Ms Quin: The 1996 conferences will, presumably, prepare the way for enlargement. In that connection, the Secretary of State for Employment is recorded as saying that there are three matters on which members of the Cabinet have already agreed to use their veto. Will the Secretary of State confirm those three matters? In particular, in respect of powers to the European Parliament, does that mean that the Government will even veto any measures to allow the Parliament greater control over the European Commission?
    Mr. Hurd: No, nor has anybody said anything to that effect. On the contrary, we believe that if the new European Parliament, which was elected last year, really wants to establish a reputation with the citizens, it should concentrate precisely on dealing with those matters which national Parliaments cannot reach. In particular, it should use to the full the powers given to it to deal with fraud.
    Mr. Hendry: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will continue to argue for Britain to opt out of the social chapter within an enlarged European Union,'? In particular, will he draw attention to the report from the European chambers of commerce, which was published yesterday, on 120,000 firms in Europe? It showed that British firms expect to create more new jobs than firms in any other country in Europe, and that German firms expect to create fewer because of the horrendous social costs that they face.
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed. There was more evidence to that effect during Prime Minister's Question Time

    1075
    yesterday. It is perfectly true that employers, particularly on the continent, have been rather slow to raise their voices against the distortions and uncompetitiveness that have been imposed on Europe by some legislation. It is important that we should be clear that the arrival of a Labour Government, with the one policy on which Opposition Members are all agreed—the imposition of the social chapter—would be pretty disastrous for jobs in this country.

    Child Labour
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty Government's policy towards child labour.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We are very concerned about the exploitation of child labour abroad. We support measures to protect the rights of children, including the right to be protected from economic exploitation.
    Mrs. Jackson: Should not the Government be deeply ashamed of the UN report on this country's record on children's rights, which was published last week? That report criticised Britain on nearly every aspect included in the convention on children's rights drawn up by the UN. Will the Government make a start in complying with the UN convention by at least agreeing to change their stance on child labour within the European Union and by complying with the child labour directive in 1996, like everyone else, instead of securing an opt-out to put that decision off for four years?
    Mr. Hogg: The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child examined the report last week, but we have not yet received its conclusions. If the hon. Lady has given a correct account of what is in the report, I am bound to say that it does not seem to make a great deal of sense. We shall respond in due course. What we do within the United Kingdom is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the House that the declaration of the rights of the child was initiated by the United Kingdom? Would he like to mark that by paying tribute to James Grant—who has just died—who, as executive head of UNICEF, was responsible for the signing of 170 countries to the declaration of the rights of the child, and who was fully supported by the UK?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a number of points with considerable force. Lying behind what she says is the fact that there are serious problems in the world relating to the exploitation of children. For a committee to criticise the United Kingdom in the way in which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) states is, frankly, trivialising that issue.

    West Bank
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations
    1076
    he has made to the Israeli Government regarding the present and possible expansion of Jewish settlements in the west bank.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We and our EU partners regularly raise with the Israeli Government our concerns about settlement building in the occupied territories, reaffirming that it is illegal and should be stopped.
    Mr. Gunnell: I am glad that the Minister takes that stance. Does he agree that the so-called settlement freeze underpins the declaration of principles? If the Minister agrees with the Foreign Secretary that the settlement policy poses a great problem to Mr. Rabin, does he also agree that it poses just as great a problem to Mr. Arafat? Will he redouble his efforts to have the entire EC press for a cessation in the expansion of the settlements because, without that, the peace process will not move forward?
    Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made our opposition to the settlement policy plain, and we regard it as an obstacle to the middle east peace process. We have taken every opportunity to say so, and we shall continue to do so.
    Mr. John Marshall: My right hon. and learned Friend will have heard my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary praise the flexibility of Mr. Rabin. Does he agree that it is most unfortunate that that flexibility is being rewarded both by the failure of the captors of Ron Arad to release him and by the fact that the Hamas-inspired guerillas continue to wage war on the people of Israel?
    Mr. Hogg: The Government, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in particular, have paid tribute to Prime Minister Rabin on many occasions. The steps which he has taken in committing the Israelis to the peace process are acts of courage of historic importance. I agree that other forces, to which my hon Friend referred, are working against that. In particular, the acts of violence—to which my hon. Friend also referred—are also serious obstacles to the peace process. It is vital that we do all that we can to persuade those responsible for those acts of violence to stop them. Furthermore, it is a serious disgrace that Ron Arad should he held—if he is still alive—and he should be released with all possible speed.
    Sir David Steel: A few minutes ago the Foreign Secretary made an oblique reference to the disappointing quality of the new administration in Jericho and Gaza. Does he recognise that the delay in holding elections is partly caused by the continued settlement programme? Will he confirm that the number of settlements has increased by nearly 10 per cent. since the Oslo agreement?
    Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is echoing the point made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I agree that the creation of additional settlements is an obstacle to peace. It makes it more difficult for the Palestinians to move forward. The principal obstacle to holding elections, however, is not so much the settlements but the Israelis' failure to redeploy their forces away from residential areas within the occupied territories. I would focus on that point. The right hon. Gentleman's broad point, however, is entirely sound.

    Middle East
    Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his European partners to discuss the middle east peace process.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We are in regular contact with our European partners about the middle east peace process, most recently at the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 January.
    Mr. Ross: Has the Minister had a chance to discuss with his European partners the blocking, losing and selling of equipment donated by the European Union to the emerging embryonic Palestinian authority in Gaza and the west bank, which is causing considerable problems there? I am sure that the Minister does not need me to remind him that six sewage trucks from the Paris municipality have been blocked in the port of Ashdod since October 1994; medical material from the European Union was lost in 1993; and two ambulances and two Land Rovers donated to the Nablus chamber of commerce have been blocked for the past six months.
    Much more important for this House, computers worth several hundred thousand francs, donated by the European Union but paid for by our Government, were eventually sold at auction by Israeli customs because of bills that had been run up by the deliberate failure to allow them to get out of the port of Ashdod. What will the Minister do about that? Will he get someone from the Tel Aviv embassy to go to the port of Ashdod to clear that backlog?
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of instances. I have not discussed those matters with my European colleagues. Although I have seen a large number of representatives of the Palestinian community in London, they have not raised those points with me. That is not to say that the points are not real and do not need to be dealt with. The hon. Gentleman has raised them and I shall have them looked at. If there is substance in what he said, we shall see what we can do to assist.

    Drug Trafficking
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last consulted his Colombian counterparts to discuss co-operation over control of drug trafficking.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last discussed co-operation to control drug trafficking with the Colombians when he met the Ministers of Finance, of Mines and Energy, and of Foreign Trade on 30 January.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My hon. Friend will acknowledge the excellent relations that exist between this country and Colombia. Will he join me in giving his whole-hearted support to any ventures to combat the evils of drug trafficking? To that end, when he meets Colombian Ministers later this year, will he strongly support the positive British input into the new police-army units that I have seen in Colombia, in which British expertise in security and technology plays such an important part?
    Mr. Baldry: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Clearly, tackling the drugs trade concerns us all. The
    1078
    Government of Colombia are committed to eradicating coca and opium cultivation throughout Colombia. We should not underestimate the scale of that task. We continue to support the Colombian Government in tackling the drugs trade. We have made available almost £13 million of assistance since 1989 and at present we are supporting a three-year programme of rural anti-narcotics training for the Colombian anti-narcotics police. Customs and Excise has been providing training for drug enforcement agencies. I am pleased to have my hon. Friend's endorsement of the work that we do there.
    Mr. Miller: Would it not be more helpful to the Colombians if we gave greater support to communities in this country? Should we not tell the Colombians that we shall strengthen our Customs and Excise and police activities, rather than, as is happening in my constituency, closing Customs and Excise operations, so that there is no longer a single police officer engaged in drugs traffic work?
    Mr. Baldry: It is important that we tackle demand as well as production as part of any international drugs strategy. That is why we have a substantial programme of domestic action to tackle drug misuse, which costs more than £500 million each year and includes vigorous law enforcement, education and prevention measures.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend agree that drug trafficking is one of the most horrific problems facing the world today? There are growing millions of drug addicts in America, in Europe and in the Commonwealth countries alone. The gross annual turnover from drug trafficking in some countries exceeds the gross domestic product of a country like the United Kingdom and many countries are politically totally in the hands of the drug mafia. We can deal with the problem only through urgent and intensive international co-operation. Will the Minister, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government, do everything possible to ensure that such co-operation occurs?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The drugs threat is a many-headed hydra. It is an international problem which requires an international response. All countries must encourage international co-operation to combat the threat, and that is why we take a leading role in the United Nations drug control programme.
    I am pleased to inform the House that we are the second largest contributor of funds to the programme. We also provide substantial amounts of development aid to other countries to allow them to play their part, as was illustrated in an earlier answer about Colombia. I agree with everything that my hon. and learned Friend has said and he can rest assured that the United Kingdom is determined to play a leading role in tackling international drug trafficking.

    Rwanda
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his Department's policy on Rwanda.
    Mr. Baldry: Our policy is to work with the international community and with the Rwandan and other regional Governments to encourage the return of refugees,

    1079
    to promote reconciliation between the parties, to rehabilitate Rwanda and to prevent a recurrence of the events of 1994 or a destabilisation of the region.
    Mrs. Roche: Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely essential that the criminals who were responsible for last April's campaign of genocide are brought to justice swiftly? Will he inform the House what his Department and the Government are doing to support the work of the international tribunal and to help the Government of Rwanda re-establish their own judicial system?
    Mr. Baldry: I agree that it is imperative that everyone who is involved in war crimes is brought to trial. That is why an international criminal tribunal for Rwanda was established by a United Nations Security Council resolution last November. The United Kingdom was a co-sponsor of that resolution and we are determined that the tribunal will bring to justice as many as possible of those who were responsible for war crimes.
    We shall contribute up to £200,000 to the tribunal in the form of personnel and equipment. It has established a prosecutor's office in Kigali and the question of how many suspects should be tried by the tribunal is a matter for the prosecutor.
    In addition to setting up the international criminal tribunal, the UN has drawn up a plan to reconstruct the Rwandan judicial system so as to re-establish a proper judicial mechanism to try any remaining suspects. That move has our support as well.
    Mr. Lester: While acknowledging that important work, will my hon. Friend also consider the principal problem of a lack of infrastructure in organising the return to Rwanda of those people who fled the country? Many non-governmental organisations are seeking to work in that country but there is little infrastructure in Kigali to assist them. Will the Minister look at that critical element in the context of our generous aid programme to Rwanda?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Of course, to build up the infrastructure it has been necessary for the international community to commit large amounts of humanitarian aid to Rwanda. Last year, we committed more than £60 million worth of aid to the relief effort. We recently announced a further £2 million for immediate rehabilitation needs in the country—the sort of infrastructure needs to which my hon. Friend referred. I can today inform the House that Britain is contributing another £4 million to Rwanda in response to the United Nations' most recent appeal.
    Mr. Worthington: The major problem at the moment is instability in the camps in Zaire. I view with foreboding the fact that the contract to police the militia who are now running the camps there has been allocated to the army of Zaire. When will it dawn on the permanent members of the Security Council, especially Britain and France, that unless they are willing to provide the logistical support necessary to back up UN operations, there will be another Rwandan tragedy in the coming year because we have neglected the situation now?
    Mr. Baldry: We take seriously the matter of security in the refugee camps; clearly there is a need to find an answer to the security problems there. The way forward
    1080
    must lie in co-operation between the host Governments and the UN. The Secretary-General has asked the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to make appropriate arrangements to enhance security in the camps. We look forward to studying the proposed arrangements and to considering, with the UNHCR, how best we can assist in implementing them. We shall certainly give our fullest possible support to the High Commissioner and to the Secretary-General in that difficult task.

    European Union
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet his counterparts in the European Union to discuss greater political union.
    Mr. Hurd: I have regular discussions on those matters with my European Union counterparts at meetings of the General Affairs Council. The next meeting of the General Affairs Council is scheduled for 6 and 7 February.
    Sir David Knox: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a speech made by Ray Seitz last year, shortly before he ceased to be the American ambassador to Britain, in which he stated that British influence in the United States depended on the degree to which we were effectively engaged in the European Union? Has the Foreign Office fully taken that advice into account, coming as it does from a very good friend of this country who has its best interests at heart?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, I remember the speech—it was a good one. We certainly believe, as the Prime Minister said at Leiden, that we need to strengthen the European Union, of which we are a part. Of particular interest to the United States are defence, on which I have already answered one question, and about which the Secretary of State for Defence has also just made a speech, and foreign policy. We believe that we are only at the beginning of effective co-operation between Europeans, under the framework of the treaty of Maastricht intergovernmental co-operation. We believe, as the Prime Minister also said at Leiden, that we should be more ambitious under this heading.
    Mr. Hoon: Does the Foreign Secretary believe that the deep divisions in the Conservative party on European questions are a help or a hindrance to him in best representing Britain's interests in negotiations with our European partners?
    Mr. Hurd: They are certainly a help, if they are quickly resolved on the basis of commonsense policies—as they will be.
    Mr. Key: Has my right hon. Friend made representations to ensure the appointment of Sir Leon Brittan as vice-president of the Commission?
    Mr. Hurd: No, I have made no representations. They would not have been right or necessary. He was elected a vice-president of the European Commission this morning—I gather with a hefty majority. I am sure that the whole House would like to congratulate him.

    Lithuania
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals he has to improve relations between the United Kingdom and Lithuania.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We already have close and friendly relations with Lithuania based on our strong support for her independence, democratic and economic development and integration into European structures. There have been several high-level visits in both directions over the last year, and trade is increasing.
    Mr. Flynn: Rather than concentrate our technical aid for Lithuania on the Chernobyl-type nuclear reactors at Ignalina, would it not be better to concentrate the aid on a sustainable source of energy? Some 40 per cent. of Lithuania is covered by forests, so should we not encourage coppicing and other non-food farm production which would produce a source of energy but which is sustainable, environmentally friendly, inexhaustible, and Lithuanian?
    Mr. Hogg: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has really faced the enormity of the problem. As Ignalina supplies 90 per cent. of Lithuania's energy needs, closing the reactor, or finding different sources of energy, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is not an easy decision. We have focused most of our assistance through the nuclear safety account. I suggest that that is the best way forward.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we should be responding to what Lithuania wants from us rather than trying to impose upon it what the west believes is good for it? I think that Lithuania probably became fed up with the Soviet Union doing that in the past. Has Lithuania been asking for more advice on how to privatise its industries and to bring free enterprise and an open market into its economy?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When we are trying to decide what projects we wish to support in a particular country, it is extremely important to have regard to that country's list of priorities.
    The answer to the specific part of my hon. Friend's question is yes. The Government of Lithuania are extremely anxious to pursue a restructuring and privatisation policy. Lithuania, like most of the other countries of central and eastern Europe in the former Soviet Union, looks to Britain as having special expertise in this policy.

    World Summit for Social Development
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the nature of the United Kingdom representation at the world summit for social development.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: A final decision on attendance at the summit will be taken nearer the date.
    Mr. Denham: Is it true that the United Kingdom will not be one of the 94 countries to be represented at the summit by the Head of Government or head of state? Is it not a sad fact that a few years ago this country would have been regarded as a world leader at conferences dealing with international co-operation and development?
    1082
    We now appear to have no one worth sending and nothing worth saying when talking about poverty, whether at home or abroad.
    Mr. Hogg: I cannot help feeling that the hon. Gentleman is trivialising the question. As I have said, it is our intention to determine the level of representation nearer the time. We shall do that against a background, first, of what it is reasonable to expect to come out of the conference and, secondly, of the level of representation that may be determined upon by other participating countries.

    Zimbabwe
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the President of Zimbabwe to discuss bilateral relations.
    Mr. Baldry: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met President Mugabe in May and in November last year. There are at present no plans for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to do so.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the transition of Zimbabwe to independence has been a huge success and that the country's stability is encouraging investment? Does he agree also that there are great opportunities for British firms in Zimbabwe?
    To sound a note of caution, however, does my hon. Friend agree that the Zimbabwean Government must adhere to the rule of law at all times, and above all not compulsorily purchase farms without proper compensation?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is right. Since independence, Zimbabwe has set an example of what can be achieved by promoting reconciliation. Indeed, it has shown what can be achieved in Africa. President Mugabe has abandoned the policy of a one-party state for one of multi-party democracy, thereby liberalising the economy. That has led to greater investment in Zimbabwe. There are more than 400 companies with British connections and a book value of British investment of about £400 million. I am glad to say that Zimbabwe is well on the way to economic recovery and sustainable growth.

    Grozny
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to offer his services as an intermediary in the conflict in Grozny; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe is already trying to help Russia find a solution to the tragic conflict in Chechnya. We have made clear our full support for its efforts, and encouraged the Russian authorities to offer their full co-operation. A senior British official is a member of the OSCE team which has just visited Moscow and Chechnya.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the situation in Grozny and Chechnya poses serious danger to peace in Europe and

    1083
    the rest of the world, not to mention the hideous suffering there? If it is possible for the United Kingdom to play a stronger role, will he seek to ensure that it does?
    Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already conveyed our anxieties very clearly to President Yeltsin, as we have through the Foreign Affairs Council, but we shall certainly do our best, through the European Union and direct, and now through the OSCE, which has managed to get admission into Chechnya, on the humanitarian, human rights and the political side.
    Mr. Gapes: Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the people behind weak President Yeltsin that, if there is any move towards an authoritarian or quasi-military regime in Russia, it will have serious political and economic consequences, and that we do not believe that we can keep good relations with a country that moves towards dictatorship?
    Mr. Hurd: As I said earlier to the House, our genuine support for Russia is for a reforming Russia rather than for any group of personalities. The test is the continuance of reform.

Northern Ireland (Framework Document)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): With permission, I will make a statement concerning the lead story in The Times today. First, the background.
The House knows that, for a considerable time, Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government have been engaged in discussing a joint framework document. It has long been recognised in Northern Ireland and further afield that political progress can be achieved only by dialogue and agreement among all who are properly concerned. The purpose of the two Governments has therefore been to help the main constitutional parties get into inclusive political talks again.
How? In two ways: first, by offering the British Government's own suggestions for new democratic arrangements for the internal government of Northern Ireland; and, secondly, by jointly offering the parties, as we were requested to do, the two Governments' shared ideas about a possible basis for the other parts of a comprehensive political settlement. We are seeking a basis that might have the best chance of getting the wide support that will be needed in Northern Ireland, so that further talks will be seen to be worth while.
That document, if we could agree it, would simply be offered to the Northern Ireland parties, not as some blueprint to be imposed—time and again, we have made that clear—but for the parties to examine it. They could accept it; they could reject it; they could amend it; they could adapt it. But at least we would hope that they would sit down again together and discuss the issues in it. That has been our purpose. It remains our purpose. Far from imposing it, the Prime Minister made it clear that, once agreed, it will be immediately published, so that not only the parties but all the people of Northern Ireland can consider it.
If, as we hope, the parties resume discussions and reach the wide agreement that would be necessary, the people of Northern Ireland will have their direct and decisive say on the outcome. Any agreement that the parties may come to must be put to them in a referendum—for them to show whether they agree or not.
Lastly, it goes without saying that the consent of Parliament would be required. That is the triple lock—parties, people, Parliament—the triple lock against imposition upon the people of Northern Ireland that the Prime Minister has so often spoken of.
We have not yet reached agreement on a framework document to the parties. Last Thursday, Mr. Spring and I met in London, and afterwards we both said that work on important matters remained to be done. That is still the position.
Both Governments hope, and earnestly hope, that we can reach agreement, but consent will be the key, and the Prime Minister has made it clear that, because consent would be absent, we could not, for example, propose arrangements providing for joint authority over Northern Ireland—that is to say, the British and Irish Governments jointly running the affairs of Northern Ireland over the heads of its people. Nor, for the same reason, could we agree to propose any north-south body that was autonomous. A body accountable to a Northern Ireland
1086
elected assembly, which would delegate authority to those of its members discharging its functions, is a different matter.
Such a body, empowered in that way and accountable to the assembly, making common cause north and south in areas of common interest and mutual benefit, might well secure consent. Similarly, we have always made it clear that for the same reason there would be no point in advancing proposals that left the Irish territorial claim to Northern Ireland in place.
These are matters of the greatest sensitivity and difficulty—even danger—in an area where fears and suspicions very understandably abound on all sides. An enormous amount potentially turns on them.
In today's Times story, I recognise a few phrases lifted, highly selectively, from a lengthy negotiating text which has been employed in the discussions with the Irish Government, but on which the Governments have not agreed. I do not, however, recognise the conclusions that the author draws from those phrases. For example, the story leads with an assertion that the British and Irish Governments have drawn up a document that brings the prospect of a united Ireland closer than it has been at any time since partition in 1920. That is simply not true.
What is true is that the future of Northern Ireland is declared by both Governments in the Downing street declaration to lie in the hands of the people who live there. That is where it rests, and that is where it will stay. The two Governments constantly reiterate that principle of democracy; it has been the foundation of our resolute opposition to 25 years of violence—now ended, we trust, for good.
I must not be drawn into premature publication of a document in the negotiations which has not been agreed by the Governments in reaction to distorting leaks calculated to destabilise and destroy an immensely sensitive process. That process is too important for the people of Northern Ireland to be further damaged in such a way. When, and only when, an entire package of proposals is published conforming to the principles by which we stand can parties, people and Parliament judge its true worth.
Ms Marjorie Mowlam: The Secretary of State will know that, throughout the peace process, we have given our full support to the Government's endeavours. That peace process may at times seem fragile, but it still represents the best hope that the people of Northern Ireland have had in a generation during which they have experienced little more than division and suffering. Any help that we can give to allow the process to continue, honourably and sensibly, we will give.
Whenever a document is selectively leaked, there is a risk that the impression given by the manner of its leaking will be far worse than its actual contents. I therefore urge all parties to wait and to study what is actually being proposed, rather than selective interpretations of it. The Secretary of State will know of the work that we have been doing, and of our proposals for jobs, industry and investment in Northern Ireland. Can there be any doubt today that much of the new-found economic hope there will falter if the peace process does not continue?
Let me ask the Secretary of State three direct questions. First, will he assure the House that the British Government will redouble their efforts, along with the Irish Government, to produce a framework document as

1087
speedily as possible? He indicated in his statement that that would happen, but will he act in a way that will guarantee that no party, and no Conservative Back Bencher, will be allowed a veto on what is to be discussed?
Secondly, will the Secretary of State assure the House that any framework document that is published will respond fairly to both traditions in Northern Ireland, and that the consent of the majority there will be the guarantee of a balanced constitutional settlement? Thirdly, the Secretary of State said in his statement that the accountability of the north-south body would be to an elected assembly in Northern Ireland and to the Dublin Government. What mechanisms will be put in place to underpin such an arrangement?
Finally, I know that the Secretary of State will agree that, for this process to carry on succeeding, we all need to be open and honest in our dealings, and that the language he uses and the commitments he makes must be the same to all parties. The good will on all sides must be matched by good faith.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I begin by expressing my gratitude to the hon. Lady for what she said and for supporting the peace process both in the past and promised for the future. Secondly, I endorse her remarks about selective leaking, particularly of highly sensitive documents that deal with a subject and a process of this delicacy and importance.
The hon. Lady asked three questions, the first of which was, would the British Government redouble their efforts? We are working as hard as we can with the Irish Government, and have been for a long time, to reach a shared understanding of the character that I have described. But there must be adherence to the principles that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has described, of which I have just reminded the House. That is fundamental.
Secondly, the hon. Lady asked whether I could give an assurance that the joint framework document, if we agree it, will propose arrangements that will deal fairly with both traditions. Of course that is essential. I repeat what I said earlier: that it is absolutely essential that any proposals by the two Governments shall represent the basis for an agreement, an overall accommodation, that has the best prospects of getting wide consent and support right across that divided community. It would be futile if it were otherwise.
The hon. Lady asked what mechanisms there might be. I must not be drawn on that third question into discussing what may be in an ultimate document that would be agreed. It is important to bear in mind the principle, which has always been emphasised by my right hon. Friend, that Her Majesty's Government exercise responsibility for Northern Ireland and for events there. That will always continue to be the case.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State recall that, on the first day of December, I was informed that a framework document did not exist? Why were we being told by the Northern Ireland Office only last evening that the Times report is based on a document of 25 November, a week before that statement was made to me?
1088
Secondly, why were the Ulster political representatives denied the opportunity to at least inject some degree of common sense and realism into the thinking of an obscure liaison group consisting of British and Irish civil servants who are not terribly interested in the fate of political parties or Governments?
Thirdly, there have been disclosures. I use the plural because there have been leaks and disclosures over a period of weeks, so it is not just last evening's operation. Over those weeks, they have made irrelevant the post-publication consultations which we were promised, and have thereby wrecked the framework concept.
Will the Secretary of State now heed the advice that I have offered on several occasions and initiate discussions with representatives of the four main constitutional parties on how, first, we clear away the debris and, secondly, start building on structures based on democratic principles?
Finally, what did the Secretary of State mean by the phrase in his statement which reads:
"we hope … the parties resume discussions".
All the Northern Ireland parties have been effectively excluded from discussions on the framework document.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have always said to the right hon. Gentleman that there is no agreement on a framework document. That was so on 1 December, and it is so today. I do not propose to breach the confidentiality of discussions that have taken place between his nominees and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, or, indeed, between the right hon. Gentleman and me. He has known that we have always made it clear that we have been negotiating with the Irish Government to see whether we can together agree a document of the character that I have described today. Equally, I have always said that no agreement has been reached. To that extent, there is no framework document. It is agreement on that that we have been seeking.
Secondly, I think that I have largely dealt with the right hon. Gentleman's second question. Over a long time, and particularly through my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, we have been in discussions with the right hon. Gentleman's representatives in his party, and we attach the greatest importance to what he has had to say.
Why? Because, among other reasons but predominantly, it is essential that we should find a means of providing a base for new discussions that will carry wide consent right across the communities. It is no good coming forward with things that will not provide wide consent.
I am afraid that I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman—I am glad that I do not agree with him—in the third part of his question, when he refers to wrecking the framework concept. I do not follow him when he says that. It is important that Her Majesty's Government and the Irish Government continue to seek that basis for agreement that I have described. We shall continue to do so.
It is important that I continue to listen to everything that the right hon. Gentleman says, particularly when it relates, in the last part of his question, to democratic principles because, in the joint declaration, democratic

1089
principles are said by both Governments to underpin the future of Northern Ireland and, in particular, its constitutional status.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The fact that the statement has been made to the House today, and that the Prime Minister will address the nation tonight, proves that the content of the document is not to be challenged. Let us make that perfectly clear. The Secretary of State, in a broadcast and in his speech today in the House, has made it clear that it was the conclusions that people were drawing that he was challenging, not the content.
Having established the content, and having listened to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), and to what he said in a broadcast at lunchtime—that his party, which had taken part in the Ancram talks, had been sidelined and excluded—I put it to the Secretary of State: how does he think that this particular document will be a basis for any discussion, let alone agreement?
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to talk about democracy, but the statement in the document makes it clear that the chairmen of committees in any new assembly can hold office only if they are a party to an all-Ireland body that takes power away from the House. It makes it a body that negotiates all European matters, including Commission proposals and initiatives. We know that power is going to Europe. Any power that I have as an elected representative from Northern Ireland will be completely taken away if an all-Ireland body deals with those European matters.
The document is an insult to the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. It bears out what I have been saying consistently in all this controversy. The Secretary of State cannot expect any self-respecting Unionist to sit down at a table if that is going to be on the agenda. That is the price he is paying to get a deal with Gerry Adams, the IRA and Dublin.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: At the end of his statement, the hon. Gentleman reverts to a familiar line of his—that there has been a deal with Gerry Adams and the IRA. I reiterate that there is no such deal.
The hon. Gentleman says at the outset that the content is not challenged, but he cannot have listened when I said that what I have seen in The Times newspaper are a few selectively lifted phrases from a very long document that has been used in the negotiations and that has not been agreed. Therefore, the first part of his assertion—if I may put it that way—is not sustained by the facts.
The hon. Gentleman effectively said that the concept of a framework document is destroyed and that there is no future life in what has been negotiated or discussed between the two Governments. I do not agree with that, for the reasons that I have already given to the House.
I do not accept that, in European matters, it is proposed that all power should be taken from the House, and that everything should be transferred to some north-south body. I reiterate to the hon. Gentleman and the House that absolutely nothing will come forward for the approval of the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum unless and until it has the broad and wide agreement of the political parties, which will include that of the hon. Gentleman.
1090
That has to be taken into account. Consent is the foundation of everything that the two Governments are seeking to put to the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Secretary of State will recognise that the press leak shows that a fairly cynical political game is being played. It is also a very deadly game, because what is at stake is the peace that has been painstakingly created in Northern Ireland, not least by the Prime Minister.
Could the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that the peace process will not be derailed, either through threat of force of arms in Northern Ireland or threat of electoral strength in the House? Will he also confirm that it will be underpinned by the principle of consent as enunciated in the Downing street declaration, and that that principle of consent demands responsibilities from everyone in the north of Ireland if anything is going to work?
Does the Secretary of State recognise that we all have vetoes, and that if we all use them, there will not be a solution to our problem? Does he also agree that, if we are ever to solve the problem, it will be on the basis of consensus and agreement, and that threats of whatever type, be they voting threats or threats of arms, have no place in the seeking of agreement or consent?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there must be no derailment of the peace process. It offers the people of Northern Ireland the best prospect of a permanent end to violence and a permanent end to the instability that has plagued them for generations. It must be preserved. It must be preserved on the basis of all proper principles being observed. I am aware of no party in the House or elsewhere that wishes to see that process derailed.
Selective leaking of documents in the peace process and political process is doubtless calculated to secure its derailment. It is incumbent upon each and every one of us to see that that stratagem does not succeed. When the hon. Gentleman spoke about the principle of consent, he reiterated something that I mentioned a few moments ago. It is the very foundation of everything that we are seeking to achieve, and anything else would be a foundation of sand.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: If the framework document imposes nothing and its purpose is to generate debate, and if any agreement that may be reached will be tested by a referendum, will my right hon. and learned Friend do all he can to reassure those who are understandably shaken by the scandalous irresponsibility of The Times in printing extracts from a leaked document'?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with what he said. It imposes nothing. If the document is agreed, it will be offered to the parties for them to consider. It will not be imposed upon them. How could it be, given the basis of consent? My hon. Friend is right. I recognise the damage to confidence that has been done, and doubtless was intended to be done. I take on hoard what my hon. Friend said.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Secretary of State agree that selective leaks are usually designed to induce a reaction, but that that reaction must not be allowed to deprive the people of Northern Ireland

1091
of their opportunity to consider proposals that have been properly worked out and to exercise their vote on them in an atmosphere of peace?
When does the right hon. and learned Gentleman hope to add to that process by bringing forward the Government's own proposals for the elected assembly in Northern Ireland, which will come directly from the British Government? Will he bear it in mind that, whatever vagaries of arithmetic may affect the Government's consideration of matters outside Northern Ireland, he has for the continuance of the peace process and the delicate task on which he has embarked a substantial majority in the House?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said at the conclusion of his question. Of course, a reaction is intended by those who indulge in what I regard as the malicious and irresponsible strategy that we are discussing. It is very important that we continue—as I have assured the House we will—to seek with the Irish Government a basis for an understanding of the kind that I have described. I intend to continue to do that, and so, I know, does Mr. Spring. I believe that the whole House wishes us to do that.
The right hon. Gentleman asks when the British Government will come forward, as they have promised, with their own suggestions for the internal arrangements for the restoration of democratic responsibilities within Northern Ireland. The answer is that we would publish our proposals at exactly the same time as the joint proposals of the Governments would be published once agreement was reached, so that the entire package, something scarcely referred to in the story with which we are dealing, can be seen—the old strands 1, 2 and 3 of the talks process—and so that the people of Northern Ireland and the political parties can make an informed and balanced judgment of their worth.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. and learned Friend will agree that these are serious issues, as evidenced by the deaths of Tony Berry, Ian Gow, Robert Bradford and Airey Neave, who were among the thousands who died to stand up for democracy against use of violence. Does he also agree that some informed speculation would be welcome in The Times tomorrow as to who might have provided the newspaper with the partial information and why those involved would want it published? I do not mean to involve the newspaper but those who provided the information.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if those involved had given as much attention to what he has called the triple lock, it might have been easier for people to understand their motives?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The triple lock seems to me to be the key to confidence here, and I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has constantly reiterated the triple lock of people, parties and Parliament. That is what is meant by democracy. That is what we point to when we assert that we wish to impose, or seek to impose, nothing but simply to bring forward proposals—not something set in concrete when a declaration or agreement is signed between Governments, but simply proposals for people to look at.
1092
As for speculation about who was responsible for the matter that we are discussing, that will take place without any encouragement from us.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Irish Government have come a considerable way to meet Unionist demands by virtually agreeing to the repeal or amendment of articles 2 and 3, and that any decision taken by the proposed new north-south body should be subject to the approval of both sides? Does he agree that the peace process is far too important an issue to be put at risk by threats of blackmail from any quarter or the Government's desire for Unionist votes for their own survival?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not think that questions or suggestions of blackmail and the like are particularly helpful when one is discussing the operation of the democratic process. That is the same as describing it as a "veto"—someone's view that happens to be the majority view is someone else's veto, or is regarded as such. That is not a helpful way of looking at an extremely important process in which we have been engaged for a long time.
We have been engaged in that process for a long time only because we have been asked to do so to help the parties find a way in which to take the risks inherent and get back round the table. Tempting though it is to follow the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) into a discussion of things that may have been on the agenda, and undoubtedly have been on the agenda, I shall not do so, for the very good reason that it would impede and hinder the resumption of this process, which has been undoubtedly damaged by what we are discussing this afternoon. I have to mitigate that damage.
Mr. Tony Marlow: The Times made the irresponsible allegation that Her Majesty's Government were absolutely neutral as to whether Northern Ireland remained part of the United Kingdom or became part of a united Ireland. Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this early opportunity to deny that accusation unambiguously?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Government have made their position perfectly clear about that. The maintenance of the position of Northern Ireland in the union is supported by a large majority of people living there. It looks as though it will continue to be supported by a majority of people living there for a very long time. The Prime Minister and I and others have indicated our personal pleasure that that is the case.
But what matters is the will of people living there. We are persuaders for agreement. We want to persuade the people of Northern Ireland to reach agreement on their future. I find it impossible to visualise anything on which they together, freely and without impediment, agree that the British Government would wish to stymie.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that nothing that has happened in the past 24 hours will cause the Government to resile from an approach which can assist the achievement of peace in Northern Ireland, and which almost certainly has the support of an overwhelming majority of right hon. and hon. Members of the House?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also assure the House that, while we must all respect, as I certainly do, the rights of all right hon. and hon. Members, whether

1093
from Great Britain or from Northern Ireland, to advance their views and protect their point of view, taking into account the safeguards that he has described to the House, there is no group of persons in the House who can prevent the Government from putting forward, when they publish their proposals, proposals which they believe will advance the prospect of peace in Ireland as a whole?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I certainly agree that there is no body of people in the country or in the House who can prevent the Government from doing what they consider right and prudent. I have made it clear that what is required is a solution that will carry the broad consent of the people right across Northern Ireland. I have made it clear that certain principles must be abided by—those which I have indicated today and which the Prime Minister has, from time to time, quite frequently, spelled out.
Those principles mean that we cannot propose things which will not carry the consent of the character that I have described. That is what it is about. It is no good looking for proposals which will not carry broad consent across the community. We will do our best to bring forward proposals that meet the principles that I have described and which will have a real prospect of helping the parties sit down and discuss these extremely important issues once again.
Mr. Barry Porter: While I join the general condemnation of The Times for printing bits of the document, I wonder who can produce this document, because the proposals that have been printed, self-evidently, will never be acceptable to those who represent the majority of opinion in Ulster, hon. Members on Opposition and Government Benches and, indeed, on the mainland. Who produced this document? Why was it produced in these circumstances? While I accept and welcome the view of the Secretary of State and of the Prime Minister that, in the end, the view of the majority in Ulster will prevail, why was the document ever produced in the first place?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have done my best to explain to the House why we are in that lengthy business of seeking to establish a framework document. It is because we were asked to do so to assist the parties in getting round the table again. As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I would with great respect invite him to wait until such time, if it arrives, as a document is agreed and is immediately published. Then, and then alone, will he be able to see its true meaning, balance and intention.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State will be aware that the constitutional nationalist parties from elsewhere in the United Kingdom have supported, and continue to offer support to, the Government in their attempt to ensure that a definitive peace is reached in Northern Ireland and throughout the whole of Ireland. In that spirit, may I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that the Government are in no way deflected from the courageous course on which they have embarked, and that they will not sacrifice tomorrow's lasting peace because of today's headlines?
1094
Will he also assure us that the Government are well down the road to ensuring that a framework document will be available to all of us which can be debated openly and freely by elected Members of this place?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: Of course we shall not be deflected from the search which I have described, and which I will not describe again. It is far too important for the lives and welfare of so many people in Northern Ireland, and more widely, for us to do that.
As soon as agreement is reached—if it is reached—there will be immediate publication, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised as long ago as last October, so that the people of Northern Ireland in particular, and people everywhere else, can consider the document. That will be the time for the parties to consider whether it is sufficient to get them around the table, and whether they wish to examine carefully the issues that it contains.
Mr. David Howell: Has my right hon. and learned Friend looked carefully at the cross-border bodies and all-Ireland arrangements that existed under the Unionist Government before 1972 and the fall of Stormont? If he has not, will he study them very carefully when he prepares his framework document? I believe that he may find them helpful.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Some time ago, I drew attention in several speeches in Northern Ireland to the fact that the principle is not new. Under the Stormont regime, there was at least one example—and I believe that there are more—of bodies which were put in place and were supported in order to make common cause in areas where there was a common interest. That was done without the slightest intention of diminishing sovereignty or impinging upon it. It was seen to make sense and to work.
If that approach is available in future, and it is supported by the parties and by the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum, I cannot think of a point of principle that should lead the British Government to say, "No, we are not going to do it."
Mr. William Ross: The Secretary of State told the House in his statement that he recognised some of the phrases published in The Times. Surely he should be more explicit and admit that he recognises every syllable in The Times as, later in his statement, he said that it was but part of a very long negotiating document. As that is so, will he also tell us whether the bits that have been published in The Times are those items which are still in contention between himself and Mr. Spring, and what exactly he has already agreed to?
Surely what is printed in The Times are the demands of the Irish Government which would lead inevitably to an all-Ireland republic, and well the Secretary of State knows that. Is it not clear, even to this Secretary of State, that the whole process of the framework is now so tainted and damaged that anything that emerges labelled "framework document" will immediately and inevitably be rejected by the Unionist population, because they will see it not as a framework but as a cage designed to limit their freedom

1095
of movement so as to create an all-Ireland republic? Will the Government therefore take some good advice today, change course and seek another way forward?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: If it were the Government's intention in the negotiations that they have been carrying on to lead the people of Northern Ireland to an all-Ireland republic, we would indeed change course. However, I am not going to recommend that any course be changed, because that has not been our purpose. The hon. Gentleman should know that, because he has been told it often enough, together with all hon. Members.
It is not the purpose of the British Government to lead to a united Ireland, for the very good reason that it would not stand a dog's chance of receiving the consent that would be essential. The hon. Gentleman knows that. If I have not made it clear before, I make it clear yet again now. However, I have made it clear.
I am not going to be led into the premature publication of a document, and I am not going to say what is tentatively and contingently agreed and what is not agreed. Nothing in that document has received the consent of Her Majesty's Government. It remains to be agreed as a document. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman.
Sir George Gardiner: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that certain lessons can be drawn from the events of the past 24 hours? They are, first, just how uncertain is the path to peace in Northern Ireland; secondly, that nothing can—I repeat, can—be done to impose a particular solution upon the people of Northern Ireland; and, thirdly, that perhaps a little more openness is called for on what is happening in the tortuous negotiations, if only to avoid misunderstanding in future.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. Of course the path to peace is uncertain. I do not think that we should have had a conflict of the horror and length that has disfigured Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom based upon Irish problems, for so long if it were otherwise. We must recognise that such things will happen, and that some extremely malign forces are at work and will make themselves felt from time to time, but we are not going to be deflected from our search.
Nothing can be done or will be done to impose a solution on the people of Northern Ireland. It would be idle to suppose that the United Kingdom Government can impose upon the people of Northern Ireland anything against their will. The history of Ireland, England and of the United Kingdom as a whole has been such as to make that abundantly clear. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made that clear. Even more important than that, both Governments—the Irish Government as well—made that clear in the Downing street declaration last year. It is idle to suppose that anything else would work. That is the case.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend about being more open and so on. It is very important to be open about the principles which will govern one's negotiations. It is absolutely impossible to be open at every stage that one has reached in continuing negotiations. That is the balance that we have to strike.
Mr. Roger Stott: The Secretary of State said that this is a sensitive time. I agree with him. The selective
1096
leaking of the document is irresponsible and damaging. I share the view of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter)—it was disgraceful.
I recall that it was the Government's hope and intention to publish the framework documents some time last year. Obviously, with the Irish Government's difficulties at the end of December, the timetable slipped. Clearly it is important, if there is not to be the start of a vacuum in Northern Ireland, for the Government to produce the framework documents as quickly as possible. When will the Secretary of State be able to do just that?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the importance of maintaining a momentum and not allowing a vacuum to develop. That is very important. I cannot tell him when or if agreement is going to be reached. As I indicated a little time ago, both Mr. Spring and I said at the end of our meeting on Thursday that work of an important kind had to be done. That remains the case.
Of course we want to see an early agreement so that there is early publication, the matter is out in the open, and we can carry it forward, but that does not rest with us alone. It would be wrong to put that ahead of the need to ensure that the principles that the Prime Minister has outlined so frequently are fulfilled.
Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that there is no question of any proposals or policies relating to Northern Ireland being established or constructed under a constitutional regional or all-Ireland framework within the legal aegis of the European Union?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: Yes. The British Government have to remain loyal to their obligations, and they have to continue to assert their rights under the treaties. That will be the case, and my hon. Friend need not fear that which he set out in his question.
Similarly, it seems to make some sense if a local application of European policies—if they carry the wishes and consent of the people and parties—were to be put in place. I cannot go any further than that.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Is it not unfair of the Secretary of State to criticise The Times for bringing to the attention of the British public what the Government have been doing behind the scenes, when similar leaks appeared the previous week in Dublin newspapers? This morning, the Secretary of State said that we should all remain quiet and calm. Does he recognise that we are pleased that, within a few hours, he rejected his own advice, and decided to come before the House to make a statement, and that we are also pleased that the Prime Minister recognised the seriousness of the situation and has now decided to broadcast to the nation?
The Secretary of State referred to all-Ireland bodies with executive powers, and not simply to cross-border bodies created by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Does he recognise the distinction between those two institutions? Does he know that the Ulster Unionists support cross-border bodies with executive powers, founded and created by a democratically elected Assembly in Northern Ireland, but that we oppose all-Ireland institutions being imposed upon us?

1097
Does he recognise that peace in Northern Ireland does not just depend on having Sinn Fein on board, but on the majority of people of Northern Ireland, of which the Ulster Unionist party is a leading factor, being on board?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hope that I have made it clear that I regard it as essential that any proposal that is put forward is likely to carry the consent of the broad majority of people in Northern Ireland. That is fundamental.
The right hon. Gentleman says that I have been critical of The Times, and that I should be equally critical of other newspapers. I am critical of those who originate a leak with a purpose which, I believe, is absolutely self-evident. It is not really for me to comment on journalistic practice, and I shall not do so. The right hon. Gentleman should be concerned about those who, for mischievous and destructive purposes, make leaks of this character, and I deplore the use of selective and distorting extracts.
The right hon. Gentleman reminds me that today I said that I thought that the people of Northern Ireland would welcome some steadiness and calm. I know that that can sound irritating or condescending, but I not intend it to be in the slightest. I hope that the people will listen to what is said by the Government, what has been said by the Prime Minister, what will be said by him tonight and what I have said this afternoon, and that they will wait until such time as a document is published and offered to the parties.
We do not seek to impose a document. I find it odd to he criticised for being other than calm when I have come before the House to explain what the Government have been doing and our response to the leak as I have tried to do this afternoon.
Rev. William McCrea: Once again, the House has been told to wait for the publication of a document. I remember a previous matter—the Anglo-Irish Agreement—when the House was told likewise. Yet last week, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic met a representative of murderers, Gerry Adams, and we were told after that meeting that they discussed matters relating to the framework document. We were also told that other meetings would be held with the SDLP to discuss matters relating to the framework document. Interestingly enough, Unionists once again must await the final issuing of a document before gaining any knowledge of its contents. It reeks of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
Hon. Members talk about The Times being scandalously irresponsible. Surely it is those who drew up such proposals, which do not stand a "dog's chance" of succeeding, who ought to be condemned. If they are civil servants, surely the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland must carry the final responsibility for their actions.
Lastly, as the Prime Minister has consistently come out fighting for England, Scotland and Wales to remain a vital part of the United Kingdom and said that the Government could not countenance a diminution of that union in any shape or form, why do not the Government state unequivocally today that they desire Northern Ireland and would not countenance a change in its position as an
1098
integral part of the United Kingdom? That would certainly assist, but I am sure that we shall wait a long time before we get such a statement.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall not play the game of hiding behind civil servants. I recognise the strength of feeling with which the hon. Gentleman speaks, and I know of the appalling experience that he and his family underwent when his home was attacked last year. But I shall not play his game of saying that all this is down to civil servants. I wish to make it perfectly clear that negotiations that have taken place over a long time have been under ministerial direction.
The hon. Gentleman says that the Irish Prime Minister has discussed with others matters relating to the framework document. We have discussed over a long period matters relating to the framework document with representatives of political parties in this House. That was right, and we shall continue to do so. We have not felt it right, however, to disclose in mid-negotiation the precise text which we are in the course of negotiating, because that is not how future negotiation would prosper.
Lastly, the hon. Gentleman asked why we do not say in Northern Ireland what we say in Scotland. That is exactly what the Prime Minister has said. In Scotland, he said that one cannot keep a nation within a union against its will, and precisely the same argument applies in Northern Ireland. I suggest that the sensible thing to do is say that whatever appeals to and is demanded by the majority of people living in Northern Ireland must determine what happens there. That is what not just the British Government but the Irish Government have said.
Dr. Joe Hendron: Does the Secretary of State accept that, because of the leak in The Times today, the necessity for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make a statement to the House this afternoon, and the fact that the Prime Minister will address the nation later this evening, there is bound to be disquiet and apprehension in both communities in Northern Ireland?
Does he therefore agree that it is important that politicians on both sides—not just in the House but from both communities in the north of Ireland—exercise restraint and absolute responsibility? Will he further state, as he did before, that, no matter what is in the final framework document, the principles as expressed in the Downing Street declaration will continue to be the political bible for the people of Northern Ireland?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I got into trouble this afternoon for suggesting that there should be calm and steadiness, so I shall allow the hon. Gentleman's words to speak for themselves. It is important that people should encourage agreement, if that can be reached. Nothing will work in a Northern Ireland with the character that we describe unless it is based on consent and agreement. It is because we are so determined to do all that can properly he done to prevent a recurrence of the violence that has disfigured Northern Ireland for so long that we shall not he deflected from our course of trying to secure the agreement that I described by the events that we are discussing this afternoon.
Sir Nicholas Scott: My right hon. and learned Friend should recognise that he not only deserves but has the support of the vast majority of people in the House and the country for the work that he is putting into

1099
the enterprise to which he has set his hand. If that enterprise succeeds, it has the promise of lifting from the backs of the people of Northern Ireland the burden of terrorism that they have borne for so long. I wish him well—I am sure that the House does—in the enterprise to which he has set his hand.
At the end of the day, the head, the hoof and the heart of that enterprise is consent by the people of Northern Ireland. The buck will stop there: they will have the right to say yea or nay to the outcome of my right hon. and learned Friend's undertaking. We all wish him well in his endeavours.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who served for so long in Northern Ireland. I appreciate what he has said, and I agree entirely with his comments about the paramount importance of consent.
Mr. David Trimble: Does the Secretary of State realise that the credibility of this morning's story in The Times is greatly enhanced by the fact that it is entirely consistent with the leaks that have emanated from the Irish Government in recent weeks? Does he realise that its credibility is also enhanced by the fact that his statement today contains nothing which is in any way inconsistent with what was said in the story? Furthermore, the story is corroborated by the statement that his hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made during the most recent Northern Ireland questions.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman further agree that it is totally disingenuous to say that there will be no joint authority when it is proposed that legislation from Westminster will go over the heads of the Northern Ireland assembly to set up a body which people will have a legal duty to attend, with default and enforcement powers if they fail to carry out the Irish Government's will? That is joint authority and it cannot be described as anything else.
The Secretary of State's failure to be frank both in his previous contacts and today—particularly his prevarication in answering the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux)—robs him of credibility.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not follow what the hon. Gentleman said about there being legislation over the heads of the Northern Ireland assembly. There will be no Northern Ireland assembly unless and until there is
1100
legislation, and there will be no legislation unless and until we secure the agreement of the parties and of the people of Northern Ireland. I thought that the hon. Gentleman, with his democratic credentials, would welcome that.
I also thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome proposals for establishing a Northern Ireland assembly which thereafter would provide the staff to discharge the functions of a north-south body, if that is what the people have shown they want in a referendum, and it is what the parties want also. That is the position.
If we can achieve agreement to restore democratic responsibility to Northern Ireland—again, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that—I hope that he will then encourage his right hon. and hon. Friends at least to discuss the principles in the document.
Mr. Trimble indicated dissent.
Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I do not see why he should be so reluctant to discuss the issues that are raised in that way. If he is reluctant to do so, that must remain his position. However, I think that many people will regret his decision.
Sir John Gorst: Have my right hon. and learned Friend and his Cabinet colleagues learnt a wider lesson from the events of the last 24 hours? While it is obvious that the democratic process cannot operate satisfactorily without a free press, is it not the case that those newspapers which peddle half-truths—seemingly for circulation purposes—perform no valuable task in the public interest? Was my right hon. and learned Friend given the opportunity at any stage to point out to The Times the damage which would flow from the half-truths about which it intended to write?
Sir Patrick Mayhew: I was not given that opportunity. I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was given an indication very late last night that something of that character would be published, but the content was not disclosed.
I do not think that I shall say more than I have said to the House already this afternoon in answering my hon. Friend. The partial and distorting publication of parts of the document which have come into the hands of the newspaper is damaging. However, I think that the principal damage is done by those who, for whatever purpose, seek to make public something of this character at this stage of complex, delicate and rather dangerous negotiations.

Points of Order
4.29 pm
Sir Roger Moate: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter of some importance—the selection of Members to serve on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill Select Committee. I understand that it has always been the custom, if not the rule, of the House that such Committees be seen to be as objective as possible. That is presumably why Members representing Kent, for instance, were told that they could not serve on the Committee, even though their constituencies were not directly affected.
I have learnt to my surprise, however, that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)—I notified her that I would be mentioning her name; I also notified the other hon. Member whom I shall mention later—had been appointed to the Committee, even though she stated, clearly and frankly, on Second Reading that her borough was directly affected by the high speed rail link. One can imagine the embarrassment that would be caused if a petition was received from her borough. She will not be seen as totally objective. No doubt she would be a splendid member of the Committee, but her membership of it hardly seems to conform with my understanding of the traditions of the House.
Even more surprisingly, another Member has been appointed to serve on the Committee, even though on Second Reading he spoke robustly about certain points relating to important aspects of the Bill that are likely to be the subject of petitioning. I refer to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). We all know him to be a splendid Member of the House, but on this subject he is about as impartial as I am. He certainly does not seem capable—on this issue—of fitting the mould of independence, impartiality and open-mindedness that has long been required by the traditions of this House.
It seems to conflict with the customs, if not the rules, of the House that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East should be a member of the Select Committee. Decisions of the Committee of Selection are not debatable on the Floor of the House, so presumably the rules have been observed—if not the practice and custom.
1102
I therefore seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, on what steps can be taken to ensure that the Committee is selected on the usual criteria of the openmindedness and objectivity that we have come to expect in respect of all private and hybrid Bills.
Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has had to say, and have done so with great interest. I am afraid, however, that I am not in a position to assist him.
In the first place, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate was appointed to the Committee by the decision of the House last Friday, 27 January. It was at that time that an objection could have been raised.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East was appointed by the Committee of Selection at its meeting last Wednesday. The House has delegated this power to the Committee of Selection, and such appointments do not subsequently come before the House for confirmation. I am therefore unable to take the matter further, as the House gives me no authority in these matters to do so. But I take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously; I shall give it some thought for future occasions.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: No, I am sorry: I cannot take a further point of order. I have ruled the point of order already. I know that the hon. Gentleman is equally concerned, but once I have given a ruling, it is not my intention to go further. I have done the best I can. I shall not let the matter rest there, but I want to give it further consideration.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. What advice can be given to witnesses who come before Select Committees? I have in mind Sir lain Vallance, who yesterday told the Select Committee that he worked harder than junior doctors do. He then immediately retracted the remark outside the House. Does he not owe an apology to the Select Committee, and more particularly to the junior doctors?
Madam Speaker: I hope that the gentleman in question worked extremely hard when he appeared before the Committee, and that the Committee made him sweat.

Births and Deaths Registration (Amendment)
4.33 pm
Mrs. Angela Knight: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 in connection with the procedures relating to the registration of deaths in England and Wales.
The Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 allows a death to be registered only in the district in which it occurs. My Bill proposes that that procedure be modified, so that the necessary details and declaration of death may be made with the registrar of any district. That registrar would then forward the details to the district where the death occurred for registration to take place.
That which I propose may seem to be a small, superficial and rather obscure change, but it is one that would make a substantial difference to the difficulties that some find themselves in now when a death occurs. The difficulties add to the distress at a time of grief.
Last summer, a family of mother, father and baby daughter—all constituents of mine—went on holiday to Skegness. One morning, the parent woke up to find their seven-month-old baby daughter dead in her cot. All parents will know how such a death, and fear of such a death, worries them. We all know how many times we check our sleeping babies to ascertain that they are still breathing. Surely we can all imagine what the mother and father felt at that fear becoming a reality.
Given the suddenness of the baby's death, the coroner who covers Skegness was notified. He directed that a post mortem should be performed by the specialist paediatric pathologist who is based at the Queen's medical centre at Nottingham, which is a hospital of considerable renown. It is one that is used extensively by Erewash, and it was therefore close to the home of the family.
The mother and father returned from Skegness to Nottingham, the post mortem was undertaken, cot death was confirmed, and arrangements for the funeral were set in hand. It was only then that the parents found that, to register their daughter's death, one of them had to return in person to Skegness. That is the requirement of the law as it stands. The 200-mile round trip was bad enough, but having to revisit the place of the tragedy added to the grief that my constituents were already experiencing.
Such a procedure can be changed. One way would be to allow the registration of the death to take place in any district. Although that has the immediate attraction of simplicity, it would cause other complications, about which registrars and coroners have expressed their
1104
concern. If the present system continues without change, however, it will inevitably continue to add unnecessary upset to many people each year.
My Bill would allow the necessary documents required for death registration to be received by any registrar, who would then forward them to the appropriate district. My constituents would have been able to go to Nottingham, Derby or Ilkeston. The documents would then be sent by post, fax or electronic mail to Skegness. Thus, while maintaining the continuity of the place of registration, the parents of the baby would at least have had the process made emotionally and physically easier for them.
The 1990 White Paper on registration contained proposals for change similar to those that are set out in the Bill. The White Paper met with approval from doctors, coroners and registrars. The Derby registrar and coroner, whose districts cover Erewash, have expressed support for the changes that I propose. I am grateful to them for their assistance and advice as I am to the registrar of Ilkeston. The Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths has advised me of its support. It was my constituents' general practitioner, who wrote to me initially about the case to which I have referred asking for a change in the law, who prompted the Bill.
The mother of the baby girl said to me two weeks ago, "Make my case public." She added, "I will do whatever is necessary, so that no one else finds themselves in the situation that I did." I agree with her.
The House is in a position to do whatever is necessary. We spend much time on the great affairs of state, as we have this afternoon, and rightly so. Yet it is often the smaller things of life that most affect, for good or ill, people's lives.
I am proposing a small change. The Bill is only a modest measure. However, the small change could make a significant difference to many people. The Bill would change the registration process so that no longer would it add to people's hurt at a time of great personal distress. Instead, the procedure would help them. That is why I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Angela Knight, Sir Timothy Sainsbury, Sir Ivan Lawrence, Mr. James Clappison, Mr. Peter Butler, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mr. John Heppell, Mr. Gyles Brandreth, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. John Greenway and Mr. David Lidington.

Births and Deaths Registration (Amendment)
  BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT)
  Mrs. Angela Knight accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 in connection with the procedures relating to the registration of deaths in England and Wales: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 February, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]
Orders of the Day

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the Secretary of State to move the Government motions, I must announce that Madam Speaker has put a 10-minute restriction on all speeches except those made by Front-Bench spokesmen and the spokesman for the Liberal Democratic party.
  4.40 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move,
  That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 161), which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
  I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
  That the Special Grant Report (No. 12) (House of Commons Paper No. 162), which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
  That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 163), which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
  Our proposals this year are rigorous, as they need to be if local government is to play its part in fighting inflation and to increase prosperity and jobs in commerce and industry. They are also, inevitably, more complex this year because of the establishment of the new police authorities. We have worked with local government to minimise any turbulence resulting from that change, and I am particularly grateful for the practical help that local authority associations continue to give, even where we may differ on the political judgments that have to be made.
  On 1 September, I issued my settlement proposals for consultation. They included the total provision for local authority spending, the central support for that expenditure and my proposals for calculating standard spending assessments. I also announced provisional capping criteria. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced his proposals for police grant on the same day. Since then, my colleagues and I have met many delegations from local authorities and received many written representations.
  We considered carefully all the points that were made during the consultation. My final decisions in respect of grants and notional amounts are embodied in the reports before the House. Of course, final decisions on capping criteria are taken after local authorities have decided their budgets.
  Local authorities account for about a quarter of Government spending. Any Government who are serious about controlling public expenditure must, therefore, take real account of what councils spend.
  I announced on 1 December my proposal for total standing spending for England for 1995–96 of £43.51 billion. I hope that the House will recognise just how large that figure is and how important, therefore, it is in the general consideration of the health of the economy. It included the English element of police grant, which is distributed on a formula basis in England and Wales. In the light of consultation—the details of which I shall come to later—we have decided to adjust slightly the
  1106
  balance of police funding between England and Wales, with the result that the final TSS figure for England for 1995–96 will be £43.507 billion. That represents an increase of £843 million—or 2 per cent.—compared with last year's figure. It includes £647.6 million transitional community care special grant.
  Leaving aside the increase in provision for community care, my proposals still amount to an increase of just under 1 per cent. in provision year on year. The total aggregate external finance for England will be £34.686 billion. The revenue support grant element of that total will be £18.314 billion.
  We have had to make tough decisions on all areas of public spending this year, and this settlement is no exception, but I believe that, seen against the background of low inflation, low pay settlements and the scope for efficiency, the provision is fair and realistic.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: How can the settlement be fair to school children, parents and teachers in Bolsover and in other parts of Derbyshire, when the level per pupil in Surrey is £272 higher than in Derbyshire and when the figure in Hertfordshire is £248 higher than in Derbyshire? That means that if teachers get more than a 1.5 per cent. pay increase, there will be reductions in staff and schools will suffer even more. On top of that, the Minister told Derbyshire that, if it spends more than £550 million, it will be capped, so there is no way out for the children, parents and teachers and others who use its services. Why does not the Secretary of State change the criteria and stop favouring people in the south? Why does he not look after those in the north as well?
  Mr. Gummer: Spending per pupil has increased by nearly 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979. We are spending considerably more on every child than we did then.
  The figures are decided according to a formula that is discussed in detail and thrashed out with local authority organisations. At the very time when the hon. Gentleman asks for more money for Derbyshire, other counties are asking for more for themselves; but they admit that a common formula that is as objective as humanly possible cannot direct money towards specific councils. Every county would like more money, but I fear that they cannot give good enough reasons.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) asked a perfectly respectable question, and I want to answer it fully.
  Derbyshire has a considerable advantage as, unlike many other counties, it does not have a long history of lean administration. Its budget includes many areas in which other counties have already found ways of saving money. Derbyshire, perhaps of all counties, will be able to examine its overheads and expenditure carefully with the aim of helping school children directly. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to assist his council.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Iain Mills: You acknowledge in correspondence that Solihull loses out as a result of the changes in education standard spending assessment methodology. In the light of what you have just said—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that we do not use personal pronouns.
  Mr. Mills: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How much care did the Secretary of State take in calculating SSA for councils such as Solihull, which, unlike Derbyshire—
  Mr. Bill Olner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Hon. Members: Sit down!
  Mr. Mills: The councils to which I refer have an extremely good record on cost-effectiveness. The Secretary of State says that there has been a redistribution of funds—
  Mr. Olner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) has had quite enough time to ask a simple question.
  Mr. Gummer rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the Secretary of State bear with me for a moment? I will take the point of order.
  Mr. Olner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right for so many Conservative Members to seek to intervene with what appear to be prepared scripts when many of them may not be called later?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a democratic Chamber. The Chair does not control the number of hon. Members who seek to intervene; whether the Secretary of State gives way is entirely up to him.
  Mr. Gummer: I am happy to say that I have a piece of paper relating to every authority in the country, as many hon. Members may ask direct questions and all of them will be serious.
  I examined Solihull's position very carefully. I do the same in regard to every authority, particularly those whose case hon. Members wish to put to me. As I have said, about 100 different groups have asked me specific questions. I cannot see any aspect of the objective methodology bearing on Solihull that gives me cause to investigate whether it could immediately be altered. However, the small but nevertheless important amount that is available for education in Solihull gives rise to considerable concern. I have told Solihull authority and a number of other Conservative and Labour-controlled authorities that I shall carefully consider their fears about the methodology when we decide with local authority associations what changes I can make in the coming year. I cannot do so at the moment because there is nothing to suggest that the methodology has been improperly applied. If it had been, I could have a look at it, but I cannot look a0t a particular authority on its own.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I should like to make some progress and thereafter give way as much as I can. I am trying to
  1108
  make a fairly short speech to allow time for hon. Members to ask questions. I know that that is unusual for me, but I shall try to answer as many points as I can.
  I have said that the settlement will allow most authorities to increase their spending year on year. [Interruption.] It will allow them to increase their spending, but the difficulty is that most of them would like to increase it by more. That is a difficult issue.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) as she was the first to rise in the area of the Liberal Benches.
  Ms Liz Lynne: Is the Secretary of State aware that Rochdale will lose £163,000 in the community care grant, over and above the other cuts in community care and in education. What is the council supposed to do? Is it supposed to cut services or put up charges?
  Mr. Gummer: It should first look at the efficiency of its services. The fact that the hon. Lady thinks that there are only two options—to put up the price or reduce the service—shows that she has not considered the issue. I do not want to go too far along this line, but I may have to give some painful examples.
  Mr. Tim Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a great many complaints from authorities about underfunding are nothing more than a cynical attempt to dodge responsibility for their failure to manage resources properly? Does he further agree that one of the worst examples of this is Labour-Liberal controlled Suffolk county council? Since taking control in May 1993, that group has splurged £10 million of resources on such loony left fripperies as the appointment of an equal opportunities officer, the payment of councilors—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to all hon. Members to be brief. I have already had to announce a 10-minute restriction on speeches. There is now a one-minute restriction on interventions.
  Mr. Gummer: I am tempted to take a particular path. As I drove home at the weekend, I noticed that Suffolk county council had put up a series of new yellow signs, which are extensive in their vulgarity and cost. Upon the signs, the council had put the name of the village and underneath it put another notice stating "village" in case people did not know that they were passing through one. There is no doubt that Suffolk county council has shown by its actions that it has spent money that could more easily and properly have been spent on police and education.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I shall continue with my speech and then, to be fair, I shall give way to an Opposition Member.
  The Audit Commission regularly finds ways in which local authorities can save money through efficiency. The best authorities are quick to follow its recommendations.

  1109
  In particular, I hope that all authorities will pay heed to the report on white collar pay in local government, and ensure that unnecessary bureaucracy is weeded out.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that any increase in something that is already sadly deficient is not sufficient? In Newham, which, as he knows, is statistically the most deprived borough in the country, we are £10 million short through the lack of an interest payment on the standard spending assessment that has been approved by the Government. We have £7 million less for housing and we could receive another £25 million if Newham were an inner-London authority. Will he tell his friends in the Treasury, who presumably produced the formula, that that is unjust and is not up to the standards, as he knows, of even the Old Testament, let alone the new? Will he tell them to sin less next year?
  Mr. Gummer: I listened with great care to Newham's case on whether it should be an inner or outer-London authority. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I listened with concern and, as far as one is allowed in what I suppose is inelegantly referred to as a quasi-judicial position, with sympathy in an attempt to see whether I could meet its wish. The hon. Gentleman's position, however, is not entirely supported. Other Labour boroughs in London have made it clear that they would be extremely annoyed if past action by Newham council were rewarded at the expense of more efficient local councils.
  There are some prime examples in London of where savings can be achieved. I note, for example, that the average number of non-manual staff in central services is 3.46 per 1,000 in inner-London boroughs, but 7.7 per 1,000 in the London borough of Tower Hamlets. Savings could be made there and applied to what is accepted as a less than adequate education service.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: On the question of efficient versus inefficient councils, is there not a case for reconsidering the scrapping of capping, so that taxes increase in local authorities that are inefficient, clearly showing that responsibility lies with those authorities, rather than with central Government?
  Mr. Gummer: I find that view extremely attractive for this reason: the capping mechanism was introduced because, in some areas, people were unable to pay the high costs of administrations, which, in all fairness, were mainly Labour controlled. They found themselves in terrible difficulty. As a resident of then Labour-controlled Ealing, I was one of those people who saw exactly what happened when people were suddenly faced with enormous bills. Tower Hamlets supports 7.7 non-manual staff in central services per 1,000. If we compare that with, for example, Wandsworth, which supports fewer than two per 1,000 of those staff, we understand why Tower Hamlets charges its often poor residents large sums of money. A real problem exists. The capping regime operates to protect those people. I have come down on that matter, not least because, if we add it all up, local government spends so high a proportion of what the
  1110
  nation makes that the Government may be blamed, and it would have a serious effect on the Government economic's policy.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I should get on with my speech, but, to be fair, I shall give way to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans).
  Mr. John Evans: The Secretary of State consistently insists that the methodology that he adopts for the fixing of grant is fair. He will be aware that the council tax for a band A property in St. Helens is £652, and that it is £245 for a Band A property in Westminster. Does he ascribe that huge difference to the efficiency of Westminster and to the enormous grants that it received, or does he ascribe it to the inefficiency of St. Helens council? If he ascribes it to the latter, will he get that piece of paper out, stand at the Dispatch Box, and tell me so?
  Mr. Gummer: The standard spending assessments are worked out as clearly as possible according to criteria that we have discussed long and loud with local authorities. If St. Helens spent as far below its SSA as Westminster, it would have an even lower council tax. It has a high council tax because it is a high spender. St. Helens should learn from Westminster's efficiency. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is laughing. He wants to laugh because he does not want us to be reminded of the efficiency of his borough of Camden. Camden has the second highest external debt per capita in the country. Its total debt has increased by 14 per cent. in the past five years. A recent district auditor's first report revealed that Camden had a debt of £50 million rather than a surplus of £18 million, which its internal addition had suggested. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has the effrontery to giggle despite representing a Labour-controlled authority with such a record.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: The Secretary of State talks about Camden having a £50 million debt. Will he refer to his Department's documents rather than articles in The Daily Telegraph? Will he confirm that Camden is in dispute with him and his officials about debts owed to it of £38 million on the housing revenue account because it says that it is not being treated in the same way as other councils? Will he confirm that Camden has commenced legal proceedings against the Department but has stayed them until Ministers have had an opportunity to respond?
  Mr. Gummer: I will confirm that in 1991 Camden forgot a loan repayment of more than £24 million, which meant that, in many cases, rents rose by a third. I shall quote from someone who is not noted in his professional life for doing other than supporting a range of Labour authorities. I shall do so although I deprecate some of the attacks made on people by turning their perfectly proper professional behaviour into a political issue. Andrew Arden said:
  "the standards applicable to dealing in vast sums of money have been found wanting: it is as if pockets of what I can only describe of entrenched amateurism have been allowed to prevail."
  Camden could save at least £2 million every year if its staff working hours were increased to the local government norm. Camden's members services unit,

  1111
  which is open only to Labour members of Camden council, costs £143,000 a year. For every £5 spent on housing repairs in Camden, £1 is lost in administrative costs. That compares to an average of 30p in inner-London boroughs as a whole, and that average is pushed up by authorities such as Camden. Just in case it has been missed, I should say that Camden's grant to the Camden lesbian centre in 1994–95 will be £44,228. No wonder the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras giggles. The only people in Camden who do not giggle are those who have to pay the bill for such incompetence. Those who think that the Labour party would make a Government should remember what has happened to Camden under Labour's control.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he and his officials are in dispute with the borough of Camden about whether the Department owes Camden £38 million?
  Mr. Gummer: When the hon. Gentleman confirms publicly each and every one of the facts—not disputes—that I have just given and dissociates himself from his council, I will be happy to look at his point.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I must get on. There is an equal amount of objection on both sides of the Chamber.
  I have given only one or two examples culled at random from what could have been a much larger list. We can do without the ritual parade every time we ask authorities to take the same tough decisions on their costs as the Government are taking and that the private sector always has taken. During the recession, private companies made cuts and they have now emerged leaner and fitter to lead Britain into a new export-led recovery.
  Local government must ensure that it reduces overmanning, takes out tiers of management and uses contracting out as a means of better service delivery. Many efficient authorities are already taking such measures and, in my criticisms of particular authorities, I hope that local government in general will recognise that I honour the many local authority officers and members who have done increasingly well in meeting the needs of their areas in a lean and fit way.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent speech so far. Does he share my disgust and fury at the antics of Liberal-controlled Devon county council? It is spreading terror among 300 teaching staff by telling them that they are all to be sacked because of the Government's rate settlement and it is making old people fear that they will be put out on the street in the cold. In fact—I should like the Secretary of State to confirm this—the amount that Devon will receive next year is more than this year and the education grant is twice as high as the national average. Will he tell Devon county council that it should get rid of some of its 30,000 staff. It has more staff than the entire bureaucracy of Brussels. Will he ensure that it does something—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was sincere when I said that interventions should be under a minute.
  Mr. Gummer: The increase in Devon's education SSA is about twice as high as the average for the counties. Its staff numbers have increased by more than 2 per cent. In
  1112
  one year. A county in that position should not frighten people. It should look at its own internal arrangements and find ways of saving money so that it can be spent on the front line—on those who really need it.
  It is important to take this seriously. I have with me the telephone directory of Cornwall county council—I am not just dealing with inner London. It is a pretty big list and its tone sums up what we need to look at carefully. For example, on the page that says, "Chief Executives Office" it lists numbers for the chief executive, assistant chief executive, assistant chief executive and a third assistant chief executive. I then see two secretarial staff, five support staff, three press and public relations staff—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that it was impolite to point.
  Mr. Gummer: I think that Opposition Members may have been trying to ensure that I address the Chair directly. I apologise if I did not do so. It enables me to say directly to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there are also five members of staff whose only job is to deal with the local government review and to send out various documents to frighten people about what might happen if they were to lost control of Cornwall. Many local authorities have spent large sums of money advertising themselves.
  I have to be careful because another case from Cleveland is now in the courts. The House has passed legislation and debated its results yet some authorities have spent vast sums of ratepayers' money not only on advertising their superiority over others but on frightening people against possible changes. They then fight in the courts even beyond the point at which, when the judgment is read, anyone spending his own money would feel that the case against him had been proven.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I give way to the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien), who rose first.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving way. He will be aware that Warwickshire recently received a very good auditors' report and that the only time that it has been poll tax capped recently was when it was under Conservative control. However, parents in Warwickshire are facing larger classes for their children and the sacking of 200 teachers in the county. This issue has united Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors in condemning the Government for the way in which they have calculated the SSA. Warwickshire spends 9 per cent. more on education than allowed for in the Government's education SSA. If it is to comply with the Government's requirements, Warwickshire will have to cut £10 million from its education budget. That is not acceptable. What is the Secretary of State's message to the angry parents of Warwickshire who do not want larger classes or a decline in education standards?
  Mr. Gummer: Whatever Warwickshire councillors say, they have not been able to convince any other county that the methodology is wrong and that Warwickshire should have a special arrangement. The hon. Gentleman is saying that because Warwickshire has not found a way to deal with these matters as

  1113
  effectively as other counties it should have a special arrangement. The system does not allow for that—perfectly properly—whether Warwickshire is run by the Conservatives, the Liberals or Labour. Were it to do so, there would be no objectivity.
  I know Warwickshire and I know many of the people who have come to put their case to me. I believe that Warwickshire will need to examine its spending pattern carefully. It needs to get its priorities right and aim money where it is most needed. Many counties are providing extremely good education without any more resources than those that Warwickshire has.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lancashire has 13 per cent. surplus places in its secondary schools, many of which are in Labour areas so the county council is scared stiff to touch them? However, were it to remove them, there would be more money to spend on other schools. Moreover, Lancashire spends £93 more for a resident in a county home than for one in a private home. No one wishes the county homes to close but we can ask that they should be as efficiently run as private sector homes. If they were, there would be a cool £10.8 million to spend on schools, home care services or some other purpose.
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend has been patient in trying to intervene. Lancashire has one of the highest proportions of staff per head in England, which suggests that there are ways for it to make improvements in addition to those that she has suggested.
  It is very easy for county councils and district councils to tell the electorate that they can do nothing but cut the education budget or any other services of great importance. It is important for the House to remind people that if the priorities are right, if money is put where it is most needed and if central spending is reduced, in most cases substantial savings can be found.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I shall give way in a moment to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). The areas where the difficulties are greatest are those where there has been a tradition of prudence and care and where councils feel that they are coming to the end of what they can do. I have examined those areas particularly carefully, but very few of those with a tradition of prudence and care are represented by the Labour party.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Warwickshire is asking not for special treatment but for a fair deal. Our frustration is that year after year after year our representations appear to be ignored. It is no surprise that in a zero-sum game other local authorities are not interested in easing Warwickshire's position. If we care about the quality of our democracy, we should be strengthening the independence and scope of elected local government for which a strong mechanism of accountability now exists through the council tax. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our future quality of life, as well as our economic competitiveness, depends to a large extent on whether we invest in our schools? I
  1114
  therefore very much regret the Government's proposals for capping and SSAs—certainly as they bite in Warwickshire—which run counter to these purposes.
  Mr. Gummer: I agree that education is at the heart of the nation's needs. That is why we have increased spending per pupil by nearly 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979. The difficulty, however, is that if the total spending is part of the total assessment of Government spending, when one local authority spends significantly in excess of what is available to other local authorities, it has a direct effect on us all because of its playback into the nation's economy.
  Other honourable Members have to take into account the fact that Warwickshire is spending 4 per cent. above its SSA on education. It will have an increase of 1.2 per cent., which is above the average for all counties. I was concerned about Warwickshire's claim, which is based not on the particularity of Warwickshire but on the belief that the way in which the system works does not give adequate representation to factors that might colour our assessment. Because of that, I shall look closely with the local authority associations at Warwickshire's concerns next year. I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and they lead me back to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). One or two other authorities have believed consistently that the mechanisms seem to have failed their particular problems, and I shall reconsider their cases carefully.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I must get on, but I shall give way first to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).
  Mr. Tom King: Is not my right hon. Friend right to say that every one of us has concerns about the current methodology? The right way to decide next year's determination is with local authority associations and the silliest way is to take the advice of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who said that this was an extremely important debate but who has not even bothered to turn up. He was encouraging some Somerset Members of Parliament to vote against the motion. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that were the House not to approve it, there would be no funds available for local government and no ability to pay and local authorities would not be able to make a rate determination or issue demands? Would not that cost the whole of local government a considerable sum of money?
  Mr. Gummer: I confirm all that my right hon. Friend says. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is not here. I had thought, from all the letters that he had written to Members of Parliament of his own party and others, that he may have found it possible to come to this important debate. Is the matter important only in his constituency and not in the House?
  I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Yeovil has noticed that if there was a redetermination, it would be unlikely that Somerset would have benefited more. Indeed, the likelihood would have been that other counties would have noticed that Somerset had received a 2.5 per cent. increase in its education standard spending assessment, which is well over twice the county average; that in personal social services, it had a 2 per cent.

  1115
  increase, which is considerably more than the county average; and that in other services it had a 4.6 per cent. increase.
  It appears to me that in all the measurements, Somerset has done significantly better than many other counties. Yet the right hon. Member for Yeovil has rushed immediately to frighten people. The attempt by Liberal Democrats to frighten people as part and parcel of their party-politicking is the worst aspect of a party which has little to commend itself in general.
  Mr. David Alton: I will not enter into the argument in which the right hon. Gentleman has just engaged. May I invite him back to the subject of north-west England for a moment? He will consider, as I do, that there is plenty of scope for savings in cities such as Liverpool and that there is certainly scope for greater efficiency. However, does not he also recognise that the formula and the way in which it has been calculated is a great cause of concern? After all, if the European Union grants a city such as Liverpool objective 1 status, it is slightly bizarre that the city should be a long way down the league table of local authorities as listed for deprivation. Therefore, will he specifically look at its SSA for social services and the need of children? He will have received representations this year and last, and I hope that he will look at those seriously because children are at risk and will suffer deeply if that specific aspect is not addressed.
  Mr. Gummer: I have, of course, looked very carefully at what the hon. Gentleman has said. I tried to look across to see whether there was something about the new method which was deleterious to Liverpool, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. As far as one can compare the last years of the previous system before 1979 and the years since, the gap between what Liverpool gained with what the authorities which are often compared with it gained was significantly larger. So that problem has been delineated before.
  There are difficulties in places where the population is falling, for example. I have looked at the matter carefully. Many of the things that we have taken into account this time have been helpful. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the use of unemployment as one of the elements to consider has been helpful. That is something for which the associations asked and which was denied them by previous Governments. I am pleased that we have brought in that element. I shall look again, but, after all, Liverpool is third in the north-west as I understand it. It has significant resources, but I shall be happy to look specifically at the points that the hon. Gentleman makes.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I must continue for a moment. I shall allow hon. Members to intervene, but another paragraph would be helpful.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) has reminded us that we have to strike a balance between the proper responsibility of central Government to the economy of the country as a whole, including the control of inflation, and the proper duty of local government to decide how much it wants to spend to meet local needs. That is the knotty problem on which I tried to help my hon. Friends and hon. Members who represent Warwickshire.
  1116
  Before I move on from aggregate spending figures, let me say a word about the total provision for education and personal social services, on which hon. Members have raised points. Provision for spending on education is set to rise by 1.1 per cent. That comes on top of a 2.4 per cent. increase for 1994–95. In real terms, as I have said, spending per pupil has risen by almost 50 per cent. since 1979. It is remarkable that that has happened. It would be wrong to ignore it. It is against that background that we have fixed the figures for this year.
  It will be up to local education authorities and schools to deploy their resources to maximum effect to give priority to front-line services. If I had had the opportunity earlier, I would have made the point about the tone of the Cornwall telephone directory. The proportion of people who are admitted to be in administration—clerks and the like—as compared with people out in the field is on a scale which no private industry could support.
  Sir David Madel: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the difficulties in Bedfordshire. Will he confirm that it is utterly untrue to say that central Government has ordered Bedfordshire to make a 4 per cent. cut in school budgets throughout the county? That is absolutely mischievous and misleading and will he condemn it?
  Mr. Gummer: Not only is it absolutely untrue, but I am afraid that it is typical of the thought process of authorities not uninfluenced by the Liberal Democrats. I can sum up the thought process in the words of a Liberal opponent of mine—he was perfectly reasonable in every other way—who, when I asked why he had put out a leaflet which he knew was utterly untrue, said, "Well, all's fair in politics, isn't it?" That is the sadness of local authorities which put out documents which they know to be untrue. I must say that the Labour party has a much better reputation for that than the Liberal Democrats, whose idea of truth is very different from what we find in the rest of the political scene.
  Mr. Don Foster: In response to the comments that the Secretary of State has just made, may I say that I, too, deprecate anybody who puts out a document containing information that he knows to be incorrect. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, notwithstanding all the comments that he has made about the increases in education spending since 1979, the standard spending assessments per pupil are to be reduced this coming year compared with last year? Yes or no?
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the total amount of money available for a local authority increases. If a local education authority decided that it should spend less on education or more on administration, it would spend less per pupil. But there is no reason why the hon. Gentleman's local authority or any other authority could not spend more on pupils and less on administration. It is difficult to understand how the hon. Gentleman can condemn the practice in general when the Liberal Democrats do it on every occasion. I remember what they did in Tower Hamlets; and they should still be hanging their heads in shame.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: My right hon. Friend may like to know that the Liberal Democratic

  1117
  party has been circulating petitions in my constituency which talk about massive cuts by central Government on Somerset spending.
  Mr. Gummer: I have read out the figures. There can be no such statement. The facts are that Somerset's SSA has gone up by much more than the county average for England. It cannot be presented as a cut, because it is an increase. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath will wish immediately to renew communications with the public. In it, I hope that he will not only put right the fact that Somerset's SSA is not being cut, but ensure that no resident of Somerset misses the fact that the number of Somerset staff has increased by 3.4 per cent. in a year.
  No private company could have managed such an increase while staying in business. The hon. Member for Bath should be ashamed of what Somerset Liberal Democrats have done and of the non-existence of the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who has made such a fuss. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is afraid.
  Mr. Don Foster rose—
  Mr. Gummer: If the leader of the Liberal Democrats cares to come to the House, I shall give way to him so that he can explain why he has written to members of my party to ask them to vote for him when he has not even bothered to turn up for the debate. I am ashamed of the right hon. Gentleman.
  We have heard much about the funding of the community care reforms over the past few months. I believe that the figures speak for themselves.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: Yes, they do.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) accepts that. Next year, local authorities will have £1.8 billion in recognition of their new responsibilities. That is an increase of 44 per cent. over the figure for the current year. As I have said, in 1995–96 there will be a ring-fenced grant totalling £648 million for authorities to spend on community care—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may feel that that information is to he yawned at, but most of the people involved in community care know that we have carried through our determination to enhance the powers and responsibilities of local authorities by giving them the new duties and the means to carry them through.
  Mr. David Clelland: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
  Mr. Gummer: No.
  As I have said, total standard spending for England will increase by 2 per cent. next year.
  Mr. Clelland rose—
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I will give way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
  Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. It seems that the Government are running rather scared from the west country woolly hats at the moment. I felt quite sorry for the Secretary of State earlier when he looked like a Christian being thrown to the lions. However, if he
  1118
  is going to start cherry-picking among local authorities, my sympathy will run out. What has he got to say about Westminster? He has praised that council so far, but according to the Evening Standard tonight, the council did not collect £30 million in service charges in respect of flats and properties that it had sold. What has the Secretary of State got to say about that in terms of the misappropriation of resources?
  Mr. Gummer: What I say about the figures that I have given is that I take them from the published figures and the facts as set out by the auditors. As far as I understand it, the figure referred to by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West emanates largely from the Labour party in Westminster. I would want to look more carefully at the figures before I confirmed or denied what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  However, I can tell the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that, no matter what party it comes from, if there is evidence of impropriety or improper behaviour I would condemn it. I only wish that that was a more general view on both sides of the House.
  We are increasing aggregate external finance at a lower rate than total standard spending because we believe that it is right that local taxpayers should fund a slightly higher proportion of the cost of local services. However, the level of council tax is a decision for each authority and will depend—
  Mr. Clelland: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman has asked me to give way "on that point" on several occasions. I want to make more progress and more than three lines of my speech would be reasonable.
  The level of council tax is a decision for each authority and it will depend on the level of service that councils choose to provide, the improvements that they can make to efficiency and effectiveness and how well they can collect what they are owed. I am therefore not about to start predicting council tax levels.
  I will not make such predictions because I have tried to learn from the Labour party. Last year—[Interruption.] The Opposition Front Bench spokesman should not make comments from a sedentary position because I am going to tell him what I have learnt. Last year, Labour predicted that—[Interruption.] The point may be short, but it is worth listening to. Last year, the Labour party predicted that council taxes would rise by 6 per cent. They actually increased by only 2.2 per cent. The Labour party was wrong.
  Indeed, Labour was wrong just as, in three successive years, the former shadow Environment spokesman was wrong when he said that the number of teachers had fallen. He was only slightly wrong. He should have said that the number had risen. That is the difference. The trouble is that the Labour party constantly cries, "Fear!" and "Danger!"
  Mr. Clelland: Will the Secretary of State give way on this point?
  Mr. Gummer: I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman on this point.
  Mr. Clelland: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Is he aware that, under his criteria, the city of Newcastle

  1119
  upon Tyne will be forced to cut £5 million from its budget while, at the same time, reducing band D council tax by £70? Is he further aware that the local newspaper has conducted a survey of residents in the area which showed that, by a margin of 20:1, the people of Newcastle would prefer to keep the council tax at its present level and avoid any cuts? Why cannot the Secretary of State accommodate the electorate of Newcastle?
  Mr. Gummer: The people of Newcastle have an authority which has consistently spent very highly. If it intends to take more from the population than is reasonable, that will have an effect on the total spending on local government in the nation. That has a real impact on the economy. There is no way in which Newcastle can avoid being part of the United Kingdom economy. We try to achieve a reasonable balance.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My right hon. Friend referred to teaching numbers. Will he confirm that Devon county council increased its staff levels last year by 2.4 per cent., or 718 people? If it can increase its staff by that amount, and in view of the settlement that it is now receiving, will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no reason why a single teacher should be dismissed in Devon?
  Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is being too kind to his local authority. He should tell his authority to answer a simple question. Does it think that education is important and, if it thinks that it is, will it put its additional resources into education and reduce spending on the unnecessary extra staff which it has decided, under the new administration, to add to its payroll? Unless the authority can say yes to that, the people of Devon will receive the bad deal which they are being offered at the moment under the guise of blaming the Government. It is right that my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) should press that point strongly.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I should come to a conclusion quickly. However, before I do so, I should warn the House that there will be attempts to suggest that the system is unfortunately not as it should be. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, will, now that he is so widely recognised as an expert on local government finance, put forward the view that the SSA system benefits Conservative-controlled councils rather than Labour-controlled councils.
  Before the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras rises, I want to give the House the opportunity to take the following fact on board. Of the 50 councils with the highest SSA per head, only three are Conservative controlled—[Interruption.] At any opportunity, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras suggests that we somehow fiddle the figures to help ourselves, but that is manifestly not true. The House is aware of the facts.
  If hon. Members listen carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, they will no doubt hear him refer to phoney mathematics. The phoney mathematics involves comparing the outturn figures at the end of the year with the SSA additions for the beginning of the year. In all my time in the Department of the
  1120
  Environment and before that, I have not heard an Opposition Member make a speech on the subject in which the phrase "phoney mathematics" did not appear.
  Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: In a moment.
  I must warn the House that there will be another "phoney" reference and that is the reference to phoney facts. The Opposition spokesman will suggest that one does not get the same deal in St. Helens as one gets in Westminster. In fact, one gets a better deal. First, there are better services which are provided better and, secondly if the councils spent at the same level, a higher proportion would be covered by the grant.
  There is one fact that we will not hear in the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras because, unfortunately, he has been unable to find it. Every local authority in the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities was asked to provide examples of the way in which councils had to sack people—
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Not by me.
  Mr. Gummer: Ah, so those Labour-dominated authorities provided the information entirely of their own volition with no intention of passing the results to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. I understand why they did not pass the results on. Having written to all the authorities asking for examples of the number of compulsory redundancies which they had to make as a result of the appalling policies of the Government, there was no reply. No examples could be found. The authorities could not manage to come up with the information. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will not he able to give that fact, although he longed to do so. I hope that we shall look carefully at that matter.
  Mr. John Heppell: Nottingham city council has tried to respond to what the Government have said in the past. In the past three years, it has saved £15 million. However, under the assessment, it would need an extra £3.3 million just to keep level with inflation. Savings were made in the past, and the Government tried to heap savings on top of them.
  Mr. Gummer: Savings cannot be made in one period and then ignored for the rest. Nottingham is spending 8.8 per cent. above its standard spending assessment. As in any business, the programme of being more and more efficient has to take place. I know that matters are difficult in Nottingham city council, because it has a bad example in Nottinghamshire county council. Nottingham councillors recognise that, because it is part of the embarrassing relationship between those two bodies. If both tried to save, the citizens of Nottinghamshire would benefit immensely.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I must now refer to the distribution of grant. We have a system whose sole aim is to ensure that

  1121
  available resources are divided fairly, according to needs, so that each authority is placed on an equal footing. We try to work those out—
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the start of the debate you had to announce that a 10-minute limit will be imposed on hon. Members, with the exception of the Front-Bench spokesmen. The Secretary of State has spoken for an hour, and he has deliberately provoked interventions in order to prevent hon. Members from speaking. Do you deprecate that behaviour, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Can you offer us any protection from this deliberate filibuster?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair observes that Members are honourable Members. Presumably, they are capable of controlling their bodies as to whether or not they rise to intervene. Many hon. Members have been rising to intervene. If hon. Members would resume their seats, the Secretary of State might come to a conclusion.
  Mr. Gummer: It is a little harsh to say that I have been speaking for an hour. Several hon. Members have had an opportunity to put their points of view.
  There are those who want more money for their local authority. The only way in which that can be done is either by taking money from other local authorities or by increasing the total amount. That is why we shall look with considerable care at the comments of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. He must tell us, if he does not like the settlement, how much more he would spend, where it would come from, what taxes he would raise in order to deliver it, and whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has given his permission for that statement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give way to my right hon. and hon. Friends if they wish to remind him of that fact and, perhaps, ask again for his point of view.
  To all councillors and hon. Members who ask, "Why does the system not give my authority more resources?", I say that, if we had a system which is as objective as we can work out with the local authority associations, it would not allow me to change the sum of the resources for an aggrieved authority or tilt that system toward a particular local council. I have seen that problem particularly when dealing with Newham, where there is an issue about the way in which spending is categorised between different groups of local authorities. I cannot make the point strongly enough that we can change the distribution methodology only when a different objective formula is justified. If the hon. Gentleman has some points that he would like to put into the formula, as his predecessors had, for they had several suggestions, I shall be very willing to consider them.
  Last year, we carried out a thorough review of the distribution methodology and incorporated many changes. We needed a period of stability thereafter. We have made some changes, particularly to accommodate the police arrangements. There is more up-to-date information on pupil numbers, which makes the methodology much more up to date, as many people would agree.
  We have also had to make a change in the SSA for the fire service, to take account of calls to incidents such as road accidents, and to recognise that maritime authorities
  1122
  have less scope for drawing reinforcements from neighbouring fire brigades. We have considered once more area cost adjustments, and we have responded to local government representations on the deemed debt of the former Greater London council and the levy of the London Pensions Fund Authority, which has helped inner London councils considerably. Detailed discussions with local authorities have led to that.
  Since then, during the consultation period, we have received a number of representations from authorities about the data that we propose to use in the calculation of SSAs. Some of those representations brought to light errors that we have been able to correct. In particular, we have been able to improve data on pupil numbers, and we have tried to find ways of dealing with imperfections relating to pensions in the police SSA. We shall continue to discuss the SSA methodology with local authority associations.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I undertake that, if right hon. and hon. Members are able to produce examples of a different way of doing all that, particularly suggestions in regard to weighting, I shall be happy to consider them. I want to try to have a system that is increasingly able to meet changing circumstances such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who spoke of certain difficulties in Liverpool. Hon. Friends from Devon raised other matters.
  I said in December that I would continue to pay a special grant to compensate authorities that have lost more than 4 per cent. of SSA as a result of the incorporation of the new census data and the changes stemming—
  Mr. Raynsford: That is a backhander.
  Mr. Gummer: The House should hear the comments of the hon. Member for Greenwich. He said, "That is a backhander." It is what local authority associations have universally ask me to do. It is a pretty wide backhander if we give it to every local authority. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself for saying that.
  This is a fair arrangement, phasing out transitional support so that grant can be redistributed elsewhere. I propose also to pay a special grant to police authorities whose combined SSA and entitlement to police grant next year will be reduced by more than 2 per cent. as a result of the move to the new police funding formula. Perhaps the hon. Member for Greenwich would say that that universally asked-for change is a backhander. Special grant report No. 12 will establish those grants for 1995–96. Some £261 million of special grant will be distributed to local authorities in that way.
  The capping of local authority budgets—I come to the last point that I want to make—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Opposition Members have asked me to give way. I have no means of orchestrating the Labour party, nor does anyone else. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) rose, but he was unable to intervene. He cannot complain because other hon. Members had an opportunity to put their points of view.
  I have considered carefully the representations that Ministers in my Department and in other Departments have received from a range of authorities. In the light of those representations, I have decided to make one change to the intended capping criteria announced in December.

  1123
  Last year I announced in a similar debate an adjustment that benefited authorities that had been the subject of a substantial reduction in SSA as a result of the SSA review implemented in last year's settlement and which, under the initial criteria, would have been required to reduce their budgets in cash terms. I propose to make a similar change this year. It will apply to any authority whose SSA was reduced as a consequence of the 1993 review by more than 10 per cent. as measured for the purpose of SSA reduction grant. The effect, as last year, is that any such authority will be required to freeze its budget rather than to reduce it in cash terms.
  I also announced in December my proposals for the calculation of notional amounts for authorities whose boundaries or functions will change from 1 April. They provide the base from which I shall measure increases in budgets in determining whether those increases are excessive. In addition, I announced provisional criteria which made allowance for that expenditure on care in the community which is being met this year by the special transitional grant.
  Apart from the changes which I have described, my intentions as regards capping criteria remain as I described them in December. The House will recognise that capping is an essential tool for retaining the effective control of overall spending required by the Government—indeed, any Government's—economic strategy. I understand that there are even suggestions that capping would form part of a Labour Government strategy. We will not hesitate to use our capping powers should it prove necessary.
  This .year's settlement will give local authorities some difficult decisions to make, but, in the interests of the national economy, local government—like central Government—must restrain spending and make each pound it spends go further. The settlement also demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to a fair distribution of available resources, on a basis which uses up-to-date information and objective formulae. I commend the settlement and these reports to the House.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Now that the 70 minutes of sermonising are over, we should return to the real world. I remind the House that, in this coming year, real council tax payers in England will end up paying more and getting less. There may be a few councils where the council tax will not go up, and there may be one or two where services will not be cut, but, taken overall, nearly every council tax payer in this coming year will pay more and get less because the Government are cutting the grant.
  It is not just the Labour party which is saying that. The Minister of State—using elegant phraseology to which I could not possibly aspire—is reported as saying:
  "We have all been stuffed by the Treasury".
  Councillor Rita Taylor, the Tory chair of the Association of District Councils' finance panel, said:
  "the public are going to have to pay more … Conservatives in local government are in despair at this settlement".
  The general situation has not changed much since the Minister made his statement at the beginning of December. From the Government's figures, we can expect the average council tax increase over the whole country
  1124
  to be about 6 per cent. It will be lower in some areas and higher in others, but even including that average increase, and using again the Government's figures, the money available for councils will be £1.5 billion short of what is being spent on services this year. That does not allow for any forthcoming pay increases, the additional cost of about 100,000 extra children starting school, the needs of more old people, better services for the disabled and other demands.
  The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: I would rather get on, if I may. [Interruption.] Legions of hon. Members want to speak on behalf of their communities. We had a speech of 70 minutes from the Secretary of State, and I shall give way to a limited number of hon. Members. [Interruption.] I shall give way to the Minister.
  Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman says that the settlement is inadequate. Therefore, the Labour party would either give more grant or would allow capping to be relaxed and council taxes to go up. Which is it to be? By how much would revenue support grant go up? By how much would the hon. Gentleman be willing to see council taxes rise? There is no alternative to one of those two options, or perhaps both.
  Mr. Dobson: We are not hear to discuss what a future Labour Government might do. We are here to deal with a proposition that the Government are putting forward today. It is fairly unlikely that the Labour party will be in charge of the country within the forthcoming financial year, although I hope that we are. We look forward to dealing with the problems and making the best of the opportunities. We are discussing the Government's proposals tonight, and it is up to them to defend them.
  The Government's figures suggest that, during the next three years, council tax payers will have to find an extra £2.8 billion in council tax. That is equivalent to 1.5p on the standard rate of income tax. They will have to find that not just next year, but the year after and the year after that. People can expect to pay more and get less.
  Ministers try to give the impression—God knows the Secretary of State has taken enough time in doing So tonight—that the formula is objective and is as "fair as humanly possible", as the Secretary of State said. However, the standard spending assessment is based on the Government's assessments of need, and one does not need to be a member of the Royal Statistical Society to see that that cannot be right.
  Never mind how the Government arrive at their criteria for deprivation—what one should do is judge them by the outcome. According to the Government's social index of need, Westminster is more deprived than Brent, Lambeth or Southwark; Runnymede is more deprived than Oldham or Liverpool; Hove is more deprived than Hartlepool; Salisbury is more deprived than Knowsley; Windsor—I know that it is going through a bad time at the moment—is more deprived than Bury, Langbaurgh, Ipswich, Thurrock or Darlington. I do not think that anybody believes that that is right.
  The system is a party political racket, and everybody knows it. It has been designed to help Tory areas and to help keep Tories in power. A supreme example is the

  1125
  special fiddled funding for Westminster. Westminster used to be the Tory flagship, but scandals are turning it into the Tory ship of shame. If the Conservatives think that Westminster is their flagship, they should remember that their last flagship was the poll tax, and Westminster will sink them like the poll tax did.
  Time and time again, the Government have rigged the grant to help Westminster, first to keep down the poll tax and then to keep down the council tax. The Secretary of State may say that there was no rigging. Let me read from a note prepared for Lady Porter, the leader of Westminster city council, on 9 May 1989. The note compliments the Secretary of State—he was not the Secretary of State at the time—and says that he is the "most alert" of Ministers to political nuances, and that he would be particularly conscious—
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to raise this point of order, but I thought that we were speaking today about the revenue support settlement for the coming year, not for some years ago. If all that the Opposition can rely on is something which happened years ago, it shows that they are fairly bankrupt of ideas.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must draw the attention of all hon. Members to the fact that the motion is concerned with the revenue support grant and the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1995–96. Anything may be used in evidence, but that obviously is the primary purpose of the debate.
  Mr. Dobson: You will be familiar, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the fact that one of the reasons why Westminster is in such a good seam at the moment is that skulduggery and fiddling in the past have allowed the council to build up enormous balances. In many cases, those balances exceed the amounts of expenditure which some councils can look forward to in the coming year.
  I now return to the report, written when Westminster started building up those balances. It was reported to Lady Porter that the Secretary of State—then the Minister of State—would be particularly conscious that, with safety nets, a number of high-spending Labour London boroughs would appear to get off the hook with community charges "lower than Westminster". The Tories then set about making sure that those community charges "lower than Westminster" did not come about.
  Westminster will have to be given very large sums of money this year to make up for the millions of pounds that have been lost within the council through corruption and incompetence. That is not just a matter for Westminster, because the extra funds which are constantly found for that council and which, it is proposed, should be given to Westminster in this settlement, are taken from the funds available to councils elsewhere. That is in not just the rest of London, but the rest of the country. Every other council gets less so that Westminster can get more.
  At a previous Question Time, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) drew attention to the rather unfair treatment of St. Helens compared with Westminster, despite the fact that they have about the same population. My hon. Friend will give further details if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. St. Helens receives £104 million in grant from the
  1126
  Government while Westminster receives £194 million. The grant per head for St. Helens is £578 and the grant per head for Westminster is £1,024.
  It could be argued that, as St. Helens is not in central London, those figures are not strictly comparable. As the Secretary of State seems to be obsessed with the London borough of Camden, let us compare Camden with Westminster. Both boroughs are roughly the same size, geographically and in terms of population, and are adjacent to one another. Virtually the only difference is that more rich people live in Westminster than in Camden. One would think, therefore, that Camden would get more money than Westminster, but that is not so. Westminster receives £194 million whereas Camden receives £178 million. Westminster will have got nearly £16 million more in this settlement. It got £21 million more in the year that is coming to an end and £20 million more the year before that. However, that clearly does not have a direct effect on performance because, as the Secretary of State's officials can confirm, the Audit Commission's indicators show that Camden is better run than Westminster.
  How has the grant been rigged to benefit Westminster at the expense of everywhere else in England? Some time ago, Westminster received £7.2 million to spend on flood defences. It spent £700,000 and therefore had a kick-back of £6.3 million. It was also given £2.2 million to give a grant to the English National Opera and the English National Ballet. It gave £200,000 and kept £2 million for itself. That is £8 million to start off with, which others should have received in a fair system. However, the swindling is much more systematic than that. The special weighting for tourists was doubled at one stage to £5.3 million. The standard spending assessment for Westminster includes a £54 million allowance for the extra cost of visitors.
  Another special factor is at work in Westminster, which, for some reason, is not allowed for in the SSA. In the current year, Westminster receives more than £20 million in income from parking charges, and that sum is expected to be more than £30 million in the forthcoming year. One would expect a Government who are so concerned with public spending to abate or to reduce Westminster's grant to reflect that massive income, which is not available to other councils. Instead, Westminster is allowed to keep every bit of it. It is a racket: extra money for visitors is not offset by the money that visitors bring in. Moreover, it has all been done as part of a political swindle.
  Why was that necessary? First, it was to keep the poll tax down; secondly, it was to keep the council tax down—
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No.
  Thirdly, it is to make up for money lost by that Tory council deliberately by fraud, incompetence and corruption. Everyone in the country now knows that Westminster council is being done by the district auditor for the "homes for votes" scandal in which £21 million has been lost, but there has been a more recent revelation.
  The Secretary of State said that he did not deal with figures unless they came from the auditor. These figures are from the auditor—Westminster's internal auditor—who says that the council lost £30 million by not

  1127
  collecting service charges, management charges and the cost of repairs to flats and houses that it sold. That cannot simply be forgotten, as it did not happen by accident. It was deliberate, and the papers show that the council ignored legal advice and kept the facts from committees and the public. That is why the Labour party is calling for a special audit of Westminster city council. I now challenge the Secretary of State to order a special audit of—
  Mr. Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that we were debating the Local Government Finance Report (England)—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled on that matter. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening when I did so.
  Mr. Dobson: In case the hon. Gentleman does not understand, the money that Westminster city council has not collected is having to be made up by Government grants. Therefore, grants are not available to people in his area or in areas represented by my hon. Friends.
  Will the Secretary of State establish a special audit to root out corruption in Westminster, or do the Tories reserve special audits for Labour councils?
  Mr. Gummer: The auditor is, at this very moment, dealing with a number of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong to say that any of those makes any difference whatever to the distribution of grant, either this year or in previous years. So he should not mislead the House. Moreover, the House will have noticed that he has now been speaking for 15 minutes but has dealt with nothing except the past arrangements of Westminster city council and has given no answers about scandals in Camden, the lists of which were public, not spread about by leaked documentation. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself.
  Mr. Dobson: How can the Secretary of State say that the scandalous waste of public funds in Westminster has not affected the funds that it receives from central Government? He says that he did not know about it. If he and his officials did not know about it, they would not know why there were such gaps in the accounts, which had to be made up in this settlement. That is why we are concerned about what is going on.
  If the Secretary of State wants to bandy about figures for Westminster and Camden, let me give him a few. The Audit Commission selected 12 indicators at the middle of last year. On those, Camden far out-performs Westminster. There are 12 indicators and 12 inner London boroughs. Camden comes top in four of those indicators and is either first or second best in seven out of 12. Westminster comes top in only one and either first or second best in just three of the 12. Camden has the best educational results in inner London, even before they are adjusted for deprivation. When deprivation is taken into account, Camden is second best in the whole of England, and Westminster is 99th. I hope that the Secretary of State is proud of that. When it comes to handing out mandatory awards to students, 99 per cent. of students in Camden got mandatory awards on the due date, whereas no students in Westminster got mandatory awards on the due date. So I hope that the Secretary of State will shut up for the time being.
  1128
  Is the Secretary of State satisfied with the present arrangements, powers and resources of the Audit Commission and the district auditor, or does he agree with the Labour party that the present system is letting everyone down and that the Audit Commission and the district auditor need to be strengthened to eliminate fraud and corruption wherever it arises?
  Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Gentleman has obviously not listened to anything anyone has said, I shall repeat Rt. I am opposed to impropriety of any kind, wherever it comes from, and will seek to ensure that it is rooted out. I note that it has occurred in a number of boroughs and, in those circumstances, no one has been more ready to support those who have been found innocent and oppose those who have been found guilty. The hon. Gentleman seems not to remember that it is a principle of English law that a man or organisation is not found guilty until he or it is proved guilty. He thinks that he can fling about any statement in the House because he is protected by the privileges of the House. I wish that he earned those privileges.
  Mr. Dobson: I have never said anything in the House that I am not willing to repeat outside it. In commenting on Westminster city council in the House today, I have only repeated what I have said on television and on radio.
  I may seem to have spent a lot of time discussing the Westminster city council, but the Government's treatment of it shows how unfair and party political is the system. Only four places in Britain—Hackney, Tower Hamlets, the Scilly Isles and the City of London—receive a higher proportion of Government support than Westminster. The rest of us get less so that Westminster can get more.
  I shall give some examples of the reduction in council tax that would occur in other areas if those areas received the same level of external Government help as Westminster. The Camden council tax would be reduced by £261, the Croydon council tax would be reduced by £73, the Enfield tax would be reduced by £274 and the Bristol tax would be reduced by £258. That is nothing compared with many other councils. If they received the same level of external Government support as Westminster, council tax payers in Bury and Oldharn would not pay anything at all—they would get a refund every year. The same thing would apply in Redbridge, Plymouth, Dartmouth, Langbaurgh, Gloucester, Dover, Stockton-on-Tees, Southampton, Northampton, Carlisle, Watford and York. I do not understand how anyone could think that that is not a racket.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman does not understand how people would not think that it is a racket, but why does not the Association of County Councils think that it is a racket? It thinks that there is a reasonable level, as does the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and all of the other people and organisations which are involved in the process. The decisions are arrived at after full discussion with local authorities. The only other person who does not agree with it is the hon. Gentleman's predecessor on the Opposition Front Bench.
  Furthermore, independent authorities such as Mr. Tony Travers have said that what the hon. Gentleman says is simply not true. The only people who think as the hon.

  1129
  Gentleman does are those who have done so little homework that they do not understand how the system works to the benefit of the whole country.
  Mr. Dobson: I have done enough homework to recognise what the Minister means. When he says that decisions are taken in consultation with local authorities, he really means that he decides after he has consulted with them—and he usually ignores what they have said.
  The results reveal the true integrity and fairness of the system. Under the settlement, people will pay more this year and receive less: council tax will rise and services will be cut. I do not have time to list all of those services because I want to keep my contribution short.
  Mr. Dennis Turner: My hon. Friend did not mention wonderful Wolverhampton in his list of authorities which would benefit in the way that he outlined. Wolverhampton is an exemplary authority—the Secretary of State would confirm that if he got to his feet—but in the coming year, in order to stand still, we shall have to find an extra £7 million by either increasing charges or reducing our services because the Secretary of State has not honoured his commitment to the wonderful people of Wolverhampton. They will bear the pain in the next financial year as a result of the Government's failure to recognise the needs of local government.
  Mr. Dobson: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not mentioning Wolverhampton in my list of places which would receive a refund if their councils were as well supplied with Government funds as Westminster. However, we do not have time to list them all. He reiterates what Labour Members have said: in most cases, people will pay more and receive less.
  I shall give some examples of what is happening to council services. As more children are living in poverty today than at any time in the past 30 years, school meals should be becoming more important. In 1979, when the Government came to power, 63 per cent. of children took school meals; now the figure is only 43 per cent. The reason is that the price of school meals has increased from 20p all over the country to 120p in some areas, while at the same time nutritional standards have been abandoned.
  Will the Secretary of State confirm whether there will be further rises in the price of school meals in the coming year? Will nutritional standards fall further? We asked him those questions when he delivered his statement in December but he did not answer. If he cannot be bothered to answer now, it is clear that he does not care.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No.
  Apparently, some Tories claim that the size of school classes does not matter—which is strange as nearly all of them send their children out of the regular school system to be educated. They send their children to the fee-paying schools which have smaller class sizes. [Interruption.] I do not know why Government Members are getting excited because I do not know anyone on the Opposition Benches who sends his or her children to a fee-paying school.
  1130
  Let us assume, therefore, that the children of Tories benefit from smaller class sizes. Most people think that it would be a good idea if all of our children could enjoy the educational benefits of smaller class sizes. According to the Government's own figures, in the past 10 years there has been a 9 per cent. increase in class sizes in primary schools and secondary school class sizes are rising as well. There are reports of that occurring all over the country. I ask the Secretary of State: will there be further increases in school class sizes? Does he know? Does he care? I can assure him that parents care, but they are faced with paying more and getting less.
  Youth clubs are another part of the education service which is increasingly neglected. Those clubs do not constitute a statutory provision and they are closing all over the country. Government Members then ask why there is an increase in juvenile crime. In London, and in many other parts of the country, the youth clubs which used to keep children occupied have been closed. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman, with his religious leanings, would recall the old saying, "The devil makes work for idle hands." The closure of youth clubs has certainly led to other problems.
  Mr. Yeo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall certainly not give way. As to clubs at the other end of the age spectrum—
  Mr. Yeo: Give way.
  Mr. Dobson: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is just standing there, because I can remember his abominable behaviour on previous occasions.
  Mr. Yeo: Give way.
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Opposition spokesman clearly does not intend to give way to the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo).
  Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider what he has just said? He made a direct assertion about my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South, but he will not give way to him. Will the hon. Gentleman have the courtesy to give way to someone whom he has insulted?
  Mr. Dobson: I can cast my mind back to the occasion when the hon. Member for Suffolk, South made assertions about the veracity of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). That led to Madam Speaker having to make a statement about the whole matter—so I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Yeo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to make unsupported assertions, in respect of an hon. Member sitting in the Chamber, about what happened in a previous Parliament, and then to refuse to give way to him?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair deprecates personal comments even if they are not ruled out by "Erskine

  1131
  May". I think that this whole debate has become a little too excited; but how hon. Members conduct themselves in entirely up to them.
  Mr. Dobson: In 1979, luncheon clubs provided meals for 15 million old people. In the last year for which figures are available, they provided meals for only 7 million people. Those clubs provide old people not just with a meal but with a chance to get out and enjoy a bit of company—to stir out of their homes, in which some of them feel imprisoned because they are fearful of going out. Will more or fewer pensioners be having meals in luncheon clubs as a result of today's announcement?
  As for care in the community, there are all sorts of calculations about NHS funding, local council funding, voluntary sector funding and private sector funding. I admit that the system is byzantine in its complexity, but the evidence of people's eyes and of our advice services and post bags show that the figures speak for themselves—sad figures, stumbling around the streets with no one to look after them. People have come to us because their neighbours cannot help being a nuisance when they are in a crisis, but there is no one to look after them; there are no acute or secure beds to cope with them. From the inner cities to the shire counties, care in the community is not working properly—and we all know it.
  I shall continue with a few more examples of what seems likely to happen. No doubt the Government will refer to them as anecdotes. These days, the definition of an anecdote is a reality that gives the lie to Government statistics. The Government claim that the threats to services are exaggerated by councils. There may be some truth in that; there may be exaggeration by teachers and by pensioner groups. For every spoonful of hyperbole on the part of local people, we get a bucketful of litotes from Ministers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of what?"] For Conservative Members who have not had the benefit of a classical education, I shall try again. For every ounce of exaggeration by local people, we get a ton of complacent understatement from Ministers.
  In Warwickshire, there is a threat to schools. Yesterday, I encountered someone in a meeting to do with the green side of my environmental duties. Towards the end of our discussions, he suddenly said, "I hope you are going to oppose what is happening to schools in Warwickshire, because we are faced with a possible loss of one teacher from every primary school and every secondary school. That will harm the education of my children and of the children of my neighbours." Does the Secretary of State deny that that is likely to happen?
  Mr. Roger Knapman rose—
  Mr. Dobson: No, I want to get on with my speech so as to allow some of my hon. Friends to speak up for their communities.
  Shropshire faces a £1 million reduction in spending on the elderly. It faces a reduction of nearly £500,000 in spending on people with learning difficulties, and a loss of more than £500,000 for spending on services to children in families—including the council's efforts to prevent child abuse. Last night I, like all hon. Members who attended the debate, heard about the nationwide concern over the funding of the police service and the attendant threat to the fight against crime.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to Shropshire. Can he confirm
  1132
  that the immense problems that we face there stem not just from this year's settlement but from a succession of four bad settlements which have meant that services have been consistently threatened for four years? There is near-universal agreement in the county that the only way services can be maintained is by going through the capping limit.
  Mr. Dobson: I understand that. We are not making a party political point because, as we understand it, all the members of Shropshire county council—Tory, Liberal and Labour alike—believe that the capping limit is too low to allow them to provide the services that they believe their people deserve.
  If we can believe what we read, the Tory members of the county council have been making representations to the Secretary of State, presumably to the same effect—although I hope that they have been more successful than some others who have made representations. I have checked on what happened to the seven Tory-controlled councils—there are so few of them these days—which have made representations to the Secretary of State or to one of his Ministers. They include Solihull, about which the Secretary of State was looking so concerned. Solihull went to ask for more; it ended up with £51,000 less. Castle Point went and came out with less. Likewise Dartford, Ribble Valley, Rushmoor, Thanet, and above all Brent, which went and lost £500,000 as a result of its representations. And that is what happens to Tory councils.
  Even more seriously, last year the fire service in South Yorkshire was so short of funds that it had to capitalise fire fighters' pension lump sums. In ordinary language, it took out a mortgage to find the money to pay the lump sums to fire fighters retiring from the service. The Government accepted that South Yorkshire was skint enough to have to do that. This year one might have expected the council to get a bit more from the Government to ease matters a little, but it got less: a cut of £1.4 million from a total budget of only £32 million. For the past two years, that fire brigade has not been able to afford new uniforms or new tyres for the fire engines. It needs to replace the fire engine tyres: worn tyres are not exactly a good idea.
  The chief fire officer says that the authority cannot cope. I have to tell the Secretary of State—I had hoped that the Government machine would warn him of this—that the Home Office inspector has said that South Yorkshire cannot meet its minimum standards of fire cover on its current budget. So the people of South Yorkshire will have to pay more for less fire cover. I understand that the same applies on Merseyside, which has a £4.7 million shortfall. The authority fears that it will be in breach of its statutory duty.
  While we are in South Yorkshire, let me mention Barnsley, which is apparently far less deprived than Runnymede and similar places. Over the past few years, Barnsley has lost 20 pits. In their desperate efforts to get the pit closure programme through the House, the Government promised to set up enterprise zones in the areas most deprived as a result of pit closures, yet they are so slovenly and useless that not one of those enterprise zones is yet in operation. The one in Barnsley certainly is not, and Barnsley has been capped on its standard spending assessment. It faces the prospect of having to close day centres for the mentally handicapped, for

  1133
  instance. Even if it can avoid that, it may have to withdraw one of those little, kindly forms of gentleness that make life better for people who are in a bad way. Until now, when people have gone to the centres for the mentally handicapped in Barnsley they have been given a little pay—£4 or £5 a week—to give them a bit of self-respect and spending money. Under this settlement, it seems likely that, even if the centre can be kept open, that little bit of self-respect will have to be withdrawn.
  Mr. Yeo rose—
  Mr. Dobson: No.
  I think that the Barnsley experience epitomises what is happening in Britain under this Government. Taxes increase and vulnerable people suffer. Vital services such as the fire brigade suffer; our children's schooling suffers. Old people suffer while the rich get richer. The operators of privatised buses line their pockets at everybody else's expense. Tory Ministers receive their pay-offs by joining the boards of industries that they privatised, or boards of city firms that have made a fortune out of privatisation. All this is happening while corruption in Westminster continues to be subsidised by the taxpayer and the council tax payer in the rest of England. We are all sick of it. We do not want to pay more to get less.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a disappointing speech. Smear, hyperbole and shroud waving are no substitutes for policy. It is little short of a travesty to suggest that changes in standard spending assessment have been fiddled. I well know that the changes have been brought about by local authority associations. I have in mind especially those recommendations that related to unemployment and social deprivation, which were fought hard, but accepted. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was so uncertain of his argument—the House will draw its own conclusions—that he did not dare allow a Conservative Back-Bench Member to intervene in his speech.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right when he said that we are dealing with a tough settlement. It is one of the toughest local government settlements that I have seen, but no settlement can be judged on the basis of one year. Last year's settlement was extremely good for local authorities. It was much better than it appeared to be at the time. There was no justification for the extravagant claims which were made, such as serious reductions in service. The net fall in the number of people employed by local authorities was slightly more than 1 per cent. Taking into consideration schools that opted for grant-maintained status and the effects of compulsory competitive tendering, we see that last year's settlement was about neutral.
  The fact that this year's settlement would be tough has been well flagged in the specialist press. It is well known that directors of finance and leaders of councils, being prudent men, have taken note of reports that the settlement would be a difficult one. They have had much more than three quarters of a year to prepare for it.
  1134
  We know from a recent Audit Commission report, entitled "Paying the Piper", that there is about £500 million within the system that could be diverted to front-line services.
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pickles: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I do not have unlimited time. I have only 10 minutes. If possible, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman towards the end of my speech.
  We have seen the usual parade of amputated stumps. Young people and the elderly have been used as battering rams. When my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) talked about parents and elderly people being in terror, Opposition Members broke into laughter. I do not believe that that happened because they are callous. They laughed because they know the truth; they know, for example, that no teachers will be made redundant.
  Cuts in teacher numbers will not be made. I know that, as do Opposition Members and the media. The only people who do not know that there will be no such cuts are frightened people. Opposition Members may not have had to deal with people coming into advice bureaux shaking with fear because the local authority is threatening to take away home care from their elderly parents. There are also parents who are worried about their young child returning from school with a letter from the local authority suggesting that teachers will be made redundant. I believe firmly in the professionalism and independence of local authority officers. If, however, the majority party of a council decides that a letter should be sent to the people of the area, I do not accept that it should be sent in the name of a local authority officer.
  I believe that head teachers are entitled to protest. They are entitled to say what they think about the level of service within their responsibility. If, however, schools are short of resources, they are not entitled to use school notepaper to draw attention to what they regard as shortages, thereby depriving schools of equally valuable resources.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: What does my hon. Friend say about a leaflet that was issued by the education officer of Kent county council to parents throughout the county, at a cost of £4,000? There were claims within it that various cuts would be made, despite the fact that Government funding for Kent has increased by 2 per cent. overall.
  Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend had the courtesy to show me the leaflet. I believe that the officer concerned stepped over the mark. That officer has mistaken a majority view in the council for a view that should be passed on to the public. As I have said, I firmly believe that local authority officers have high standards. If, however, they are to retain their independence, they must retain party political independence.
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Surely it is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to give us lessons in the use of local authority funding. When he was leader of Bradford council—this happened on the casting vote of the lord mayor—he took £13 million out of the council's budget and set the pubs of Bradford running.
  Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to remind him that, during my time, spending on or in schools increased, as did the number of teachers.

  1135
  The reduction in teaching numbers came when the hon. Gentleman was leader of the council. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to apologise for that.
  The most extravagant claims have been made about secondary schools. I am pleased that such schools in my constituency have been free from them. One of the reasons is that Brentwood and Ongar is the only constituency in which all secondary schools have opted out of the local authority's control. They are free, therefore, from political bias. I have little doubt that the shroud waving of Opposition Members will encourage others to join Brentwood and Ongar.
  Parents in my constituency enjoy schools that are free from dogma. Mr. Leo McKinstry's description of a Labour administration
  "mean-minded cocktail of political correctness, bureaucracy, intervention and abuse of public money"
  when talking about Islington could well fit Essex county council, which is controlled by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats.
  My constituents have been the victims of a combination of fuzzy dogma and incompetence. The county council is damaging them over a relatively small sum. They have been denied care in the community services. Beds in local hospitals are being blocked. Children are worried about the future of their elderly parents. It should not, and need not, have happened. It has, however, because the county council has decided to use the elderly as a battering ram.
  No one ever thought that care in the community would be a cheap option. We always knew that it would be expensive. That is why the sum made available by the Government to Essex county council for care in the community was increased last year by £32 million. There will be an extra £18 million this year. Since 1990, the grant for care in the community to the county council has risen by 95 per cent.
  My constituents have been the victims of poor decision making. There has been a transfer of about £500,000 from the care in the community budget to support inappropriate services, and the charging policy has been turned completely on its head, to the tune of £1.25 million. That is almost the exact sum that the county council chooses to take away from elderly people.
  The county council has decided to end the policy of selling old persons' homes. I have some experience of this because I visited Brooks house. Before the election, I saw an old, rundown building where the staff offered excellent care. Unfortunately, it was not a place where elderly people should see out their last years. When it came to the surroundings, there was no dignity and no respect. The sale was fought hard by the Liberal Democrats; indeed, it has ended that policy. I had the pleasure of opening Brooks house last year under the new regime. What I saw there was respect for the elderly people, the same staff running it and a better organisation. Under the new regime, it is a lot cheaper and a lot better in the private sector. Essex county council could buy considerably more care under that process if it would follow the example of putting the care of those old persons into the private sector.
  I firmly believe that it is within the power of Essex county council to use its not inconsiderable balance of £28 million to put care back where it is needed—into the hands of the elderly in my constituency.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) will forgive me, I hope, if I do not follow all the points in his speech, although I wish to refer to some of them.
  It was refreshing to hear a voice from local government talking about the motion, because in your absence, Madam Speaker, the debate became a shambles. I have attended many of these debates. It was no fault of your deputy, Madam Speaker. The fault lay in the fact that the Secretary of State quite deliberately allowed interventions over and over again from Conservative Members. I know that a Secretary of State or a Minister gives way to interventions, but not repeatedly like that.
  I have taken these motions many times in the House. I have proposed them from the Front Bench. One allows a few interventions, but one does not base one's speech on interventions. One should try to explain to the House what the motion is about. That the Secretary of State signally failed to do by talking about street signs in Suffolk and lesbian centres in Camden, by criticising the fact that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was not in the Chamber—all that sort of silly arguing. I wish that a video of the debate would be sent to every councillor, especially Conservative councillors, who, like us, are concerned with the community. They are caring people, just as Labour and Liberal councillors are caring people. They are colleagues of ours in a different sphere. To be treated in that way in what is probably the most important debate for local government was nothing but a disgrace.
  The motion has been described as harsh. I would go further and say that it is intolerable, because local authorities will find not only that their services have diminished but that they will be unable to provide some services at all because of lack of money—not from malice, not from putting people in fear, but simply because they have run out of money for those particular services.
  I am an honorary—I stress that word—vice-president of the Association of County Councils. It is opposed to the motion and finds it deplorable. I also represent a Cheshire constituency. I hasten to tell the Minister that it is not a Labour-controlled authority but an alliance between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats and they oppose the motion because of its injustice.
  Let us take two Departments in central Government—the Department for Education and the Department of Social Security. I understand that the figures for this year—limited though they are—are 4.1 per cent. for education and 3.7 per cent. for social services. The actual figure this October, with all the changes in police orders, and so on, is 0.5 per cent. for each of those services in local government. That shows the disgraceful discrepancy between the way in which central Government treat themselves and the way in which they treat what should be their partner—local government.
  I have another criticism, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), whose intervention was on this subject. One reason why there are discrepancies between Cheshire, Derbyshire, Cleveland and Tyneside is that an area cost adjustment is built into the system. That adjustment is supposed to compensate for the fact that it is more expensive to pay staff in London and the south-east than in the rest of the country. That might have happened at one time, but I

  1137
  challenge that assumption now on national wage bargaining. Even if there is some truth in it, it does not excuse the enormous advantage that counties and boroughs in the south-east have over the rest of the country. There is no way in which that can be excused. I do not think that it is a coincidence that most of the Conservative seats in the country are in the south-east.
  I wish briefly to look at one service, because the motion covers a vast subject—social services, to which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar rightly referred. It is central Government and local government at the sharp end. It is where the Government come into contact with the most distressed people in our society: the old, the sick, especially the mentally sick, and children, right at the centre of their lives. As Members of Parliament, we all know that. We see it in our surgeries and we gladly pass on those cases to the county or borough social services department. Alas, when we do that in future, many of those services will not be able to be provided, because the departments will not have the money after the settlement.
  The ACC estimated the cost of such social services. There is a shortfall in the amount that departments are to be given under the motion—I have the figures, but will not go into them, as that would waste time—of £261 million. The people who will suffer are the old, the sick and children in need of care.
  A couple of years ago, Cheshire county council introduced a system of charging for care. Now, I understand, more than one third of councils are forced to charge for care. As a result of the settlement, I guarantee that the percentage of councils that are forced to do that will be 100 per cent., because there is a built-in system whereby 9 per cent. is assumed to come from charges. We are talking about the most vulnerable section of the community. It is likely to come from the poorest—those not with low means but, in many cases, no means. There is no way in which a caring—even an uncaring—county council can recover those sums.
  What will that mean, then, in human terms? We have debated the figures—they are major figures—but it comes down to human terms. One of the few ideas that the Government had was to implement the community care scheme. Everybody agreed to it—the Association of County Councils and every shire county. It is a far more humane system. The national health service has benefited from it, quite rightly, because people are better off in the community. Previously, people were institutionalised, either long term in a hospital or in some other institution. The community care scheme should have been the Government's flagship, but the transfer from the NHS has not been followed up and matched by a fair transfer of finance among the authorities.
  What is happening now? We see it in our streets. In the community, local authorities have the responsibility of care; they would willingly provide that care, but they do not have the money to do so. The Secretary of State may say that that is because of waste or inefficiency, but that is not what the Audit Commission says. It is not what his own inspectors say when they examine how the community carries out the schemes.
  We must look at the subject in human terms, in terms, for example, of the people who suffer from schizophrenia. There have been some dreadful, tragic cases, for the
  1138
  person concerned and for his or her family, and sometimes the family of the victims. The money will not be available to provide the care needed.
  We must think of special needs teachers. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) would have raised that matter had he not been upstairs in a Select Committee. We must think of children who need to be put in care as a result of sexual or other physical abuse: places will not be provided, as they were in the past. We must think of meals on wheels, and other services for elderly people. Those, too, will be cut.
  Finally, we must think of the carers who save the country millions of pounds more than the revenue support grant, through the love and care that they devote to, for example, sufferers from Alzheimer's disease for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. At present, councils can provide places that allow those carers some respite, but they may not be able to do so in the future.
  Many Conservative Members are as caring as Opposition Members. When they vote tonight, let them remember that.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I hope that the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) will not be offended if I do not follow his speech. It was an excellent speech, although I could not agree with all of it, but I am constrained by the time limit.
  The right hon. Gentleman's speech was a marked and welcome contrast to that of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), which was boorish, ignorant, graceless and thoroughly uninformed. At least it had the virtue of being entirely consistent with every other speech that I have ever heard the hon. Gentleman make, and we should also give him credit for coming here to make it: that is more than can be said for the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who has played a significant part in the misrepresentation of the current settlement. Despite the steps that he has taken to misrepresent what is going on in the west country, the right hon. Gentleman could not even come to the House today. I find that remarkable, and think that it should be noted.
  It is in the nature of politics that politicians, whether they are Labour, Liberal or Conservative, seek to put the best possible construction on their actions. Sometimes, the public feel that that amounts to dishonesty; I do not think that it does. Obviously, any political party will try to set out its stall as well as it can. However, what has happened in Devon in recent weeks goes far beyond that. The Liberal administration there has not merely put the best possible gloss on its own policies and the worst possible gloss on those of the Conservative Government; it has engaged in a campaign of deceit, disinformation and downright lying. I have a fairly thick skin in political terms—I need to—but that campaign is so appalling that even I have been surprised at not only what the Liberals have done but at the extent to which, so far, they have got away with it.
  What the Liberals have done in Devon, and the way in which they have presented the position, is wicked, because it obscures the debate. If the Government had produced a settlement for Devon that was not fair, the

  1139
  Liberals' behaviour and the fact that it can be rubbished so easily would actually make it harder to bring Ministers to account—if, indeed, they had to be brought to account.
  We Members of Parliament make the mistake of thinking that, because we all understand—to a greater or lesser extent—the way in which local government is financed and the way in which it works, our constituents will understand it as well. Most of them do not. What parents know, certainly those in Devon, is that their children have only one opportunity of being educated. If the Conservatives sort out Devon's education service when they are returned to power there, it will not help someone who has already gone through the school system.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) used a phrase for which he was derided; he should not have been. Let me use the phrase again. What terrifies parents is that they do not know the minutiae of local government funding. They do not understand that a local education authority has certain functions to perform, and has discretion to set its own priorities; what they know is that they are being told by their councilors—their councillors would not lie to them, would they? Would they hell!—that there will be massive cuts in the classroom. Teachers will be made redundant, and parents are outraged about that.
  Let me draw attention to one of the most unfortunate aspects of all this. If my hon. Friend the Minister cannot deal with it today, I put down a marker: I shall pursue the matter in correspondence. What the Liberals in the west country are saying has been given some credibility by the fact that local government officers are prepared to sign letters that are no more than the crudest party political propaganda. Those same officers are also prepared to speak on television programmes, doing the Liberals' dirty work for them. It is almost as though my hon. Friend the Minister had a tricky television interview coming up, and persuaded his departmental permanent secretary to do it for him.
  We may wonder why professional council officers allow themselves to be traduced in that way. We can imagine the pressure that they must have felt themselves to be under, to allow their professional expertise to be employed and their cloak of apparent honesty to be thrown over the shoulders of the Liberals.
  What are the Liberals up to? Any lie must be told in a big way. They have held briefings, and I have observed the results from telephone calls, letters and visits that I have received. People have been told that Devon county council will receive less money this year: that is the first thing that they have been told. Is that true? It is false. Last year, the police authority was maintained within the council, but it is now maintained separately. If we compare like with like, we find that there has been a 7.8 per cent. overall increase rather than a decrease.
  Parents are being asked—in a sense, this is the chief criterion—whether Devon is performing better than the average, in an average way or worse than the average, and they find that it is performing far worse than the average. I have discovered from meetings that they have even been told that Devon is the worst-funded county in the United Kingdom. The truth is, however, that it has received the fifth largest standard spending assessment increase. As for educational SSA, it has received double the national average. At the mention of annual capital guidelines, parents' eyes will glaze over, but hon. Members understand the significance of those guidelines. They
  1140
  specify what local education authorities can spend. Devon does not receive as much as it used to and it never will, but it receives about half as much again as the national average.
  Mr. David Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Nicholls: No; time is short. My hon. Friend can make his own speech in his own way.
  The Liberals say that an increase that is less than the increase they want is really a cut. They think that, if they say that long enough, someone will believe them. Once they have convinced parents that the cuts have been imposed by the Government—almost suggesting that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that there must be cuts in the provision of a particular school—we suddenly discover the existence of reserves. How did I find out about the reserves? A headmaster in my constituency telephoned me. He said, "Have a look at the papers. They have squirrelled away £17 million." When I said, "If there is £17 million there, why do you not take the matter up with the council?" he said, "It is more than my job is worth." There is a climate of fear in Devon. The headmaster will not even take the matter up with his own Member of Parliament.
  What was the attitude of the Liberal county council to the reserves? On day one it denied that they existed; on day two it said that it was scandalous to suggest that they amounted to £17 million—there was only £16.8 million. We now discover from a written parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that there may be as much as £51 million.
  The fact is—and parents in Devon needed to know this—that a local education authority can set its own agenda. It is entitled to decide its own priorities, and the priority of Devon county council is to threaten to cut the number of teachers, when in the past year it has increased staff numbers by a huge 718. Then it has the nerve to turn around and say that, because of Government action, it will have to cut pupil numbers. That is utterly dishonest. Here is a body that employs more people than the European Union, and it says that it must cut the number of teachers.
  The LEA has a question to answer: where do its priorities lie? Is it concerned about core functions at county hall, or about services in county schools? I do not expect parents to accept uncritically everything that my hon. Friend the Minister will say; not do I expect them to accept uncritically anything that a Conservative Member of Parliament says. All that I will say to parents in Devon is this. Democracy is a two-way street, and citizens have a responsibility to see what is being done in their names. Yes, by all means send in the letters in their hundreds and question Conservative Members of Parliament about what they are doing, but also question the LEA, which has the funds to set its own priorities if it wishes. Ultimately, if parents question both Members of Parliament and the LEA, they should get the truth, but that process has not yet started in Devon. I should like to think that, as a result of tonight's debate, it will.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: As I intend to touch on a number of education matters, it is important for me to

  1141
  declare my interest as an adviser to two teacher associations. I assure the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that I shall shortly deal with his points.
  It is becoming increasingly clear that the Government have no love for local government. They do not like it, and they do not trust it. Therefore, they have set out systematically to destroy it, and they are doing that by reducing its powers, often giving them to remote, undemocratic quangos. In addition, as we have noticed in the debate, the Government are attempting to starve local government to death, and with it many of the much-needed and valued services that it provides. For evidence, we need only look at the settlement.
  We all know the figures as they have been discussed already, but perhaps the best source of information is the press release issued by the Department of the Environment on 29 November last year. It states that, net of community care, the settlement represents a cash decrease of 0.4 per cent. As all hon. Members know, when inflation is taken into account, that means a significant cut in the amount of money being made available to local government. I do not need to refer to more up-to-date information, because figures contained in recent announcements are almost identical to those in that press release.
  Despite all the delegations that came to plead with the Secretary of State and the Minister, very little has changed. Little notice has been taken of the people in those delegations, all of whom care about local government. The present cuts are on top of cuts in previous years. The Government are calling for local government fat to be removed, but the fat was removed many years ago. The flesh has now gone, and the bones will soon be bleached white.
  The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) spoke about savings that were outlined in the Audit Commission report. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the report suggested about £540 million. I am sure he accepts that those savings were intended to be made over seven years, and that more than 50 per cent. of the report's recommendations have already been enacted.
  Mr. John Sykes: The hon. Gentleman talks of fat in local government. Is he aware that, in my area, North Yorkshire county council received a 1 per cent. increase in this year's allocation but is complaining about drastic cuts? It wants to reduce the number of fire engines in Scarborough, although we all know what happened last year to the Richmond hotel. The council owns 13,000 acres of farmland in North Yorkshire, which is worth £10 million. There is no thought of selling that. Local authorities must be made to face difficult decisions. That council should be forced to decide whether it wants to provide fire engines or farmland.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it gives me the opportunity to remind him that the sale of assets does not immediately make available to the local authority the whole of the proceeds. The Government limits the amount that can be
  1142
  spent. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that, when assets are sold, the most useful use for the proceeds is to create new assets for the local authority.
  Mr. Sykes rose—
  Mr. Foster: Madam Speaker has given me dispensation to go beyond the allotted time, but I have promised that I shall try to abide by the spirit of the 10-minute rule. Therefore, I will not give way.
  The purpose of the cuts is clear. There will be cuts in the fire service, community care, library services, housing and roads, but the worst cuts will be in the education and youth services. The cuts in education will be across the board, but especially important is what will happen in the classroom. Those cuts are real. As many hon. Members know, even the Secretary of State for Education, in her letter to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, warned of the possibility of problems in education because of this settlement.
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Why is the Liberal Democrat administration in Devon threatening massive cuts in the education budget, even though the administration has a surfeit of more than 700 people? Perhaps that is fat. How has the administration at Exeter managed to achieve more than double the average increase in the education SSA?
  Mr. Foster: I shall be happy to deal with that when I reach that topic in my speech. I wish to set the national scene, and I shall then reply to the points that hon. Members have raised.
  Within the settlement, the Government expect local education authorities to manage with less money per pupil. Of the 117 LEAs, only four have avoided a real-terms cut in their SSA. Across England, the cut is the equivalent of £50 per primary pupil and nearly £200 per secondary pupil. Altogether, that represents a cut of £750 million.
  The Secretary of State said that local government must get its priorities right, but one must question the Government's priorities, because they say that there must be significant cuts in the amount spent on each pupil. That is based on the Secretary of State's figures.
  Mr. Gummer: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is making general points, but perhaps I could make a specific one. In Devon and Somerset, Liberal administrations or Liberal-supported coalitions have increased the number of employees. There have been significant increases in the amount that those administrations receive from the Government, but they have written to schools telling them that there will be staff cuts. Those matters do not hang together, and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is not here to defend the words that he put in letters to Conservative Members. Many of us are beginning to wonder whether the Liberals are being honest on this.
  Mr. Foster: The Secretary of State is repeating interventions that have already been made, to which I have promised to respond. He is taking up precious time. He knows that, because of the unfairness of the area cost adjustment, all the LEAs in the south-west are placed at a considerable disadvantage. On average, they have £130 per pupil less to spend in the classroom.

  1143
  I said that I would reply to some specific points. Some hon. Members spoke about Somerset. Based on information provided by the Department for Education, in real terms the SSA per primary pupil in Somerset will be cut by £46. The cut for secondary pupils will be £147. The overall shortfall for the Somerset budget as calculated by the county treasurer is £20.4 million, of which £12.4 million is in the education budget generally and £9 million is in the schools budget in particular.
  Although a number of Conservative councillors in Somerset initially disagreed, I understand that they have now accepted those figures from the county treasurer. The Devon figures show a cut of £46 per primary pupil and £178 per secondary pupil in real terms in the SSA in this settlement.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: No, I am not giving way again.
  Many people fail to understand that marginal increases fail to take into account the increased number of pupils.
  Right across England, local education authorities are expected to do more and more, with less and less. As one head teacher put it recently:
  "We are running a medium sized business on peanuts and goodwill".
  As all right hon. and hon. Members know, standard spending assessment cuts will be compounded by the results of the teachers' pay award. Unless the Government fund that centrally, even less cash will be available for use in the classroom.
  The Prime Minister told us that education was one of his Government's top priorities. Today, the Secretary of State for the Environment told us that education was at the heart of the needs of the nation. The settlement, however, shows that neither the Secretary of State nor the Prime Minister are putting our money as taxpayers where their mouths are. They would rather put their party before this country's future. Instead of investing in education, they want to cut money from it, giving themselves room for tax cut bribes before the next election. But they have been rumbled.
  Mr. King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: No. [Interruption.] I have already said that I would not give way again. You, Madam Speaker, have asked me to comply with the 10-minute ruling for speeches.
  The nation knows that every right hon. and hon. Member who votes for the settlement tonight—that includes the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—is voting for teachers to be sacked, for rising class sizes, for less money for books and equipment in our schools, and for less money for much-needed repair and maintenance. Worst of all, they are voting to ensure that no real possibility exists of the much-needed expansion of nursery education.
  Conservative central Government have admitted that the settlement is tight for education and for all other local government services. The Secretary of State called it a "tough" settlement. It is far worse than that—it is a deplorable settlement. Anyone who cares about local government and the services it provides should vote against it tonight.
  Mr. King: Will the hon. Gentleman answer one question?
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has sat down.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I do not want to follow the line that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) elocuted in his speech, because it is not worth following.
  I praise one of my councils—Derbyshire Dales district council. Its standard spending assessment was some £6,069,000, and it is estimated that it will spend some £6,007,000. Basically, that results in a reduction of 8.1 per cent. for the council tax payer in Derbyshire Dales.
  I am grateful that that council has managed to achieve that within what I accept has been a tight settlement. I praise all members of Derbyshire Dales for their prudent running of the local authority. They have reduced the community tax, and, at the same time, total council expenditure contains growth of 3.4 per cent. and inflation of 3.3 per cent. They deserve praise for the way in which they have run a prudent and efficient system.
  Yet again, Derbyshire county council has been using its usual tactics to frighten everyone about the implications of its spending settlement. I say "its usual tactics", and I have slight evidence for that. I was looking through some papers this morning, and I came across a report from the county treasurer. It states:
  "Taking the above factors into account, the County Treasurer anticipated the County Council operating in circumstances where the cost of maintaining services based on a realistic estimate of pay and price increases, amounted to £470 million, whilst the Secretary of State's assumption on Derbyshire's level of spending was £435 million, a reduction of £35 million."
  He said that that £35 million would mean the cutting of one of the following:
  "2500 teachers, the entire regular police force, maintaining County roads and supporting public transport, residential and support services for children, and elderly and physically handicapped people."
  That report was presented on 16 December 1987.
  The problem is that, year in and year out, we hear such arguments from local authorities about the way in which they run their services. They then tell us that they should be allowed to continue in their present form. My right hon. Friend has in front of him the Derbyshire review. I do not believe that Derbyshire county council is an efficient service provider, and I hope that he will carefully take that into account when he considers his response to that review.
  I accept that much of the money is spent on education. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned school meals. We know about school meals in Derbyshire because, in the past 14 years, Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council has spent more than £100 million on subsidising school meals. If that £100 million had gone into schools and education, the council would be in a far better state to provide services.
  Providing those services would have been better than subsidising my children to go to those schools and to have cheap meals. What nonsense. How stupid and ridiculous. Yet the hon. Gentleman sought to defend that argument. I find that unbelievable.
  Mr. Charles Hendry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Derbyshire council has an abysmal record in the amount of money that it holds back for central administration? Will he confirm that, if it was as efficient as Nottinghamshire council, which itself is not

  1145
  very efficient, it would have another £70 to spend per child in schools? That would be better than spending the money on its bureaucrats in county hall.
  Mr. McLoughlin: That fact has come out of the research that we have done. Derbyshire county council may score high on spending, but its allocation on schools is the lowest of any shire county. It spends more on central administration than any other county. I am not proud of that record, because I would prefer money to go into schools.
  Until a few years ago, there was no option in the state system. All schools were run by the local education authority. Back in 1988, I was pleased to be parliamentary private secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold). We took the Education Reform Act 1988 through the House, which allowed schools to become grant-maintained.
  Now, there is another option for education. I welcome that option, because it makes Derbyshire county council be careful about some of the nonsensical decisions that it has taken in the past. We had the crazy situation in which all school notepaper was taken back to county offices to be overprinted with "Derbyshire supports nuclear-free zones." It has become a bit better in recent times.
  I should like to share with the House some of the experiences of schools that have gone grant-maintained. The head teacher of Belper high school said recently:
  "The school has benefited from enhanced funding because although we are linked to the Derbyshire formula the element for central costs can be spent specifically to meet our own needs. Independence enables us to manage our finances far more effectively because we have full control. We received an emergency grant from the DFE to replace our twenty-year-old boilers. Queries are always answered promptly and clearly by the DFE which has made the task of management much easier."
  Dr. Dupey, the head of Ecclesbourne school, said:
  "The last four years have been the most professionally fulfilling of nearly two decades of headship. Not only have we been able to put right most of the physical deficiencies of the School's site and buildings, we have been able to assign a much higher proportion of what was our share of the resources allocated to Derbyshire for education to the business of teaching and learning. The effort wasted on petty politics and bureaucracy has also been significantly reduced, leaving more time, energy and enthusiasm to devote to the needs of our students.
  Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is probably the reason why the leader of the Labour party has chosen a grant-maintained school for his child? He knows that the money will be spent on the child and not on the bureaucracy.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend knows this, but it is even worse than that. As I understand it, only one school in the country has opted out of the national pay negotiations. I shall not give my right hon. Friend any prizes for guessing which school that is.
  We have a further alternative in the education system. That is a positive step.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. McLoughlin: I would rather not give way, because I have a great deal to say.
  1146
  I could speak on this subject for a long time, but time is short. There are alternatives for education.
  I am particularly concerned about the area cost adjustment. Some of us wonder whether the Department of the Environment has got the formula right. It should be looked at. It might mean that some London boroughs will have to lose money. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) did the House a disservice by spending 25 minutes talking about London. Many hon. Members are much more interested in what is happening in the rest of the country than in history lessons about Westminster. Will my right hon. Friend consider carefully the area cost adjustment?
  When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was Chief Secretary, he talked about the pay review bodies reporting after local authority budgets had been set. That does put local authorities in an awkward position, in that they do not know what the pay settlements will be in the coming year. It should be looked at. It is not fair that they should find out what the pay review bodies say after they have set their budget. That is not the most efficient way to move forward.
  I have no doubt that we will hear the same bleating as we have heard over the past few months—some of which may be genuine. Scaring parents is deplorable and does no credit to the people involved. Year after year, we hear the same excuses. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to use every opportunity to expose what the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are trying to do, and to explain what the outcome will be.
  7.22 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: The only point on which I agree with the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) is his concern about the area cost adjustment.
  This year's revenue support grant settlement is a great disappointment to Durham county council, which provides services in my constituency. It appears to have been severely punished under the capping regime for having adopted a cautious and realistic approach to past spending.
  For a long time, the county council has sought changes to the area cost adjustment, but it has been ignored. It is the county council's contention, and mine, that the area cost adjustment is fundamentally flawed. It is now three times higher than five years ago and it has grown six times faster than local authority resources generally in that period. Some local authorities may need to be compensated for labour cost variations, but it is difficult to understand the size and distribution of the compensation—or perhaps that was explained to us earlier. It could have something to do with the political control of certain councils in the south of England, but perhaps I am being cynical.
  The settlement is divorced from reality. The three major employment groups are teachers, the police and firefighters, who are all on nationally agreed wage scales. Durham county council, like many other authorities outside south-east England, has been deprived of its fair share of SSA.
  The capping limit has been increased since last year's settlement, but it is well below last year's level for Durham county council. I appreciate that some factors have changed in the calculation of SSAs. Nevertheless,

  1147
  the county will have to save £14.5 million this year to set a budget at the capping limit. If it is to save that money, it will have to make cuts, including in administration, to maintain services to the community. It is inevitable that services will suffer. Specific decisions have not yet been taken, but, without doubt, some appalling cuts will be made. That is not scaremongering. Libraries will close.
  Durham county council has given schools funding of £1.5 million to take into account the increase in pupil numbers. The Government have ignored that cost and have failed to provide any extra funds to pay for the cost of the teachers' pay settlement in 1995–96. That will have dire consequences on school budgets.
  Road maintenance schemes will be cut by £500,000 and public transport support will have to be cut. Economic development, to which the council has attached great priority in recent years because the Government closed the mines and the steelworks in the north, will be severely cut.
  I accept that the money transferred to social services under the special transitional grant is sizeable, but it is inadequate to meet needs, particularly the growing number of private nursing home places. Consequently, those services will come under significant pressure and will face cuts. Community care in Durham is under threat.
  Cuts are not being made for the first time—far from it. In 1991–92 the council had to cut £1 million; in 1992–93 it had to cut £4.2 million; in 1993–94 it had to cut £6.9 million and in 1994–95 it will have to cut £10 million. It cannot go on.
  Mr. Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Steinberg: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not do so; I have a lot to say.
  Durham county council's education committee has been instructed by the policy resources committee to cut £2.125 million from its budget. No final decision has been made, but the cuts may include a reduction in education welfare posts, an increase in outdoor education charges, cuts in swimming provision, cuts in child guidance and an increase in school meal prices. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire may disagree, but many children need subsidised or free meals because it is often the only decent meal that they get during the day. Cuts will be made in resources for local education authority initiatives and in the GEST—grants for education support and training—programme.
  School budgets will have to be cut because the Government have reduced the SSA calculations in Durham by £95 per primary school child and £195 for each secondary school pupil. As I have already said, the Government have made no provision for teachers' pay increases.
  That scandal means that the council has no alternative but to reflect those cuts in school budgets. In addition to failing to fund teachers' pay increases, the Government have failed to recognise the increase in the number of students or to take account of inflation. Schools will have to deal with those factors themselves.
  What does that mean to individual schools? The head teacher of Durham Johnston school told me that if his funding is cut by 4 per cent., which seems likely, he will have to find £120,000 from his budget. Apart from staffing, which accounts for 80 per cent. of his budget, he will have to cut repairs and maintenance to his school, he
  1148
  will have to stop purchasing any new furniture or replacing computers. He will have to reduce ground maintenance and cut a large percentage from the allocation to subject departments to buy books and equipment. Mr. Dunford, the head teacher, wrote to me and said:
  "This school now has just over 1,400 pupils, including a Sixth Form of 280. It is, as you know, popular and over-subscribed. In short, it is not the sort or school which we were led to believe would have financial problems under the LMS formula. But there are no safe havens now—all schools are facing a very difficult financial year. If this were to be an isolated school year, the situation would look bad, but what concerns me even more is that we are told that the Department of the Environment intends to follow the same policy in local government finance for the next two years. If we are asked to prune our budget by a similar amount in 1996 and 1997, I do not believe that it will be possible to educate all children full-time up to the age of 16. We will not be able to afford the staff to be able to do so.
  I believe that the situation is reaching a crisis point".
  That reveals a desperate situation. Those are the words of one of the country's most respected head teachers—I am not exaggerating as I believe he is vice-president of the Secondary Heads Association and serves on many national bodies. If a head teacher of his renown is saying such things, we are certainly in a deplorable state.
  Even the Secretary of State for Education wrote to her Cabinet colleagues recently about the effect that the teachers' pay award would have on school budgets. She recognised that schools were in an impossible position. She has already urged the Prime Minister to cut any recommendations of the independent—or so-called independent—teachers' pay review body to 1.5 per cent. She recognises that local education authorities cannot pay any more. Once again, teachers are going to be punished thanks to the inadequacy of this year's local government finance settlement. The independent review body should recommend a fair pay settlement and the Government should fund it fully.
  The revenue settlement this year clearly shows the Government's lack of commitment to state education and, in particular, to teachers. If the Government had any real commitment to the state system, they would ensure that schools were well resourced and teachers were well rewarded for their work, but all that we get from them is rhetoric. In the meantime, however, millions of children go on suffering in our schools.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Michael Carttiss: I shall read my speech very quickly and I shall not take any interventions.
  I do not dissent too much from the speeches made by right hon. and hon. Members who are in the Conservative parliamentary party and I am grateful to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), for seeing representatives of Norfolk county council on 4 January. His hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), wrote to me on 27 January about that meeting. His letter states:
  "At the meeting the council representatives asked for a higher spending limit for Norfolk and spelt out their particular concerns on the reduction in Education SSA, on the Area Cost Adjustment, and on personal social services. These views will of course be taken into account by the Secretary of State prior to making his decisions on the 1995/96 Local Government Finance (England) Report and the Special Report."

  1149
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) spoke about the area cost adjustment and reflected the considerable concern that exists in many counties, irrespective of party control, about the unfair way in which it works.
  The result of Norfolk county council representatives' meeting with the Minister of State was that, between the announcement on 1 December of Norfolk's revenue support grant settlement and today's debate, Norfolk's grant was cut by £210,000 by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench.
  Norfolk has consistently spent well below the average for English counties. Suffolk is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo), who intervened on a fellow Member—the Secretary of State—who represents another Suffolk constituency, to complain about the Lib-Lab way in which Suffolk was being run. Curiously enough, despite knowing the bad way in which it is being run, the Secretary of State has given Suffolk an increase of £300,000 since 1 December.
  Surrey's grant goes up by £2.69 million. I accept that it is a big county and has high expenditure but the increase goes down very badly with my constituents in Norfolk, bearing in mind the fact that, in 1992–93, Norfolk county council spent £584.54 per head on county-provided services whereas the average figure for English counties in the same period was £613.78. The county council has a spending limit set by the Government of £424.4 million. The county treasurer calculates that this represents a shortfall of £20 million on projected expenditure in 1995–96.
  As several right hon. and hon. Members have said, local authorities want to spend more. Most people, including Conservatives, seek local government service because they want to promote improved services for their communities but county treasurers cannot always have as much as they want.
  "Norfolk has a long history of strict economy when budgeting and it has every reason tonight to expect as many of its parliamentary representatives as possible to impress on the Government, as have other right hon. and hon. Members, that enough is enough."— [Official Report, 20 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 93.]
  I quote further:
  "Norfolk has been a sensible, moderate, low-spending authority".—[Official Report, 25 July 1985; Vol. 83, c. 1331.]
  Those are the words of the then Secretary of State for the Environment, which I cited in my speech on 20 January 1986. The Secretary of State who spoke appreciatively of Norfolk when he announced the 1986–87 RSG settlement on 25 July 1985 was the then right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, now Lord Jenkin.
  On the night of 20 January I also said:
  "Socialists and Liberals have never controlled Norfolk county council, and they never will, because I am confident that, recognising the strength of feeling among Conservative Members, the Government will introduce a more equitable system next year."—[Official Report, 20 January 1986: Vol.90, c.95.]
  In fact, my predictions were doubly wrong: the Government did not introduce a more equitable system and nor have they done so for Norfolk today. My prediction about the election result was wrong because in 1993, for the first time in the history of my county, we were lumbered with a Lib-Lab alliance to run our affairs. I partly blame the Government for that result.
  1150
  The overall increase allowed for in funding essential county services in Norfolk is 0.5 per cent. If the Government had said on 28 November that they were going to limit the increase in their contribution to the European Union budget to 0.5 per cent., I would still be a member of the parliamentary party because I would have voted for that. However, we are giving money to the European Union but are making our own local authorities impose cuts.
  People who say that there will be no cuts are wrong—of course there will. One cannot increase overall expenditure by a mere 0.5 per cent. at a time of 2 per cent. inflation without making cuts. Let us not be mealy-mouthed about that. If the European Union can have the money, so can Norfolk. I want it spent on schools in Great Yarmouth and on highway maintenance in my villages, not on subsidies for tobacco growers in Greece and olive growers in Italy.
  This afternoon, the Secretary of State for the Environment talked about the difficult decisions faced by the Government in restraining and reducing their own spending. In fact, the Department of Health—
  Mr. John Sykes: Norfolk has assisted area status.
  Mr. Carttiss: Someone is interrupting although I said that I would not accept interventions. He is saying that my constituency has assisted area status but we got precious little money back from Europe for that.
  The Department of Health's budget, quite rightly, goes up by 3.8 per cent. this year. The Department of Education's budget rightly goes up by 4.1 per cent. Very difficult decisions have to be taken by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench to limit central Government expenditure—4.1 per cent. on education and 3.8 per cent. on health—but, at the same time, they are telling local authorities, which have to run such services locally, that they will receive an increase of only 0.5 per cent.
  On that famous night of 20 January 1986, to which I referred, 29 Conservative Back Benchers voted against the Government. None of them lost the Whip; some of them were ex-Cabinet Ministers—Lord Pym, Lord Prior and Lord Gilmour—and some of are in the Government now. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) voted against the Government in 1986; he is now Minister of State in the Treasury. He should know that if the settlement was not good enough when it was much higher in 1986, this year's settlement is not good enough.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is now a Minister of State in the Foreign Office and I accept entirely that he cannot be expected to worry about revenue support grants, but he voted against the Government that night. Look how these people get on when they vote against the Government.
  Notably, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the Member for Hertfordshire, West, wrote to me-I quoted from his letter—and told me that Norfolk could manage and that the settlement was fair and equitable. It was not fair and equitable to him when he voted against the Government on 20 January 1986. Now, as Under-Secretary for the Environment, he is telling me that 0.5 per cent is—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. This is all very interesting as a defence of the hon. Gentleman's case, but could he get down to local government finance?
  Mr. Carttiss: I am drawing attention to the fact that right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Bench say one thing when they are where I am, yet when they have a chance to put into effect what they said when they were on the Back Benches, they conveniently forget it. If that is not relevant to my contention that Norfolk has been treated badly, I do not know what is. However, I defer to your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and as the clock shows that my time is up, I shall conclude with three quarters of my condemnation of the Government happily left unsaid.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. David Clelland: I shall speak about the problems faced by the city of Newcastle upon Tyne, although similar problems face the metropolitan borough of Gateshead, which, as a recent written answer to a question asked my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) showed, has the unenviable record of being eighth out the 10 authorities that have lost the largest sum through the changes to the education standard spending assessment formula.
  Tyne and Wear fire and civil defence authority is facing a £1.8 million cut in its budget, which will result in a loss of jobs and will affect our emergency services, with consequent threats to life and limb. In that context, I draw the House's attention to early-day motion 489, which 27 hon. Members and I have signed.
  Hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that the settlement is harsh. I must remind them that it is harsh not on Labour councils, which no doubt is the intention, but on the people who will lose their services and the many who will lose their jobs.
  Newcastle's SSA is £224 million. The provisional capping criteria allow the city to spend 0.5 per cent., when, as the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) has just reminded us, inflation is 2.5 per cent. If the capping criteria are unchanged, Newcastle will have to cut £5 million from its budget of £239 million to meet the cap limit.
  Cuts of £5 million require a £2.3 million net cut in education, a £750,000 net cut in social services and a £650,000 net cut in leisure services. Two million pounds will be taken from schools, which will result in the loss of the music service, £100,000 will be taken from libraries, which will result in branch closures, £300,000 will be taken from child care services, which will result in the closure of nursery and welfare rights projects, the number of social workers and occupational therapists will be reduced and residential homes for the elderly, respite day provision and day centres will close.
  Those cuts will be made despite the fact that in the past five years £40 million—almost 20 per cent. of the budget—has already been cut, resulting in 1,500 redundancies, the loss of 2,500 jobs and a loss of services. I say to Conservative Members who accuse us of spreading scare stories that since 1989 pupil-teacher ratios in Newcastle have risen from 14.4:1 to 16:1 in the secondary sector, eight homes for the elderly, three residential homes for children and two day centres have
  1152
  closed, the library book fund has been cut by 28 per cent., branch library opening hours have been reduced by 13 per cent. and the arts budget has been cut by 15 per cent.
  All that has happened despite Government recognition, under city challenge and other initiatives, that the city needs more, not less, help. How can it possibly make sense that a day nursery in Scotswood in my constituency faces possible closure, when the policies of the same Government made that place the centre of the city challenge area? If the Government's present policies persist, Newcastle will face a further three years of cuts worth £20 million, resulting in the loss of another 1,000 jobs.
  None of that is desirable and none of it is wanted by the people of Newcastle. The stark reality is that none of it is necessary. When the Government's revenue support grant to the city is added to other income and to council tax income, the total is sufficient to maintain services at current levels and to avoid the painful cuts to which I have referred. The nonsense of the capping criteria is such that the council cannot spend at that level and is therefore obliged to cut council tax by £70 in band D, rather than maintain jobs and services.
  That was explained to the people of the city by the local evening newspaper, the Evening Chronicle. In a survey of opinion, it reported that people were in favour of maintaining the council tax at its current level to avoid cuts by a ratio of 20:1. That opinion has been further confirmed in the city today, where a huge demonstration against Government-imposed cuts has taken place.
  If Newcastle were allowed to freeze its council tax and set a budget at that level, there would be no net service cuts in the city. If Newcastle were given the inner-London capping criteria, the cuts would be reduced by £1.7 million and council tax would fall by £50 in band D and 'by £33 in band A. If the city were given the same support as Westminster, it would be able to improve services and give council tax payers money back.
  If the capping criteria are not changed, Newcastle will be forced to consider for the first time the possibility of setting a budget above the provisional cap, just as Shropshire and other councils are. Like Shropshire, the appeal to the Secretary of State to recognise Newcastle's problems was supported by Tory and Liberal Democrat councillors from the city.
  All those facts are a vindication of Labour's policies to decentralise power and give it back to local communities. When the people of Newcastle, or anywhere else, are prepared to pay for a service in their own communities, based on their knowledge of the needs of their community, why should some Minister in an ivory tower in London tell them that they cannot make those decisions and that they will have to cut taxes, despite the consequences and their own wishes? It is a clear example of the erosion of local democracy under this Government and it emphasises the importance of Labour's policies to restore to the people of the regions, the nations and the localities of Britain the power to pursue their policies according to their priorities and at their pace. All those who believe in local democracy should join us in the Lobby and vote against the motion.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Mark Robinson: Somerset has already featured in the debate and it has been a source

  1153
  of considerable controversy, especially locally, where the Liberal Democrats have been at their campaigning best in sending out petitions, organising letters and shouting and screaming about the education budget that they, of course, have decided to impose on the county. Indeed, the Somerset county council policy and resources committee aims to secure a reduction of £12.5 million in the education budget. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has written to all Somerset Conservative Members of Parliament urging them to vote against the settlement. I am always prepared to consider representations from any source, but it is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not stick his head into the Chamber for just a few minutes to listen to the debate when he is urging us to vote against the settlement.
  Mr. Gummer: Did my hon. Friend notice that, although we were promised clearly by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), that he would explain how Somerset could increase the number of people it employed by more than 3 per cent. and how it could receive significant extra sums this year, but that that meant there had to be a cut in the education budget, he did not manage to get to that point in his extremely long speech? Does my hon. Friend know the answer?
  Mr. Robinson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already provided the answer to that point, although I hope to develop it later.
  Because of the way in which Somerset's local management formula works on schools, the budget will be very harsh if the county council persists in its course of action. That would be extremely disappointing for many people because Somerset county council has been doing very well in the education league and, over recent years, it has brought its pupil-teacher ratio up to the national average.
  There is no doubt that this year's settlement is difficult, but we must ask whether Somerset county council's response is legitimate in those circumstances. Together with my Conservative colleagues in Somerset, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), I have examined the county council's proposals. We agree that alternative strategies could he followed which would protect Somerset's education budget from the kind of unjustified pressure that will be placed on it if the Liberal Democrats have their way.
  We are supported in our view by the very experienced Conservative leadership on the county council, including the well-respected former chairman of the education committee, Councillor Bea Roberts. As part of our scrutiny of the county council's budget, we uncovered underspending in this year's budget.
  I suppose that we should not be surprised that, since the Liberal Democrats took control two years ago, meetings allowances and travelling expenses have escalated, as has already been pointed out. A recent Audit Commission report shows that the size of the council's legal staff is well above average and record sums have been spent on legal costs.
  1154
  However, Somerset has had no difficulty finding the funds to protect its anti-hunting crusade. One moment it takes steps to remove travellers from its land at Podimore in my constituency and the next moment it invites them back to spend a month-long Christmas holiday there, to the fury of local landowners who have suffered damage and threats to their livestock.
  We now have a tight settlement, but the council's so-called community initiatives, which involve the establishment of information points or offices in 13 Somerset towns, seem to be more important than protecting teachers' jobs. There is no question of cutting those initiatives.
  Some of the things that I have mentioned may involve only small amounts of money, but they all add up. At no stage is there a suggestion that an audit of expenditure should take place to discover whether further savings can be found. We believe that such an audit should be carried out as a matter of urgency.
  However, larger sums can also be identified. For example, the county's capital fund could produce over £2 million with some judicious postponement of planned projects until the funding improves. In addition, revenue balances could be utilised and, if I am not mistaken, those balances are net of cap. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that when he replies.
  The county council has informed me that those balances amount to £9 million. However, I understand that the Department of the Environment estimated a substantial cash balance of £36.4 million on I April 1994. Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm his Department's view of the state of Somerset's cash balances, given the different figures that are now being bandied about?
  What is so typical of the Liberal Democrats is that they refuse point blank to discuss or consider any alternative ideas. I can only conclude that their strategy is to put party advantage first and children's education second. That is already clear. The weakness of the Liberal Democrats' argument is shown not just by the fact that the right hon. Member for Yeovil could not take part in what he regarded as a very important debate, but in the fact that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) would not give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater. The weakness of the argument can he exposed very easily and it is exposed by our very experienced county councillors who have drawn up their alternative budget.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already stated that the settlement proposes an increase in spending. However, local Liberal Democrat-inspired petitions talk about the "massive cut" in funding from central Government. How can an overall increase in SSA for Somerset of 1.4 per cent. compared to the overall county average of 0.6 per cent. be considered a massive cut? It is absolute nonsense.
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Robinson: The hon. Member for Bath was not prepared to give way to my right hon. Friend, so I do not see why I should give way to him.
  Mr. Sebastian Coe: Will my hon. Friend thank the chief executive of Somerset county council for passing on to me, and to my two colleagues in Cornwall, some remarkably helpful information which I have with me in the Chamber? That

  1155
  information supports my hon. Friend's point and it reveals the lie about massive cuts. Cornwall county council's total spend per head of population is £589.60, which is £18 higher than the county average. How on earth can that be portrayed as a cut? We are talking about priorities which are being set by Liberal Democrat councillors.
  Mr. Robinson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The information with which he has been provided shows that Wiltshire's provisional SSA provision per head is below that of Somerset, but I understand that Wiltshire is making no cuts in its education budget. That supports the argument of the Conservative leaders on Somerset county council.
  With regard to education, the SSA is up by 2.5 per cent. in Somerset compared with an average of 1.1 per cent. across the counties. It seems that Liberal Democrats do not care about children or teachers; they care only about securing political advantage by any means at their disposal.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, my right hon. and hon. Friends in Somerset and I, together with the right hon. Member for Yeovil, have joined county councillors of all persuasions to press for a modernisation of the area cost adjustment formula which appears weighted against the south-west, mainly through outdated criteria.
  I give the people of Somerset an assurance that we shall continue to press our case on that score. In supporting the motion tonight, I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to see that the current reviews of methodology are given a sense of urgency. We met the Minister last summer about that. Progress must now be made to bring the matter to a conclusion to ensure that we do not have to return to this argument next year.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. John Evans: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate and I make no apology for returning to a theme that I have pursued for the past four or five years—the continuing disgraceful treatment that the people of St. Helens receive from the Government in the annual revenue support grant settlements.
  Local government finance is a difficult and complex subject, but it directly affects every man, woman and child in my constituency. When they receive neither justice nor fairness, they have a right to expect a Member of Parliament to speak out on their behalf in the Chamber. St. Helens has consistently been treated unfairly by the system, although, at the same time, the council has striven to improve the delivery of service to the public.
  Staffing in St. Helens council has been reduced by 11 per cent. since 1992, and overall spending has been reduced by £13 million over the past two years, but the system continues to discriminate against the council. In 1995–96, the council faces further cuts of more than £7 million to avoid capping, but council tax payers face an increase of more than 14 per cent. due to losses in revenue support grant. It will be impossible for St. Helens to fund any increase in teachers' salaries in the coming months.
  The Government frequently imply that, in some way, the problems of St. Helens are due to inefficiency on the part of the Labour council. Indeed, in an intervention, the Secretary of State hinted as much again tonight. Is St. Helens council inefficient'? It is not, according to the
  1156
  district auditor who, on several occasions in the past few years, has praised the council. Indeed, last year he gave it a glowing report.
  The district auditor's report for 1993–94, which was produced in December, praised the council's work in relation to the implementation of the citizens charter, the quality of children's services, the financial management of schools within the borough, progress in implementing care in the community, and progress on issues that the district auditor raised in previous reports. He finished his comments by saying:
  "We are pleased to confirm that the Authority has made good progress towards implementing the recommendations made in these reports, consequently there are no issues we would wish to draw to members' attention."
  The auditor's reports make it absolutely clear that St. Helens is a well-run, efficiently managed council. However, that cannot be said about the London borough of Westminster, whose previous auditor's report three years ago was a devastating exposé of maladministration and corruption, with senior councillors and officers threatened with a £21 million surcharge, which is still hanging over them. There have been no further auditor's reports on Westminster over the past couple of years, so God alone knows what the current position is. It is sufficient to draw attention to the front page of today's edition of The Guardian. It is revealed that, according to documents which have been leaked,
  "Thousands of people who bought council flats in the Conservative run city of Westminster have been given unlimited free repairs to their homes for life, under a deal revealed in a confidential report by the council's own auditors."
  Incredibly, the Government do not accept that Westminster council is corrupt and inefficient. Indeed, Tory Members claims that the reasons for Westminster's low council tax are its efficiency and enterprise. I ask hon. Members to consider the reply to me by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 18 January. He said that the average council tax for a band D property in St. Helens
  "is £652 and for Westminster £245. If St. Helens were to spend at the same rate as Westminster relative to standard spending assessment, the band D council tax in St. Helens would be £224—even lower than in Westminster."—[Official Report, 18 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 698.]
  Even the Prime Minister, in reply to a question that I put to him on 3 May 1994, referred to
  "some of the reasons why Westminster is so efficient".—[Official Report, 3 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 589.]
  However, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, in answer to my supplementary question, said:
  "To describe St. Helens and Westminster as broadly similar authorities is ridiculous".—[Official Report,18 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 698.]
  I decided to investigate further the two metropolitan boroughs, Westminster and St. Helens, which have exactly the same statutory duties placed upon them by Her Majesty's Government. I used the citizens charter for the information, because it requires local authorities to publish their performance indicators. I discovered that 96 per cent. of housing repair jobs in St. Helens are completed within target times, whereas in Westminster the figure is 7 per cent. In St. Helens, 5 per cent. of tenants owe 13 weeks' rent or more, and in Westminster the figure is 10 per cent.

  1157
  Management costs per dwelling per week in St. Helens are £4, and in Westminster they are £21. In St. Helens 14 per cent. of benefits claims are processed within 14 days, and in Westminster it is 66 per cent. In St. Helens, 92 per cent. of housing benefits claims are processed within 14 days, and in Westminster the figure is 76 per cent. The gross cost of administration per claimant in St. Helens is £64 and in Westminster it is £226. As for the council tax, the percentage of net yield collected in St. Helens is 100 per cent., and in Westminster it is 91 per cent. The net cost of collection per dwelling is £16 in St. Helens and £25 in Westminster.
  No one could seriously dispute that, on that information, which has been supplied by the authorities themselves, St. Helens is far more efficient than Westminster.
  On many occasions I have drawn attention to the huge differences between the Government's SSAs for St. Helens and those for Westminster in respect of education and social services. Tonight, because of the time constraints, I shall refer to only one example, and that is children in care. The SSA for St. Helens is £30,000 per child per annum. In Westminster, it is £50,000 per child per annum. It is nonsense that Westminster should receive £20,000 more per child.
  Another interesting matter is highways and street lighting. Incredibly, the boroughs are rather similar. St. Helens has a greater length of roads, whereas Westminster has more traffic flow and more visitors. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the effect of extra traffic and visitors in respect of maintenance costs. According to Her Majesty's Government, it is significant. The SSA per 1 km of road in St. Helens is £8,004, and in Westminster it is £28,895. Extra traffic can add considerably to maintenance costs, but surely not to the extent of £20,000 per 1 km of road.
  How much strain do visitors to Westminster place on the council's finances? It is no less than £3.7 million. That shows just how much additional SSA is paid to Westminster in respect of highways and for "visitor nights".
  St. Helens and Westminster serve similar populations. The resident population of St. Helens is more than 180,000, and that of Westminster is 189,000, but how much do those authorities need to spend on services such as leisure, libraries, parks, car parking and refuse collection? The amount that is allowed to St. Helens for those services is £27.2 million. The figure for Westminster is nearly £109 million.
  I shall put the matter into perspective. When Westminster spends £1 on services, it is required to ask for only 3p from the—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: Like many other hon. Members, in particular those who have had some local government experience, I do not deny that it is a tough, tight settlement. Nevertheless, it is entirely defensible and entirely manageable. Indeed, it would be totally hypocritical if I argued with the Treasury that Government spending should he kept down, as I have
  1158
  done consistently, and then ignored £43.5 billion out of total Government expenditure of £262 billion at the first whiff of grapeshot. Indeed, I appreciate that the 1.5 per cent. increase for Hereford and Worcester overall is a tough settlement. The settlement for education is 2.3 per cent. Nevertheless, it is an increase, and 2.3 per cent. is only marginally less than the rate of inflation.
  It is entirely unjustified for somebody like Russ Clayton, the chairman of the county council, to try to scaremonger among parents in the county by arguing that there will be significant reductions in services before he knows how many pupils he will have to educate, before he knows what the teachers' pay settlement will be and before he even knows the final details of the SSA education settlement.
  We were talking about the distribution mechanism of SSA. I suppose that nothing is perfect, and everybody will have their own point of view on the matter. Nevertheless, it is worth saying that a recent study by Rita Hare of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and Tony Travers of the London School of Economics stated that no overseas country appears to have a full grant system which goes so far in its attempt to achieve full equalisation. I was going to say—in an awful pun—that that means that what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said was an absolute travesty. I believe that reforms are continuing to be made to the SSA mechanism, and it is as fair as we can get, although I have one or two things to say about matters which I believe should be reformed.
  That there is room for economies in a service that nationally spends £43.5 billion is beyond doubt. For instance, my district council—I was happy to recommend that it was capped to protect local council tax payers from its profligacy—spends no less than £10.5 million; fully 25 per cent. above its SSA. If one bears in mind what neighbouring authorities of a similar type spend on their SSA, it shows the excessive expenditure of the council.
  What is more, the council—despite the fact that it is spending £1 million more than its capping limit—has had to take money out of its reserves. No specific attempt has been made by the district council to cut back and make the long-term economies which would mean that services are protected and the council tax thereby reduced.
  It is significant that, from 1987 to 1993, non-manual costs of local government rose by 85 per cent. It is equally significant that the Audit Commission has suggested—the House should not forget that the vast majority of costs in local government are staff costs—that few authorities have a consistent or coherent approach to crucial questions such as how many staff they need, how much they should be paid and how they can get the best from their staff.
  I have four points about the mechanism this year. First, although I was in favour of having my district council capped to protect local council tax payers, I do not believe that that is desirable in the long term. It is a matter of some regret that now only 20 per cent. of local expenditure is raised locally.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Less than that.
  Mr. Coombs: It may well be less. It is unfortunate because it breaks the link of accountability between the local electorate and the council. I know that a debate is going on within the Department at present, but I hope

  1159
  that the sins of the profligate should be visited upon the profligate. There is a case within the limits for either a relaxation of the existing capping limit or giving the Minister discretion. That should depend on the efforts of the capped authorities to order their affairs more sensibly.
  In addition, I am concerned about the use of the social and economic index as it affects councils like mine, which have a significant amount of deprivation in towns with populations of less than 100,000, but which otherwise cover rural areas. The index also affects towns such as mine, which have a small ethnic minority population. The use of the social and economic index means that those towns are deprived of £1.04 million out of a £10 million budget. The Government should be looking at how those indices work.
  My second concern relates to area cost adjustments. I do not regard it as acceptable that Hereford and Worcester county council should be given £104 less on primary and £139 less on secondary education than a county such as Oxfordshire. I defy anybody to believe that the costs of living in Oxfordshire are significantly greater than those of Hereford and Worcester. Those figures alone show that ACAs are in urgent need of review, and I hope that that is done as quickly as possible.
  My third concern is the way in which councils use their own assets. Not enough councils have used private finance—purely for ideological reasons which they will later regret—particularly in housing, to introduce more capital into their coffers which they would then be able to spend to their tenants' advantage. The net receipt for my district council—I hope it will read the debate in Hansard—if it transferred its housing stock to housing associations would be no less than £51.2 million. At a stroke, the council would eliminate its debt, and would have about £12.8 million to spend on capital improvements for the benefit of the people of the area. That also takes into account what the council regards as the fixed part of its expenditure—some £4 million out of £10.5 million. A significant proportion of that is payments on debt charges for capital projects on which it has—possibly unwisely—embarked in the past. The Minister will see that there is significant potential for councils such as mine if they are prepared—with the acquiesence of their council tax payers—to effect large-scale transfers of their housing budgets.
  My final point concerns the teachers' pay review body. Obviously it is important that teachers are properly rewarded to attract good-quality people into the profession. We all agree with that. But equally, I happen to believe that pay determination is best done locally and according to local labour markets. From talking to teachers, I know that if the implication of them not taking an extra 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. in their wage packets was that they would be able to keep on staff who would otherwise be made voluntarily or compulsorily redundant, they would—on the basis of what was needed locally—be prepared to forgo that increase.
  The fact is that, since 1990, teachers' pay has increased by 36 per cent. against a national average of 23 per cent. This year the teachers' pay review body may give an increase that is entirely unrealistic. I suggest that that be used merely as a guideline, so that teachers' pay is locally determined—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: As I have only 10 minutes, I do not intend to accept interventions. The Secretary of State, having gone on for 70 minutes in a most blatant abuse of the House, effectively prevented other Members from making points. We clashed last year, during debates on what I called the "blatant fiddle" of the revenue support grant. I have seen nothing in this consultation, or in the final proposals, that causes me to modify my view. Past devices used to rig the grant have been maintained and, in some respects, added to.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) detailed many of those issues and exposed the fact that, under this settlement, council lax payers throughout the country, irrespective of the political complexion of their local authorities, will pay more for less.
  I wish to discuss revenue support grant as it affects my authority, Coventry, and Westminster city council. Coventry councillors are angry and frustrated, having raised this year, as they have repeatedly raised before, legitimate issues of anomalies within the settlement only to find that those have not been dealt with. Moreover, the final formula contains new anomalies that have not been the subject of consultation with local authority associations.
  Coventry has asked for changes to the use of "homelessness" as an indicator, because it costs the city nearly £2 million per annum and is not a reliable indicator of need. It has asked for the type of tenure not to be used as a proxy for deprivation, as it punishes areas with higher-than-average home ownership. It continues to be appalled by the massive over-allowance being delivered to some authorities via the area cost adjustment. As usual, Coventry was listened to politely, but it discovered that, in the final settlement, changes were made without consulting the local authority sub-group. Those changes benefit some inner-London authorities and punish Coventry and other metropolitan boroughs. That has happened despite the fact that the Minister agreed with the findings of last year's Environment Select Committee report that transparency in decision making should be improved. One must conclude that that commitment paid no more than lip service to the report.
  Over the next three years, cuts of £21 million will have to be made in Coventry, while this year tax levels will rise by 10.5 per cent.—3.2 per cent. as a result of the Budget in the autumn, and 7.3 per cent. as a result of Coventry losing grant to other authorities. We are left with the feeling that our lobbying on revenue support grant has been a failure, so we have looked at how other authorities lobby and, in that regard, at the workings of Westminster city council.
  Westminster city council has lobbied and gained significant increases in its grant share over the years. It is well satisfied with this year's settlement, having received a 9.7 per cent. increase in standard spending assessment and the grants that flow from that. As a result of its success, and Coventry's lack of success, in lobbying for higher grant, massive anomalies have arisen. Spending per head of population in Westminster is 30 per cent. higher than in Coventry, but a 90 per cent. difference in grants turns that completely around at taxpayer level. The SSA for Westminster was 60 per cent. higher per head than for Coventry, which translates into grant pound for pound.

  1161
  In education, the SSA per pupil in Westminster is 52 per cent. higher than in Coventry. Much of that difference is due to area cost adjustments, which assume that it will cost 32 per cent. more to employ a teacher in inner London than it will in Coventry. That is absurd, as the London weighting premium on teachers' pay is less than 10 per cent.
  I do not have time to discuss the massive anomalies that have arisen in social services. In SSA for the elderly, Westminster receives 2.49 times that of Coventry. That, too, is absurd. The proportion of elderly people on income support in Coventry is higher than in Westminster, but Westminster gains because elderly people on income support are not taken into account when calculating the SSA, while elderly people in rented accommodation are. That has little statistical justification and leads to the absurd anomaly whereby an elderly Member of Parliament living in rented accommodation in Westminster counts as having special needs, but a single pensioner living alone on income support in a small owner-occupied terrace house in Coventry is not classed as such.
  Westminster's SSA for highway maintenance is 1.52 per cent. higher than Coventry's, which is ridiculous given the borough's special ability to generate car parking income. Coventry's highways budget of £9.1 million is offset by car parking income of £1.6 million. This year, Westminster is expected to collect a staggering £34 million for on-street parking and is struggling to spend that sum. It is now repairing Westminster bridge outside this place to try to get rid of the money that is sloshing around in its account. Effectively, it is doing so at the expense of taxpayers in Coventry, St. Helens and elsewhere. A Touche Ross report on Westminster city council shows that it has massive balances in its account which it simply does not know how to spend.
  Westminster's SSA for "other district services" is 3.94 times that of Coventry and the highest per head of any council in England. That arises because Westminster's SSA population is almost doubled by commuters, overnight visitors and day visitors. Its SSA for tourists is about 60 per cent. of Coventry's SSA for the entire resident population. Most absurd is the fact that commuters and tourists in Westminster are assumed to have exactly the same social characteristics as the resident population. For example, 12 per cent. of tourists and commuters coming into Westminster are assumed to live in overcrowded accommodation; 24 per cent. are assumed to be from an ethnic minority; and 36 per cent. are assumed to live in purpose-built—mainly council—flats. The idea that people who have a job in Westminster and can afford to stay in a hotel, or who visit Westminster on a day trip, should be classed as deprived is utterly ridiculous.
  How does Westminster council achieve those marvellous levels of grant support? Has it used the same lobbying methods as Coventry and other councils? No, it does not have to do that, and it never did. A note to Lady Porter on Westminster city council's lobbying methods and results has come into my possession through the digging activities of the district auditor. It details how individual members of the Government should be
  1162
  approached and targeted, and how blatant political considerations are used to get more money. With regard to the Secretary of State, the note says:
  "John Gummer is the most alert of ministers to political nuances He will be particularly conscious that with safety nets a number of high spending Labour London boroughs will appear to get 'off the hook' with Community charges lower than Westminster."
  The note then details the work done on behalf of the borough in bringing pressure to bear to get its grant increased at the expense of other local authorities.
  That is how it is done. One does not lobby the Department of the Environment using solid analysis of the grant system; one lobbies the Tory party, stressing its electoral interests. That is the real reasoning behind many of the changes that have undermined the credibility of the grant system.
  I am firmly of the opinion that we are dealing not just with a renegade local authority at Westminster, which has been buying electoral advantage by such mechanisms as "homes for votes" and free repairs for leaseholders at the expense of council tenants, but with a Government who are up to their eyeballs in this issue. We need an urgent decision on an extraordinary audit into Westminster city council. We need an end to the abuse of grant distribution which is punishing good, well-run authorities like Coventry. We need to restore credibility to the grant system because the people of Coventry and elsewhere are tired of paying other people's taxes, as they have constantly been forced to do through this disreputable system of grant distribution.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Michael Trend: We have heard much about certain cases today. I shall return to the essential elements of the debate as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the beginning.
  Like most hon. Members, I receive a substantial postbag every day crammed with letters demanding extra spending on all the items that we are discussing today. As all hon. Members should, I point out to my correspondents that the Government have no money of their own but only the ability to tax people. However, none of my correspondents is enthusiastic about paying higher taxes to provide greater resources to meet their massive demands. That is the background against which the Secretary of State's settlement must be viewed.
  In the present circumstances, I believe that the settlement is reasonable. The economy is growing steadily in a sustainable way—although I know that many people are still waiting to feel the effects of the recovery. We have had a tough spending round. Many Conservative Members argued that public spending should he held down and we are not ashamed of that view now.
  Local government has an almost insatiable appetite for funds which must be held in check, especially when the national economy demands it. The Government are concerned about the size of the public spending borrowing requirement. It is not the only national economic factor of central importance, but local government cannot be immune from the PSBR. The country as a whole must reduce its borrowing.
  With underlying inflation at its lowest level in 27 years, I believe that this year's local authority finance settlement is fair. The Government believe that local authority revenue spending should increase by 2.2 per cent. in 1995–96, which is very close to the rate of inflation.

  1163
  Against that background, it is up to local authorities to stay within the public sector pay guidelines suggested by the Government. They must make sensible budgeting decisions and look for further efficiency savings. Such good advice is not confined to local authorities; we must all expect to make savings. Government Departments are being asked to do it and private business understands the necessity of cutting costs while producing high-quality goods and services.
  When considering local government finance, the really important question is: what do council taxpayers want? The answer is simple—they want good, effective services at the most reasonable cost possible. We have heard today from the Audit Commission's report, "Paying the Piper", which clearly highlights areas where local authorities can make further efficiency savings. The Audit Commission saw scope for councils to target their resources more efficiently and to increase staff productivity. It also pointed to the benefits of local pay management. That should be a model for all boroughs.
  For some 15 years, I was an inhabitant and ratepayer of the London borough of Hackney. When it comes to Hackney, I know what I am talking about. I was part of a minority in Hackney: I was one of the few people who paid domestic rates. Since being elected as a Member of Parliament for the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead I have, very sensibly, taken up residence there.
  However, the brief journey from east London to east Berkshire has been more than just a change of address; it has been an education in local government at its worst and at its best. It is highly relevant to the local government finance report because in both cases it is our money that is being spent.
  When I saw Mr. McKinstry's article in The Spectator, it was like returning to Hackney. He said:
  "The hallmarks for which Labour local authorities have become renowned"—
  are—
  "accusations of racism, whining social workers, massive procedural delays, and rumours of corruption … Waste, bureaucracy and political correctness characterise too much of their work".
  Those are the words of a former Labour party supporter. Fortunately, that is not the case in Windsor and Maidenhead, where there is a long history of responsible management.
  The royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead is a tightly run ship. Therefore, it is perhaps no surprise that it has done reasonably well in this year's settlement. In the settlement just announced, the royal borough has been given a 2.83 per cent. increase on 1994–95 funding levels. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for what will be seen as a reasonable outcome.
  The royal borough makes its case to the Department of the Environment with reasoned argument. Last year, the royal borough made a case to the Secretary of State about three main issues and I joined the council in pressing its case: first, it raised the matter of the all ages social index; secondly, we thought that the figures which were used in the standard spending assessment calculations understated the population; and, thirdly, we argued that it was unfair that there was no allowance for day tourism.
  I am glad to say that some relief was given in respect of each of those three factors. First, the social index factor was split in two, which helped to a small degree;
  1164
  secondly, a more realistic population figure, based on the 1991 census, was used; and, thirdly, a new day tourist factor was included.
  In this year's settlement, a further significant increase of slightly more than 1 per cent. has been applied in the population figure which is used to calculate SSA. That is good news for Windsor and Maidenhead. However, other changes made in the previous year continue to affect the royal borough.
  The third factor recognises the impact that day tourism has upon towns which attract many day visitors and it applies to the town of Windsor in my constituency. In leading for the Opposition this afternoon, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) lumped Windsor with some very distinguished towns as though it were one of the very wealthy shire county towns. It is not.
  If the hon. Gentleman had allowed me to intervene, I would have informed him that, not so long ago, Windsor had a Labour mayor. I am very distressed that the Labour party is no longer so well organised in Windsor, because I am keen to encourage a higher Labour vote there.
  Windsor is not one of the super wealthy towns of the Thames valley, and Engels would have been familiar with many of its housing terraces. Its housing stock is not dissimilar to the old housing stock in Hackney. Many people who lived in Windsor when the houses were built in the last century worked at the castle and there is surprisingly little housing of a substantial size.
  Windsor is a complex town. It is dominated by its magnificent castle, which was begun by William the Conqueror and is now known throughout the world. The castle gives Windsor a wealthy and cosmopolitan image, but that is not the reality.
  Hon. Members may recall the disastrous fire which occurred in the castle a few years ago. I am pleased to report that considerable progress has been made in restoring the basic fabric of the affected part of the building and plans for the interior rebuilding and redesign were published last week. I am also pleased to say that the number of visitors to the town and to the castle has held up well. Some people feared that the fire would lead to such adverse publicity that tourists would stay away. Fortunately, that has not happened. That is a good thing, because many people in and around Windsor earn their living, one way or another, from the castle.
  Away from the castle, down our main shopping street—
  Mr. Olner: How much council tax is paid by the occupants of Windsor castle?
  Mr. Trend: I make it a point of principle never to discuss the affairs of the people who live in the castle.
  A little way down our main shopping street, Peascod street, there is a thriving town in its own right which, like all towns in the Thames valley, has had to fight hard to retain the loyalty of local shoppers. That is the Windsor which most of my constituents know and it does not sit easily beside the tourist town up the hill.
  My constituents know that, as council tax payers, they bear many of the costs associated with the daily influx of tourists. It is sometimes difficult to move along the pavements of the high street outside the castle in the high tourist season because of the procession of visitors. A mother with a pram may not he able to push her children down one of the main roads in the town because of the

  1165
  mass of tourists, some of whose associated costs she also meets. I was therefore very glad when the Government recognised in last year's settlement the problems that day tourism can cause.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Paddy Tipping: In the hothouse atmosphere earlier this afternoon, it was difficult to follow what the Secretary of State was saying. Let me try to paraphrase it. This has been a tough and tight financial settlement. Public expenditure has to be kept control of, and local authorities must share the pain—and by the way, they have to be more efficient. That was the gist of what he said.
  A number of hon. Members have today attacked local authorities in a fairly vicious way. I would therefore like to record the fact that, in recent years, local authorities have worked hard to make efficiency savings. They have implemented information technology; they have slimmed down management. Resources have moved from county halls to schools. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) talked about land sales. Nottinghamshire county council aims to sell £8 million-worth of land each year to support its budget.
  Local councils, I believe, are becoming ever more efficient. That is also the view of the Audit Commission. Its reports of seven years ago said that savings of £541 million could be made. Today they are being made by local authorities. They are taking stock, and they are making the necessary changes. Ultimately, efficiency savings run out; one day, the pips will really squeak. Such savings are not endless.
  We should also take a look at central Government, whose overall public spending has risen by 3.3 per cent. Next year, the Department for Education will have an increase of 4.1 per cent.; MAFF will have an increase of 13.5 per cent. So the pain is not being shared evenly.
  What can be done to remedy the problem? We could look first at the hideous local government review. Fifty million pounds has been top-sliced off this settlement for that review. We do not know what its final costs will be. We are told that the transitional costs in Cleveland may be between £13 million and £18 million—that is what the Local Government Commission estimates. The bids coming in from councils in the area amount to about £30 million.
  What will happen in the next financial year, 1996–97? How much will be top-sliced then: £150 million, or £200 million? No one knows, because the Department of the Environment has not taken the time to study what the costs of the review may turn out to be. It is a leap in the dark, and I predict that, by the end of the process, very few savings will emerge.
  Secondly, we might look at capping. When it was introduced 10 years ago, it was designed to get the dirty dozen—the handful of difficult councils—but now it is universal; 85 per cent. of councils' grant now comes from central Government. The element of local discretion no longer exists.
  I am astonished to find that Nottinghamshire county council has been given a capping increase of 0.5 per cent. The new police authorities are getting a capping increase of 4.9 per cent.; the inner London boroughs one of 3.2
  1166
  per cent. If it is good enough for people in Brixton, Lambeth and Westminster, the increase should be good enough for my people in Blidworth, Lowdham and Walesby. Why cannot the Government stand by one set of caps for the whole country?
  As I said, the London boroughs are being given an increase of 3.2 per cent. Applied generally, that would release £600 million for local authorities, and some of the real problems that local councils face would disappear forthwith. There would be no cuts in social services and few in education.
  We also need to focus on the area cost adjustment system, which other hon. Members have already highlighted. When I met the Minister of State earlier this year, I was pleased to hear him say that research into this matter would be carried out. I should like him to consult widely in the course of that research. I am not sure whether looking at travel-to-work areas will help. The research must focus on real costs, not notional costs. If councils do not pay more, they should not receive extra grant. The system should be fair and transparent.
  Bills in Nottinghamshire are set to rise by £30, or 6 per cent. People there will pay more for less after I April. There will be real cuts in education. The county council intends to spend £373 million next year, against an SSA of £347 million—a spending above SSA of £26 million, or 7.5 per cent. But there are going to be cuts. As many as 300 teachers will lose their jobs.
  Abbey Gates primary school in Nottinghamshire, an excellent school, is a case in point. The chairman of the governors wrote to me to say:
  "We find ourselves unable to set a budget which is both legal and responsible, financially and educationally sound".
  He is going to lose three teachers. The children will suffer, and class sizes will increase. That is what Ministers call a tight and tough settlement. In fact, it is a double whammy: people pay more for less.
  This is an unjust settlement, and we must throw it out.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) said that he did not agree with the settlement, but he and other Labour Members ought to look at the waste over which some Labour-controlled councils have presided for 10 years or so—debt, rent arrears, non-collection of council tax and so on. It is staggering to think that those authorities built up empires of extra staff and, at every turn, blamed the Government.
  If Norfolk had behaved like them—overspending year in, year out—it would not, ironically, be suffering from some of its current difficulties, because it would have a higher spending base. There is something inherently unfair in a system that allows that to happen.
  One has to try to put this year's settlement into the wider context of the economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) did exactly that. This settlement is very different from those of previous years, because of the Chancellor's decisions at the time of the public expenditure survey round. If he had not been tough on public expenditure, the successful and satisfactory course of the economy recently would not have been maintained.

  1167
  My right hon. and learned Friend would not have been able to sustain the confidence that has allowed businesses, especially in my part of the world, to say that they are more optimistic now than they have been for many years. That is because world markets have confidence in our Chancellor's economic management and fiscal and monetary policy.
  I do not see how the Chancellor could possibly have ignored the sector that takes up one quarter of total public expenditure. Those who say that cuts in Government Departments must be made, and that some fat remains on various bones, cannot simultaneously claim that local government must be immune. So this is a tough settlement, and a difficult settlement for Norfolk, which will find life extremely hard over the next few months while implementing the cuts that will have to be made in some areas.
  I did not agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) said a moment ago, but it does seem strange that, while the overall settlement for local authorities has risen by 2.2 per cent., Norfolk's increase amounts to 0.5 per cent. I cannot see how that stacks up.
  Many people in Norfolk are worried about the area cost adjustment, which the hon. Member for Sherwood discussed. Area cost adjustment bears down unfairly on shire counties such as Norfolk. Norfolk is an extremely pleasant place in which to teach in a school or to work, but, as a result, many of the staff working for the local education authority in particular are at the higher end of the age spectrum, and hence more expensive. As a result, we have lost about £10 million owing to the pernicious way in which the area cost adjustment works.
  Only a few days ago, the Minister met a delegation from Norfolk. I know that he gave its members a fair hearing, listened to everything they said and considered their points about the area cost adjustment. I hope that he will be able to revisit the subject. I do not want to leave him in any doubt about how difficult things are going to be for Norfolk.
  At the same time, I believe that Norfolk county council will he able to get through the year. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have received many letters from constituents, schools, parish councils and voluntary organisations. Many different bodies are extremely concerned that the education committee will have to save £1.6 million.
  The cost of the teachers' pay settlement will be well in excess of 0.5 per cent. The education committee will have to bridge the gap. It will do so to some extent by cutting planned spending on non-school budgets by £3.9 million and transferring £2 million directly to schools to help them to meet the cost of rising pupil numbers.
  The education committee will also reduce the planned nursery programme. There will not be a cut, but there will be a reduction in the committee's plans. There will have to be savings in the expenditure on school meals through contracting out and by increasing the charge by about 10 per cent., from £1.05 to £1.15.
  These savings are sustainable and I can live with them. At the same time, however, the county council will have to rationalise bus routes, which will save about £100,000. That could have been done before, and it can be done now. There are proposed social services savings of £2.1 million. Quite a large part of those savings will have to come through higher charges, which will raise about £1.2
  1168
  million. My hon. Friend the Minister will be interested to know that nearly £500,000 will be saved by leasing vehicles.
  There will be some growth within the social services budget. An increase of 2.5 per cent. in the spending on home care will amount to £120,000. An extra £25,000 will be made available for the cost of foster-care places. There will be other improvements in the social services plans for the county.
  The proposed savings in respect of planning and transportation amount to about £2.4 million. A considerable sum will be saved in departmental running costs—about £70,000. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will welcome that. About £240,000 will be saved in the transfer of the waste regulation function.
  I have given examples of what Norfolk county council is doing. Its officers are working extremely hard to find savings. They have examined rationalisation and greater efficiency and produced sensible ideas. I am aware, however, that there will be difficulties for schools, social services and other organisations that are backed, to some extent, by the county council.
  In the context of a tough public expenditure round, I think that Norfolk Members will grit their teeth and live with what is proposed, because they support the Government's wider economic policy. On the other hand, they look to the Minister and the Secretary of State to understand that Norfolk is making sacrifices because of economic conditions in the hope that its case will be listened to in future.
  We hope also that next year Ministers will realise that there will be nothing further to cut, because everything has already been cut to the bone. I leave the Minister with that thought. I hope that he will take on board everything that I and others have said.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I understand that I have seven minutes in which to speak.
  It is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), living in his Norfolk castle, surrounded by his servants and champagne and shooting small furry creatures, to lecture local authorities, especially in areas such as the one that I represent, about the need to secure further savings. He continues to lecture them on their inability to deliver services. The hon. Gentleman should experience the problems that we have in the east end of London. I can only say, having listened to his litany, that we dream of having problems like that in the east end.
  One of the features of the debate throughout has been the way in which Tories have been running scared of Liberals in the west country. It has been quite a lesson. To paraphrase some great words of Winston Churchill, never before have so many underpants been filled so often by so many.
  It seems that no one really understands local authority finances these days. The formulae are complicated, arcane and, at times, semi-lunatic. Unfortunately, the debate will be given little coverage on the television and in the media generally. That is because journalists, especially, do not regard debates on revenue support grant as sexy. They arc: wrong, of course, because of the significance of the debate for every man, woman and child. From nursery schools

  1169
  to residential homes for the elderly, everything is affected by the terms of the settlement that we are discussing. All that provision will be seriously affected.
  There was a time when central Government exercised little touch and only light control on local government affairs. It is now a hands-on approach. Unfortunately, the hands are effectively on the throat of local government. There is far too much interference, even now, by central Government in local government affairs. I accept that ministerial attitudes have improved since the rabid days of some years back, but there is still too much of a tendency for Conservative Members to perceive local authorities as enemies of the state and of democracy.
  Local democracy and accountability have been almost fatally undermined by the persistent actions of Conservative Governments. We must remove the shackles from local authorities and allow democratically elected councillors to get on with the job for which they were elected by local people, which is to run local services for local people. They should be accountable to local people through the ballot box.
  We all have our own whinges, because this is a whingeing debate. I shall have my whinge on behalf of Newham, but I acknowledge—I always want to seem to be fair to Ministers—that Newham has received considerable additional funding over the past couple of years from the Government and the European Union. City challenge at Stratford has objective 2 status, we have assisted area status, and we have received considerable sums from the single regeneration budget. I am grateful, as are all my hon. Friends from Newham, who are in their places.
  Newham deserves what it has received because it is an area of acute deprivation. It is top of the poverty league, which is one league from which I would like to see Newham relegated at the first possible opportunity. Despite the Government acknowledging that Newham has problems, they have said in the House that it stands to lose an additional £20 million over the next three years as a result of standard spending assessment and rate support grant settlement.
  A way out from Newham's point of view would be to include it as an inner London borough for financial purposes. Newham, Tower Hamlets and Hackney comprise the most deprived sub-region in the country. It is ridiculous that two of the boroughs are classified as inner London while Newham is outer London. That situation is based on historic administrative reasons, not on a financial regime.
  As a group, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), I and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), with council officers and others, have asked Ministers for inner London status for Newham. I hope that our case will be considered favourably. I know that there will be problems with some Labour inner London boroughs, and we shall have to face them ourselves. We shall do so by arguing our case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South has said, on the basis of merit. We are more than prepared to argue with our colleagues.
  We are definitely disadvantaged in Newham by the needs indices in the SSA formula. Ministers should take that on board. Newham is ninth in the social index and in
  1170
  10th position in the new economic index. When it comes to the urban conditions index, Newham is in first place. That index should be included in the SSA formula. Specific consideration should be given to homelessness in Newham. It is an incredibly pressing problem.
  All hon. Members have said that we are faced with a tight settlement. More than that, it is a strangulation of a settlement. We are being pushed to the limits in Newham. The Government must recognise our case. The Minister should understand that the three Newham Members hunt in a pack. We shall be hunting at ministerial doors in the years to come.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: The financial settlement is indeed a tough one, but it is also well considered. I pay a small tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, whom I know well and have met on several occasions to talk about the settlement in Hounslow. He listens. He absorbs. He is a master of his brief, and he acts on the advice and information that he has.
  I listened to the points made by Opposition Members. One would think that the Conservatives—particularly the Minister—are a group determined to inflict pain and suffering on a vast area of the countryside. Let us for a few minutes examine what the Labour party has been doing. We all know that the Labour party has not been in power—national Government—for the past 15 years. I think that I am correct in saying that the leader of the Labour party stated, in The Spectator, on 1 October 1994:
  "I don't think the character of any party becomes clear until you're in power."
  It has not been in power for the past 15 years, and the character of the Labour party in national Government may not be clear, but what is clear is that the Labour party has been in power. It has had control of vast areas of the country through the local government system. Let us look at that record to see what the character of the Labour party in power has been.
  Even the Tribune on 15 May 1992, was forced to concede that Labour local government is
  "lacklustre and incompetent…ineffectual or rotten Labour councils…have been a feature of political life for as long as anyone can remember."
  Let us look at the council tax bills, band for hand—bands C and D. The average charge for band C in a Conservative-controlled local authority is £429, but in a Labour-controlled local authority it is £560. For band D in a Conservative-controlled local authority it is £482, but in a Labour-controlled local authority it is £635. Why is it more expensive to live in Labour-controlled authorities? At this point, I ask my hon. Friend about something that has concerned me for some time. We cap local authorities—Labour and Conservative. By so doing, we do not expose the profligacy of Labour-controlled authorities to the tax payer. If we do not cap them, some will go completely over the top and will never be elected back into power. That is something that my more learned hon. Friends must think about.
  Let us look at more figures. We know that some Labour-controlled local authorities are indeed in deprived areas, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, but does that mean that they cannot collect their taxes? If one look at the rate of tax collection in Labour-controlled local authorities, one will see that

  1171
  Lambeth has collected only 48 per of its taxes, Hackney, 67 per cent., Islington, 67 per cent., Southwark, 73 per cent., and Newham, 73 per cent.
  Let us look at rent arrears. Is it so difficult to collect council tax and council house rents? Why has Hackney collected only 31 per cent., Greenwich, 25 per cent., Newham, 24 per cent.—
  Mr. Dobson: Give us the Ealing figures.
  Mr. Deva: The hon. Gentleman is right. One Conservative-controlled authority—Ealing—has collected only 23 per cent., and I am sure that there are people who will do something about that.
  Let us look at debt. Why do Labour-controlled local authorities have the highest debt in the country? Manchester has a debt of £1,326 million. Its total debt per head is £3,000. In Birmingham, it is £1,233; in Islington, £946 and so on. Why is it that those uncollected taxes and rents are in Labour-controlled local authorities?
  Let us return to that great quote from the Leader of the Opposition—that the character of any party does not become clear until one is in power, because it is very clear indeed. Those Labour authorities have been in power for generations, for far too long, and some day their ratepayers will wake up and say, "This is no good. We have to do something about it."
  In Hounslow, we have a Labour-controlled local authority that is more efficient than the local authorities that I have discussed. Its revenue support grant is about 0.5 per cent. more than last year. I know that this is a time to whinge, but I am not going to whinge. I merely put on record, as my hon. Friend knows, that we have to build two new schools this year, because our population is increasing faster than predicted, and we have a problem with refugees because of the airport. I know that my hon. Friend has taken that on board.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Bill Olner: I am grateful to my hon. Friends who limited their contributions so that I might have an opportunity to put briefly Warwickshire's case. I notice that the Minister has dashed away to his advisers—to listen all about Warwickshire, I assume.
  Mr. Dobson: He is on the run.
  Mr. Olner: Already.
  Conservative Members and Ministers have been talking in two ways. They know very well that the cuts in the rate support grant settlement are real cuts to their communities. It really is no good the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) talking about the figures in the briefing for councillors, issued by Conservative central office. He really should show it to some of the Conservative councillors in many of the shire counties throughout the country. They are councillors, and political beings, as are the Liberal Democrats and the socialists, but they are representatives of their communities. Those councillors know full well that the rate support grant settlement will cut into services in their communities, which, as elected members, they hold just as dearly to their hearts as does each one of us. The hon. Gentleman does Conservative Members no good at all—
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  1172
  Is it in order for a Member of the Labour party to use a brief specifically prepared for Conservative Members of Parliament?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a point of order for the Chair, as I think that the hon. Gentleman knows. He should not waste the House's time, which is limited.
  Mr. Olner: I can produce another briefing, in case Conservative Members really expect to get any satisfaction from the Minister's reply. Many of them have referred to the 0.5 per cent. cap, which cannot possibly cater for the needs of communities; they have also referred to the extremely flawed SSAs. I advise those hon. Members—who have urged their Minister to act with haste—to listen to what their local authorities have said.
  In 1989, Warwickshire county council embarked on an attempt to persuade the Minister and his civil servants that the county's SSAs were flawed and unrealistic, and did not take account of local needs. The same applied to the cap. The council persevered, making representations in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 and trying to persuade the Government to reconsider their SSAs and rate support grant settlement for Warwickshire. I have joined the council in its representations. We were listened to very politely, but at the end of the day nothing happened, although it was a Conservative-controlled authority that originally complained to the Government.
  Some hon. Members have referred to councils setting expenditure limits above the cap, and then throwing themselves on the Secretary of State's mercy in an attempt to have the cap increased. I do not think that Warwickshire will dare to do that this year, unless the Secretary of State gives a sign that he is prepared to increase the cap before it sets its budget. If the Secretary of State does not take into account the amount by which the budget exceeds the cap, rebuilding that budget will cost another half a million pounds of council tax payers' money. Local authorities are being squeezed in a pincer movement.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) mentioned a double whammy, but when councils can make no sense of the SSAs, cannot secure additional funds from the revenue support grant or a lifting of the cap and cannot even ask their council tax payers to contribute an extra 25p a week, it is really a triple whammy. Warwickshire's SSA is one of the lowest in the country, and should be reassessed. The 1995 cap will reduce school budgets in cash terms, and seriously damage the education of children in my constituency.
  Last Friday, I went to a meeting in Leamington. Conservative Members are wrong if they think that they can hide the facts from their communities. More than 800 people attended the meeting—parents, head teachers, school governors and chairmen of governing boards, of all political persuasions. Those people know exactly where the blame lies, and that what has been done will lead to the demise of Warwickshire's education service.
  A wonderful machine is now wheeled out on Saturday evenings. Numbers are drawn out of it. I think that it is called the national lottery. The SSAs are very much like that machine; the only difference is that it costs local authorities very much more than a pound to have a go.

  1173
  It seems that, even now, the Government do not know how they constructed the SSA machine. For the same reason they do not know how to fix it, and the mess in which they find themselves will be to the detriment of everyone in the country.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey 'Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner). I am sorry that his party is so bereft of ideas and policies that he has been forced to use a Conservative party brief prepared privately for Conservative Members.
  This is a tight settlement, which amounts to about 25 per cent. of the Government's total expenditure of some £43.5 billion, but it is 2.2 per cent. higher than last year's. My county, Gloucestershire, is to receive an increase of 2.4 per cent. overall. For some services, it will get an increase of 4.3 per cent. compared with the county average of 3.3 per cent. Therefore, it has not fared as badly as many other shire counties.
  The Liberal and Labour parties form the ruling group in that shire county. On average, in every community charge band Labour charges £100 more than the Conservatives while the Liberals charge £50 more. Representatives from Gloucestershire council came to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration with a proposal to cut £7 million from the education budget—a cut of 4 per cent. That is a disgrace and it is unfair to the children in my county. Last year, Gloucestershire council threatened that there would be a loss of 150 teachers. In the event, six were made redundant and 111 were retired, but 165 full-time appointments were made.
  Gloucestershire requires only two more grant-maintained schools to reach the magical 75 per cent. at which all grant-maintained schools will be funded by the Further Education Funding Council. I recommend any school in my constituency which is running into budget problems to seek to become grant maintained. It will then be funded nationally and the children in the school will not be disadvantaged.
  Gloucestershire council spends £1,000 a day for computer consultants. It is advertising for a third PR man for its social services department to rectify the public relations disaster of funding a safari holiday in Africa for a child in a special needs school. The child was difficult and had committed crimes and, believe it or not, the council sent him to Africa for a holiday. That is the nature of the council which is controlled by the Liberal and Labour parties.
  The council owns more than 5,000 acres of agricultural land and I have had serious discussions with it on how it could sell some of that land to reduce its debt. When the council was under Conservative control in 1986, its debt was £26.5 million. Today, under the Labour and Liberal parties, it has a staggering debt of £120 million. That is an increase of well over 1,000 per cent. since the Conservatives lost control in 1986, and it has occurred simply because the council cannot control its expenditure. Its budget is almost £300 million and it should be able to
  1174
  make efficiency savings. I know of no other business or local authority with a budget of that size which could not make some efficiency savings.
  County hall in Gloucester has office after office. What do the occupants of those offices do? I have no idea, but I am sure that it is possible for the council to make savings. I shall give an example. There is a footpath through my land. Gloucestershire county council has no less than four full-time footpath officers. The footpath on my land has been walked perfectly satisfactorily for 20 years and those officers are perfectly happy to use my field gate. They now want to move the footpath just 10 yards so that they can walk through the middle of my orchard.
  The council wrote to me stating that it would like a gate cut in my fence and said that it was prepared to do it for £60. I wrote back and said that I would be delighted to have people walking through the middle of my orchard. I wrote, "Please do it for £60, that is very good value for money." After a fortnight I got another letter. Goodness knows what it costs to send them all, but in that one the council said that it had had another look and that the job was not quite as simple as was first thought. The letter said that a special gate would be required and recommended that it would be cheaper for me to do the job myself. I wrote back saying that I would be perfectly happy to do it and that I would make the necessary arrangements.
  That is a typical example of the wasteful expenditure of Gloucestershire county council, yet it sends a delegation to see my right hon. Friend. It whinges, complains and produces a magical budget whereby it wants to spend another £22 million, no less. It then complains to my right hon. Friend that it has a cut on what it would otherwise have liked to have spent.
  Mr. Paul Marland: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: No, I cannot. I have less than a minute to finish my speech.
  To all my constituents in Gloucestershire, I say that they have £300 million to spend. They should consider the best way of buying services, whether from the private sector or whoever, to ensure that all my constituents and, especially, the children in my constituency can benefit to the greatest extent.
  Council officers or anyone else should not encourage the public to write and complain to me that the people of Gloucestershire are getting a bad deal from the Government. They are getting no worse a deal than many surrounding shire counties—in fact they are getting a better deal. The council should look wherever it can to provide a better service. I am sure that it will be able to do the job better than it is at the moment.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: The House was entertained by the comments of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) about his orchard, but I am not sure whether it was the most central speech today. It is a great shame that the House spends less than one day debating what is the most important thing that affects local government. Even the Secretary of State for the Environment made the point that local government is responsible for something like a

  1175
  quarter of the funding that central Government provide. On that basis, I hope that we will have a much more lengthy debate in the future so that, if for no other reason, hon. Members on both sides of the House can have a little more time to make their points.
  Confusion seems to exist between the two Government spokesmen. Just after the local authority statement was made in December, the Secretary of State wrote to hon. Members and said:
  "Local authorities, like central Government, must play its part in restraining the growth of public spending ‖ we are not asking authorities to do more than Government is itself having to do to control its costs."
  As has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that is simply not true. The record can be put clearly and simply. A number of hon. Members have made that point.
  If we consider the settlement for local government, it is the Minister who is right. I do not think that he was speaking in a personal capacity when he said that he had been stuffed by the Treasury. He was expressing that view on behalf of local government, about which, I would be the first to say, he knows something. His view is rather different from that of the Secretary of State. Everyone knows that the settlement is bad for local government, which will have to make cuts of about £1.5 billion and increase the council tax across the board by 6 per cent. on average to stay within the settlement.
  Local government has been given a cash increase of only about 0.4 per cent. in real terms, yet the budgets of other Departments of central Government are increasing—that of the Department of Health by 3.8 per cent., that of the Department of Social Security by 3.7 per cent., and that of the Department for Education by 4.1 per cent. That is happening at a time when the Secretary of State says that the schools budget can go up only by 1.1 per cent. That shows that central Government treat themselves differently from the way in which they treat local government.
  The most significant budget increase involves the Secretary of State's former Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Its budget has increased by some 13 per cent. now that he has gone, but he has been able to achieve a paltry increase for the local government family. That is an indictment of Ministers.
  If the Minister and his right hon. Friend really do believe that the SSA methodology is one
  "upon which decisions are even handed, rational and based upon the most information available for all authorities"
  he is out of touch not only with my hon. Friends, but with his hon. Friends.
  We had a number of interesting speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), and for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), as well as by the hon. Members for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss), for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson), for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend). They all complained about the methodology used for the SSAs. The Minister must accept that the methodology needs to he challenged.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Mr. Dobson) gave examples of the social index scores. I can give the House another example. Liverpool
  1176
  is one of the most deprived cities, not just in Britain but in the whole of western Europe, yet it is in 81st position with a score that suggests that it is less than averagely deprived. The City of London, that well-known centre of deprivation and urban squalor, is 19th in the list of deprived local authorities. If that is the index that the Minister is using, it really is time to look at this issue differently.
  Local authorities up and down the land are being deprived because the index does not take proper account of the real statistics. For example, Surrey local education authority gains £8 million every year for the young people who live in the area, many of whom go to private schools outside Surrey. Surrey is a wealthy local authority and that £8 million is being provided at the expense of other authorities. The Minister must look again at the way in which the SSAs are calculated.
  The jewel in the Government's crown, the authority around which the structure of local government finance is written, is the London borough of Westminster. We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Holborn arid St Pancras, for Coventry North-East and for St Helens, North about how Westminster is treated so much more favourably than the rest of local government as to be nothing short of a scandal. The Minister should explain to the House not why Westminster is an efficient authority--we know that it is not—but what he intends to do about that running sore which will discredit him, the Department of the Environment, and the Government unless they are prepared to act.
  The real losers in this year's settlement are not Members of Parliament but those whom we serve and who use the services in our local authorities. Let us look at the settlement for education. Many hon. Members have mentioned that. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West said that it is ridiculous that local authorities have to set their budgets before the pay settlements are known. That is made even more ridiculous by the fact that this year the Government have given, even in their own terms, a cash increase of 1.1 per cent. in the education SSAs, while the practical reality is that teachers' pay increases are outside the hands of local government. The local authorities are expecting to face bills in excess of that 1.1 per cent. and will have to find that money at the expense of education.
  We know that another 110,000 pupils arc coming into our schools this year. Although we know that the pupil rolls will increase still further, it is only Education Ministers who believe that that will not be at the expense of the education of our young people. The number of pupils per teacher and per class in our primary and secondary schools is about 25. In Japan it is 17 and in France it is as low as 13.6. If it is good enough for children in Japan and France to have classes of that size, why is not it good enough for children in this country?
  Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way because time is short.
  The House will he interested to learn of a letter that the Secretary of State for Education wrote to one of her Cabinet colleagues. She said:
  "If teachers' pay increases by 2-3 per cent., then there will be a loss of 7,000 to 10.000 teachers"
  in England. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. The decision whether to fund the teachers' pay round properly is in the hands of the Government. It is up to

  1177
  them to decide whether local government should be properly reimbursed or whether they will take out that extra cost on every child in every school up and down the land. The children will face bigger classes and the educational consequences of that.
  Let me deal with social services. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) talked about his county council. Gloucestershire county council's care programme is £1 million in the red in the current financial year and is providing emergency care only to people at risk. John Standing, the Conservative group's spokesman, said that
  "community care began as such a good idea but it is no good if we do not have the funding to carry out the ideas."
  That is a Conservative county councillor talking about what the Government have done to local government and community care.
  In its recently published report entitled "Taking Stock: Progress on Community Care", the Audit Commission makes it clear that the community care system is under intense pressure. It states that it is underfunded, yet we know that the Government have de facto placed a freeze on the social services SSA for the coming year. In practical terms, that means a cut in funding for social services which, in turn, means cuts in services for the elderly and vulnerable. Those are the values of this Government—they are certainly the values that they have been pursuing for some years.
  The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth has broken free from the constraints that once chained him and is now able to tell the truth. The implication of what he said was that there is a degree of hypocrisy among those sitting on the Conservative Front Bench, and it is not for me to disagree with him on this occasion. His was probably one of the better speeches that we heard from Conservative Members this evening.
  Across the length and breadth of the land, county councils with social services responsibilities are saying that funding for the care in the community initiative is inadequate and that they cannot cope on the basis of the Government's settlement. It is no good the Minister saying that it is a good settlement when we know that his view is somewhat different—he recognised that the Treasury had managed to work one over on him and his colleagues.
  It is important to get away from the idea that the debate is merely a competition in which Government supporters try to find Labour-run authorities to criticise and Labour Members are told that their own local authorities are nothing but incompetent. I shall refer to a number of local authorities where there has been all-party agreement on their approaches to central Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) said that an all-party delegation from Newcastle went to see the Minister to tell him that it was unacceptable that Newcastle had to cut its council tax and its services when the local populace wanted the services maintained. The Minister should respond to that point as we are told that capping is in the interests of local people.
  The Minister should consider the borough of Havering, which sent a delegation to meet, I think, the Minister of State. The delegation was made up of members of all political parties on the council. They pointed out to him
  1178
  that it was invidious that the council had to make £17 million worth of cuts and, at the same time, increase the council tax by some 11 per cent. Perhaps the Minister can explain to Havering and the House why residents will have to pay more but get fewer services. Perhaps he can also explain why, despite the claim that the council was terribly inefficient while Labour was in charge, that Labour council was able to point out to him that it has cut about £30 million plus from the budget that it inherited from the previous Conservative authority. There has been no suggestion, even by the Conservatives, that it is a high-spending, loony left Labour council. It is a good, sound Labour council forced to cut services and increase the council tax because of the Government.
  Let us consider Warwickshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) and at least one Conservative Member said that there was a threat of the loss of some 200 teachers' posts there. Again, it is no good the Conservatives saying that that is scaremongering; that is certainly not the view of people of stature in the community, and not that of politicians. Mr. Seamus Crowe, the head teacher of St. Francis primary school in Bedworth, told a county-wide meeting at Leamington on Friday last week:
  "Our argument is not with the County Council, it is with the Government".
  Ordinary people involved in communities up and down the country are saying to the Minister, through us, that the Government have caused the problem and that it is for them to deal with it.
  The Minister met an all-party delegation from Shropshire headed by a senior Conservative Member of Parliament and one of my colleagues. That delegation comprised councillors of all persuasions. They made the point to the Minister that Shropshire had been traditionally high spending on education under the Conservatives. That high spending had been maintained under Labour with the support of the Conservative group on the council.
  Last night, the Conservative group on Shropshire council decided to support an attempt to go through the cap. I hope that the Minister will comment specifically on Shropshire, where his own colleagues in local government are saying that they think that the Government have got it wrong and that what the Government are doing is incompetent and ineffectual. I ask the Minister especially to note the comments of the leader and the deputy leader of the Conservative group. The leader said:
  "Government needs to recognise the disaster it is heading for at the general election if it continues like this."
  The deputy leader said:
  "The Government in London is remote from the impact of their decisions. I have to tell them they have got it wrong and we have got it right."
  Conservative local government is saying that the Conservative Government have got it wrong and that Conservatives in local government know better.
  Mr. Knapman: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) spent almost an hour telling us that Conservative councils—Westminster and others—had been favoured at the expense of others. Now the hon.

  1179
  Gentleman is saying that Conservative councils are, as he would have it, in trouble in the same way. Both cannot be right, can they?
  Mr. Lloyd: I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. If he knew the political geography of this country, he would know that Shropshire is not a Conservative council, nor, indeed is Warwickshire any more. It is interesting that the last time that Warwickshire council was capped was when the Conservatives ran the council, which may also say something about the way in which Conservatives in local government increasingly see central Government.
  I shall quote briefly from a report about Shropshire in this morning's paper in which Alan Cooper, head teacher of The Marches school in Oswestry—a school considered to be among the best, not only in the county, but in the country—said:
  "It was not the fault of the county council, … but government spending curbs which limited central grant to Shropshire".
  Up and down the land, the Government are being rumbled. People know that when class sizes increase it is because of the Government. People know that cuts in the social services budget, so that the vulnerable and the elderly cannot get the social services that they need, mean that the Government are at fault. People know very well that when they send delegations from their communities to meet the Minister, the answer may be sympathetic, but it is still no.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made a rather interesting point that each Conservative council which was considered to have whinged too much, and went to see the Minister, came away with a budget cut. That is an interesting statistic which perhaps explains the rather more credible view of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East, who told the House that the more secretive diplomacy of Westminster council was the way to get the Government to provide more funding.
  We see the results all around us. We know that if the same favourable treatment which Westminster council received were offered to councils everywhere, few councils would not be able to reduce the council tax and few councils would not be able to provide better services. That is the reality of the modern Conservative Government. They are a Government who have no vision for local government, they see no future for local government, they let local government suffer further cuts for the foreseeable future and they treat local government in the most contemptuous and most corrupt way. The Minister should answer the charge. They are a Government who are not prepared to deal with the running sore of Westminster council. A Government who are prepared to reward Westminster council are, simply, not fit to be in charge of the future of local government.
  9.38 pm
  The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): Right hon. and hon. Members have raised important issues and I shall attempt to address those broad issues tonight. If I do not deal with a specific point, I shall write to them to cover it.
  I begin by repeating the question that I put earlier to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). He said that the settlement was inadequate. If that is so, there are only two remedies: the first is to raise
  1180
  the revenue support grant which is financed from central taxation and the other is to permit the council tax to rise. We need to know which remedy the Labour party favours.
  Mr. Clelland: There is a third option. I explained in my speech that, because of its situation, Newcastle city council need only freeze the council tax at is current level and set its budget at that level; there would then be no need for cuts or an increase in the council tax. What does the Minister have to say about that?
  Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is not right. The question remains the same. If the settlement is inadequate, either the council tax must rise or the revenue support grant must be increased; either public expenditure must rise or the Government will have to provide further grants. That is the case even in Newcastle. We need to know which is the Labour party's policy and by how much. Labour Members cannot say that the settlement is not good enough if they are not prepared to say what would be adequate. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras will not say what would be adequate.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Curry: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall give way in a moment.
  The Opposition claim that the methodology is crooked. Not one serious informed person believes that. Labour local authority leaders do not believe it, the local authority associations do not believe it and Tony Travers and Rita Hale do not believe it. They are the only two independent experts in this area.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Curry: I shall not give way, as I want to give the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras a little more evidence.
  Tony Travers stated:
  "It is small wonder that the allocation of such large sums of money to hundreds of local authorities should lead to accusations of political bias. Yet there is no evidence of such political intervention."
  The Environment Select Committee, reporting unanimously with Labour Members agreeing, stated:
  "We should like to place on the record our understanding that the Government's recent review of SSAs has been conducted in an open manner. DOE tested all of the options that it was asked to consider, and it has made data available in a readily usable form to interested parties."
  The Audit Commission, which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras intends to wheel into action as a Cooksey's cavalry to charge against local authorities which he thinks are spending to much, said:
  "The determination of SSAs, being wholly formula based, is explicit and open to scrutiny. It 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."
  That is what objective people say about the methodology. Any suggestion that the methodology is rigged is sheer nonsense from start to finish. It is about time the Labour party understood that.
  Let me illustrate that point. If it were rigged, it is curious that the SSA per head for Westminster is £1,278 with a total support grant of £1,023 while it is £904 for Wandsworth, £1,104 for Lambeth, £1,295 for Hackney and £1,535 for Tower Hamlets. There is nothing wrong

  1181
  with that. The important point is that the funds follow the areas of greatest need. They do that above all to the inner cities, and to the inner-city areas of London, most of which are Labour controlled.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Three and a half minutes ago, my hon. Friend said that there were two options. That is not the case. The third option is that counties like Lancashire should become more efficient and shed the staff they should not have. Lancashire has one member of staff for every 17 teachers. That is manifestly excessive. That is the third option which no Labour-controlled councils choose to take.
  Mr. Curry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out to me.
  I wanted to explore the point a little further. If we consider the SSA per head in terms of political control, in inner London we find that the Conservatives receive £1,030 while Labour receives £1,189. In outer London, the Conservatives receive £663 and Labour receives £856, and in the shires, the Conservatives receive £87 while Labour receives £106.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Curry: If that is fiddling, I have not done a very good job, and Labour councils are the ones that will benefit. I give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I would be most grateful if the Minister would say to which hon. Member he is giving way.
  Mr. Curry: With my customary generosity, I give way to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who is showing the most agitation.
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Minister selectively quoted the Audit Commission's evidence to the Select Committee. Does he recall that the Audit Commission actually proposed open ministerial decisions on the allocation of funds? It was questioned by Conservative Members, who asked, "Aren't you advocating a slush fund?" The reply was, "Is that not, in effect, what happens now?" Does the Minister recall that that evidence was given by the Audit Commission to the Select Committee?
  Mr. Curry: Absolutely not. It is an open system. It is discussed with local authority associations. None of it is done by mad alchemists behind closed doors in the Department of the Environment. It is discussed fully and openly.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Curry: I wish to make some important points.
  I make my next point with particular emphasis so that the Opposition understand it. The characteristics in the method which give support to Westminster are precisely the same characteristics which benefit Camden, Lambeth, Hackney and the other inner-city Labour authorities. If the Labour party thinks that it will get hold of a system and try to distort it to disadvantage Westminster, the first to suffer will be inner-city Labour authorities with the same characteristics.
  1182
  I shall do something unusual and pay a mild tribute to Lambeth. It has at last freed itself from the scandal of Labour control and it is actually trying to make efforts to pull itself around. It recently appointed a new chief executive, Miss Rabbatts. She is paid more than the Prime Minister, but she will have to earn every penny of it.
  The Liberal Democrats have been running a campaign. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was good enough to pop into the Chamber for a brief 15 seconds or so. He has been inviting all my hon. Friends to subscribe to a revolt of the west country. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman's letter arrived on the desks of all the news editors before it arrived in my hon. Friends' postbags.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: I confirm that the letter did arrive on the desks of news editors before it arrived on our desks. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
  Mr. Don Foster rose—
  Mr. Curry: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) does not know the difference between a slogan and an argument.
  Mr. Don Foster: Conservative Members have made criticisms in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). The Minister and other hon. Members might wish to know that, in his capacity as leader of my party, my right hon. Friend has been involved in the developing situation in Northern Ireland, which has led to a ministerial statement, and the House has benefited from cross-party discussions on that matter.
  Mr. Curry: The right hon. Member for Yeovil issued a call to arms in his letter, saying, "I hope that everybody will be there and vote on and discuss the issue." He has not done that. The Liberal Democrats wish to abolish capping—at least we know where they are coming from—and the area cost adjustment. I hope that they know what the consequences of that would he for some inner-city authorities, irrespective of what political control they are under, in terms of the impact on some of the most deprived people in the country.
  Two subjects are of great importance, and I wish to refer to them briefly. On capping, there is genuine debate about the balance between central and local government funding. I acknowledge that there should he such a debate. However, as the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said, local government spends 25 per cent. of public expenditure, and any Government must exercise ultimate control over that. A 1 per cent. relaxation of capping for education authorities would add £200 million to the public expenditure totals.
  Equally, I am sensitive to the arguments about local accountability and the wish of people to differentiate themselves financially in order to differentiate themselves at the ballot box. We are specifically addressing that matter, and we have put before local authorities a series of suggestions under the private finance initiative which would allow local authorities to use their capital receipts in a better way. We have invited them to establish joint companies with the private sector, and to do that within the compass of central financial controls. We are hoping also to extend that into housing. That is the way to target

  1183
  and mobilise all the community's resources to tackle problems, particularly deprivation, about which we are all concerned.
  Methodology is always central to debates such as this, and I should like to deal with the area cost adjustment. I have said in previous years that the system is robust. I said last year that we needed to improve the methodology in the south-east, and we have done so. I also said that I would investigate whether we could find something that gave us what we needed to know, better.
  I have told local authority associations that we are exploring whether we can apply a travel-to-work test to the whole country. We are having discussions with the Department of Employment about the necessary data. We are tendering urgently for research projects which would help us to hammer out a methodology. The system would have to work, and it would have to deliver what we need.
  I cannot promise—I shall not give an impression to the House which could mislead it—that the system would be as robust as the present one, but I guarantee that we will pursue it with great energy to see whether it delivers more effectively. If it does, it will become part of a methodology in which we have consistently incorporated improvements.
  Mr. Olner: What the Minister has just said will give some local authorities comfort. May I press him a little further? Will he tell counties such as Warwickshire that he will increase the cap this year to allow them to get out of their difficulties? That would be well received.
  Mr. Curry: I shall return to the issue of capping in a moment, but the hon. Gentleman will know that we are determined to control public expenditure. We have not reached conclusions on the capping limits for this year, and they are still provisional limits. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate the constraints on public expenditure.
  Mr. McLoughlin: My hon. Friend's announcement will be well regarded in those areas which are looking for a change in the system. How long will the research take, and when will my hon. Friend be able to publish its conclusions?
  Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend will know that the sub-group in the working party with local authorities on SSAs will get into the final stages of any new system at the beginning of the autumn. Therefore, we would need that work to be sufficiently completed and subject to analysis from local authorities and ourselves by the time the House came back after the summer recess. That is the sort of time scale at which we are looking.
  Mr. Michael Alison: My hon. Friend the Minister has the great advantage of being one of the relatively few hon. Members who knows that the sparsity factor refers not to the scarcity of hair on the heads of Yorkshiremen but to the superabundance of acres in Yorkshire in relation to population—not least areas such as Skipton and Ripon. Is my hon. Friend aware that North Yorkshire is very worried that the sparsity factor is not given sufficient weight in the methodology, particularly in relation to the fire service and the police? Could he possibly press for improvements in the methodology relating to sparsity?
  Mr. Curry: It is difficult to judge the right weighting for sparsity. Although local authority associations,
  1184
  particularly the Association of County Councils, complain about the existing weighting, they have not yet come up with a better idea. If they do, it will be examined rigorously and honestly.
  This year, we shall continue work on the police SSA because we must move to a system that fully reflects the characteristics of each area rather than establishment numbers. We have additional work to do on fire SSAs, as I have always made clear. We have introduced a factor for the problems of coastal areas. [Interruption.] I am delighted to add my welcome to the enthusiasm which the right hon. Member for Yeovil has clearly evoked in the House.
  We are also looking at how best to tackle the problem with regard to fire, because the pension scheme has a perverse incentive that, after 26 and a half years' service, people take early retirement through ill health and go immediately on to a full indexed pension. People recognise that that system creates problems. In the past, fire authorities may have been over-complacent—and complaisant—in conniving with that, and we must address the issue. We are trying to deal with it through the SSA methodology.
  We shall look at the children's social services because we need better-quality information. The Department of Health expects to commission research to permit a reform, probably for two years from now, because it is a complex matter.
  We shall also look at highways maintenance.
  Mr. Richard Burden: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Curry: No, I have very little time and a lot more ground still to cover.
  We are also looking at the homelessness indicator in the SSAs. That is relevant not merely to the SSAs hut to capital financing of the housing programme. It is important to have a robust methodology relevant to both those considerations.
  That is not an exclusive list. Local authorities will want us to discuss other matters, which we always try to do in agreement with them.
  The settlement must be seen in context. The Government must take account of the fact that local authorities spend 25 per cent. of all public expenditure. Typical budgets are: £620 million in Devon; £920 million in Hampshire; and £940 million in Lancashire. For big cities like Birmingham a typical budget is about £900 million, while the budget for Manchester is £430 million and, for Leeds, £500 million. We do not tell local authorities how to spend that money. It is the heart of the system that it is not hypothecated; they make their own decisions and allocate priorities. Nothing in our settlement compels people to penalise teachers. It is entirely up to them to decide where to allocate priorities, which is what local democracy is about and what local councillors are elected to do. The efficient councils will cope, inefficient ones will blame the Government and middling ones will probably try both. That has been the pattern in the past.
  Councils can help themselves by looking at arrears in council tax collection and at whether they apply competitive tendering properly. They must put their own house in order. I acknowledge the fact that they have made progress. Many good authorities have come to grips

  1185
  with working properly and work in collaboration with the private sector to make life better for their communities. We must push that process much further.
  We still need to know how much a Labour Government would spend, how much the council tax would go up, what would happen when they got rid of compulsory competitive tendering and what would happen when they put Unison back in control of the councils. All we have heard is the bizarre idea that we should send in the Audit Commission, not merely to go to high-spending councils but, according to the Opposition's remarkable new philosophy—Dobson's dictum—to attack councils that set low council taxes, because that is now undesirable. I can think of nothing dafter than to send in the Audit Commission to check councils because they are spending less taxpayers' money rather than more—thou shalt not set a low council tax. That is a funny way to run local authorities.
  We know who the high spenders and municipal malingerers are. They are all Labour party local authorities. It is the old, eternal list of councils that are not making an effort, and that list must be sorted out. Labour's inefficiency is a tax on deprivation, a tax on the poor and a tax on those who are in greatest need. A half-baked, uncosted, knee-jerk solution will be a disaster for ordinary people who most need the services that local government provides. I urge hon. Members to have no truck with the Labour party's policy and to support us in the Lobby tonight.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 257.

  Division No. 61]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Burns, Simon

  Amess, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Ancram, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Butler, Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Butterfill, John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Ashby, David

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Carrington, Matthew

  Atkins, Robert

  Cash, William

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Churchill, Mr

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Clappison, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bates, Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Batiste, Spencer

  Colvin, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Congdon, David

  Bendall, Vivian

  Conway, Derek

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Booth, Hartley

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Couchman, James

  Bowis, John

  Cran, James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

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

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Brazier, Julian

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Bright Sir Graham

  Day, Stephen

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  1186

  Delvin, Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Duncan, Alan

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dunn, Bob

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knox, Sir David

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Elletson, Harold

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Legg, Barry

  Evennett, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Faber, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lidington, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lightbown, David

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lord, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Luff, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Maclean, David

  French, Douglas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  Madel, Sir David

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Garek-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Garnier, Edward

  Malone, Gerald

  Gill, Christopher

  Mans, Keith

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marland, Paul

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Merchant, Piers

  Hague, William

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hannam, Sir John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Harris, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Norris, Steve

  Heald, Oliver

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Page, Richard

  Hendry, Charles

  Paice, James

  Hicks, Robert

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pawsey, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Horam, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Richards, Rod

  Jack, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jessel, Toby

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  1187

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Thomason, Roy

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Sackville, Tom

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Tracey, Richard

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Tredinnick, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Trend, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shepherd, Rt Hon Gillian

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shersby, Michael

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sims, Roger

  Walden, George

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Waller, Gary

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Ward, John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Watts, John

  Spring, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Sproat, Iain

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Whitney, Ray

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Whittingdale, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Stephen, Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Stern, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Stewart, Allan

  Willetts, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Sumberg, David

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wood, Timothy

  Sykes, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Callaghan, Jim

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife N E)

  Ainsworth, Robert

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Alton, David

  Canavan, Denis

  Anderson, Donald

  Cann, Jamie

  Anderson, Ms Janet

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Carttiss, Michael

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Chidgey, David

  Austin-Walker, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Banks, Tony

  Church, Judith

  Barnes, Harry

  Clapham, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands E)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clelland, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Coffey, Ann

  Bell, Stuart

  Cohen, Harry

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Connarty, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbett, Robin

  Berry, Roger

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Betts, Clive

  Corston, Jean

  Blunkett, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy, S E)

  Boyes, Roland

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bradley, Keith

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Darling, Alistair

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Davidson, Ian

  Brown, Nicholas (N'c'tle upon T E)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Burden, Richard

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Byers, Stephen

  Denham, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Dixon, Don

  1188

  Dobson, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dowd, Jim

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McAllion, John

  Eastham, Ken

  McCartney, Ian

  Enright, Derek

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Etherington, Bill

  Macdonald, Calum

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McFall, John

  Fatchett, Derek

  McKelvey, William

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Flynn, Paul

  MacShane, Denis

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Madden, Max

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Maddock, Diana

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mahon, Alice

  Fraser, John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fyfe, Maria

  Marek, Dr John

  Galloway, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gapes, Mike

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  George, Bruce

  Martlew, Eric

  Gerrard, Neil

  Maxton, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Meacher, Michael

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Meale, Alan

  Godsiff, Roger

  Michael, Alun

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Graham, Thomas

  Milburn, Alan

  Grant Bernie (Tottenham)

  Miller, Andrew

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gunnell, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Hall, Mike

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hanson, David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Harvey, Nick

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Mullin, Chris

  Henderson, Doug

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Heppell, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hinchliffe, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hodge, Margaret

  Olner, Bill

  Hoey, Kate

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Parry, Robert

  Home Robertson, John

  Patchett, Terry

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Pike, Peter L

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pope, Greg

  Hoyle, Doug

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lev'm E)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Hutton, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Illsley, Eric

  Purchase, Ken

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Radice, Giles

  Jamieson, David

  Randall, Stuart

  Janner, Greville

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)

  Rendel, David

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jowell, Tessa

  Rooker, Jeff

  Keen, Alan

  Rooney, Terry

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Knabra, Piara S

  Ruddock, Joan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lewis, Terry

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Short, Clare

  Livingstone, Ken

  Simpson, Alan

  1189

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tipping, Paddy

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Tyler, Paul

  Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Snape, Peter

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wareing, Robert N

  Spellar, John

  Watson, Mike

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Stevenson, George

  Wilson, Brian

  Wise, Audrey

  Stott, Roger

  Worthington, Tony

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Straw, Jack

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mr. Joe Benton and

  Timms, Stephen

  Mr. Dennis Turner.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 161), which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
  It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions necessary to dispose of the other motions relating to local government finance, pursuant to order [27 January].
  Resolved,
  That the Special Grant Report (No. 12) (House of Commons Paper No. 162), which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.
  That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (England) 1995–96 (House of Commons Paper No. 163), which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.—[Mr. Gummer.]

  SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITIONS
10.14 pm
Dr. Robert Spink: I beg leave to present a petition to the House, signed by more than 200 of my constituents, most of whom live in close proximity of Woodside park.
The petition was organised by Mr. Poole, an indefatigable campaigner on behalf of the park. The petitioners seek to improve the park to a reasonable standard.
The petition states:
That the condition and maintenance and policing of Woodside Park have suffered from neglect for a number of years and that we, the undersigned, call on the Department of Environment to bring pressure on Castle Point Borough Council to bring the Park to a satisfactory standard and to prevent dumping in the Park and to cease the dumping of grave spoil in the Park, in order that residents and all users of the Park can enjoy its facilities, and that the Police should give proper coverage to the Park and surrounding areas, particularly at night, in order to prevent and discourage young people from causing a nuisance or being exposed to criminal activities and delays.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do urge the Right Honourable John Gummer, M.P., Secretary of State of the Environment to intervene to ensure that Castle Point Borough Council take the necessary action.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
To lie upon the Table.
10.16 pm
Sir Trevor Skeet: For many years, Bedford has required a satisfactory infrastructure, and for more than 40 years we have had no bypass. Therefore, my constituents have come together and signed a petition, which has 16,345 signatures.
The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of the undersigned people of Bedford in the County of Bedfordshire and elsewhere sheweth that: In order to boost Bedford's employment prospects, benefit the town centre environment, improve road safety and enhance the quality of life for those who live and work in Bedford, new and improved roads linking the Al and MI, to the south of Bedford, and the Western Bypass are needed urgently.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Secretary of State for Transport, in conjunction with the County Council of the said County of Bedfordshire, to give Priority One status to the Great Barford Bypass, A42I improvements, Norse Road Link, and the Bedford Western Bypass (including the A6-A428 link), to include the schemes in an immediate roads programme and to implement them forthwith.
And your petitioners, as duty bound, will ever pray etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Scottish Homes (Housing Stock)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
10.18 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin: I thank Madam Speaker for allowing me this Adjournment debate, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being here tonight to chair it. I also thank my hon. Friends who are present to give me moral support, and the Minister, who kindly allowed me to give some of the questions in advance so that we would have a full and constructive debate tonight.
I am deeply concerned about the behaviour of Scottish Homes, and particularly that of Mr. Peter McKinlay, its chief executive. I support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who put out a press release on behalf of all the Scottish Labour Members of Parliament, stating that Mr. McKinlay and the rest of the board should be sacked. As a lifelong trade unionist, I never thought that I would see the day when I would want anyone to be sacked, but Mr. McKinlay is an exception to the rule.
The problem is that Scottish Homes decided to follow the Government's rules and unload its property, thus ceasing to be a landlord. Ironically, although Scottish Homes has many other functions, it has been an exceptionally good landlord. It seems to be a case of "if it works, fix it", and I think that Scottish Homes is doing a great disservice to Scottish tenants. It was not the present board but its many predecessors that made Scottish Homes a good landlord, helped by the co-operation and hard work of many tenants' associations throughout Scotland.
Scottish Homes also has a staff worry. I understand the position, but Mr. McKinlay has not asked but ordered his staff to do what he wishes. In October 1992, he announced that they should find tenants who were prepared to enter into joint ventures and form housing associations.
In my area, officers of Scottish Homes recently formed a housing association, along with certain tenants. The association is called Gemini, and it has bitten off a big piece of housing stock to chew. It intends to acquire properties from Westercommon and Maryhill through my constituency, across the east end of Glasgow, to Rutherglen and Cambuslang. As the Minister will know, the Government recently introduced legislation to change local government in Scotland, which means that the housing association will be trying to acquire property in two separate local authorities. Anyone who knows anything about community-based housing associations will be aware that it is vital for the community to be contained within a single authority, because it will depend a good deal on that authority.
My area contains the Carron, Balornock, East Balornock, Robroyston and Garngad schemes—a total of 1,373 houses, almost half the number of Scottish Homes houses that are to be disposed of. Even if we assume a modest transfer price of £5,000 per house—the houses are worth more than that, but they are being sold with sitting tenants—given that there are 2,286 Scottish Homes properties in Glasgow, Gemini will be required to borrow at least £11.43 million on behalf of Scottish Homes tenants. However, none of the newsletters that have been
1192
issued specify the amount that will have to be borrowed; only the small print mentions the requirement to borrow from the private sector.
That worries me. Some 16 Labour Members of Parliament attended a meeting in the Copthorne hotel during the summer recess. At that meeting Mr. McKinlay stated that he would peg rent rises to between 1 and 2 per cent. above inflation and added that after five years there would be no help from the Government or from Scottish Homes.
Not long ago, the interest rate was 15 per cent. If that happens again and my constituents and those of other hon. Members borrow about £11 million, and if the only way to get revenue to pay the building society or other lending authority is from rents, it is inevitable that after the five years tenants will have to pay the full interest charges and maintenance costs. Nothing is being said about that in the propaganda that is being put out by Gemini.
The Minister knows that some officers in Scottish Homes are clearly involved with Gemini. That creates a serious conflict of interest. The acting director of Gemini is Mr. Simpson, who is a senior official in Scottish Homes in Glasgow.
That is not all, because the Springburn Possilpark housing association, a local body which has been in my area for 20 years and has a good track record, does not want all the 2,000 plus houses that Gemini is seeking. However, it has been invited by Scottish Homes to make a bid for those houses in my constituency. Scottish Homes is being devious in extending that invitation to Springburn Possilpark housing association. It is merely pulling in the local association for window dressing. It must be that, because the Minister knows that when a joint venture or what Scottish Homes calls a new landlord, such as Gemini, makes a bid anywhere in Scotland against a local community-based housing association, lo and behold, the staff organisation always wins.
Mr. McKinlay and the apology for a chairman, Sir James Mellon, should come clean and say that Springburn Possilpark does not have a chance. A housing association that has served the community and Scottish Homes so well is being unfairly treated.
I spoke about banks and lending institutions being involved. It is stated in Gemini's business proposal document that multi-storey flats will cause problems when it comes to borrowing money to buy them. I have said in the House before that the Carron scheme in my constituency consists mainly of multi-storey dwellings. They are excellent and anyone would be proud to live in them. They are a credit to the tenants. If banks are already saying at this early stage that they may not be able to lend money to buy those dwellings, the Minister must say what will happen to my tenants. It would be extremely unfair to have ballots when people do not know their future in buildings that have been there for the best part of 30 years. Many tenants have been in them all that time.
It is proposed that ballot papers should go out. It should be made clear on ballot papers that tenants are taking on a heavy commitment in borrowing all that money. The Minister should instruct Scottish Homes to make it clear on the ballot paper that people are entitled to remain with Scottish Homes. All the propaganda that is coming from Gemini and the other associations that are on the

1193
bandwagon gives the impression that there is no room at the inn to remain with Scottish Homes. That information must be put on the ballot paper.
The Minister has a responsibility to tell tenants that they have security of tenure. If the ballot is successful, even people who vote against or do not turn up and abstain will be required to sign up for a new tenancy agreement, which will make them assured tenants. They may have the right to buy—propaganda on that has been put out—but the fact that assured tenants are denied the right to go to a rent officer is hidden. Rents will no longer have the protection of a rent officer. The Minister knows that secure tenants in housing associations can go to a rent officer.
Mr. McKinlay told us at the meeting in the Copthorne—my hon. Friends will correct me if I am wrong—that, if the tenants decided to stay with Scottish Homes, he would introduce a private factor in relation to the property. That is unfair on those people, many of whom have been loyal tenants and have paid rent for 30 and sometimes 40 years. If they exercise a democratic right to remain with Scottish Homes, no official should take it upon himself to say that he will introduce a private factor. If people decide to remain with Scottish Homes, a team of officials should be able to look after their needs, instead of a private landlord being brought in.
I must give time for the Minister to reply. I have been involved with housing for 22 years, ever since I was a councillor in Balornock. Everyone, myself included, had a high regard for Scottish Homes as a landlord. Its houses have always been in high demand, whether they are back-and-front-door properties, multi-storey flats or tenements. The board is destroying something that has been built up over many years. I hope and pray only for the day when we have a Labour Government who will ensure that those tenants are given the rights for which they have fought for so long.
10.33 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) on securing this debate and on the spirited way in which he has put his points. I shall seek to answer as many of his questions as possible. I shall study the record tomorrow and, if I miss any of his points, I shall reply to him later.
The Scottish Office has every confidence in the Scottish Homes board and the chief executive. I hope that tonight I can convince the hon. Member for Springburn about the background and describe the transfer process. In particular, I want to emphasise that the Scottish Office's policy is centred on maintaining tenants' interests, which are of paramount importance. We have declared our intention of ensuring that these interests are fully protected.
The hon. Member for Springburn raised a number of specific issues which I would like to address at the outset.
On the question of Scottish Homes making options known to tenants—particularly the option of remaining with Scottish Homes—I am aware of information leaflets which are given to all tenants at various stages in the
1194
transfer process which make it perfectly clear that if the majority of tenants vote against a transfer, they will remain with Scottish Homes.
The hon. Gentleman has also expressed concern about staff involvement, particularly regarding Gemini housing association, and he has recently asked a number of parliamentary questions covering operational matters of this sort. Those are, quite rightly, a matter for Scottish Homes and I have replied to the hon. Gentleman saying that I have asked the chairman to write to him on those issues.
On the specific point of conflict of interest and continuity of employment, Scottish Homes operates a code of conduct designed to eliminate such conflicts. It is expected that under existing employment legislation Scottish Homes staff would be offered continuity of employment regardless of who may be the successful bidder.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: Will the Minister bear it in mind that every organisation of this nature where the staff has been involved has always won the tender? That seems to be more than a coincidence.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am just coming to that point.
To avoid any conflict of interest, staff are required to state clearly to interested parties when they are acting on behalf of an organisation involved in developing proposals of Scottish Homes and not as representatives of Scottish Homes. In some circumstances, secondment of staff will be considered.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned management bids. It has been brought to my attention that, of the 18 proposals for transfer that have been approved by the Secretary of State, only one has involved a management bid. Scottish Homes' procedures ensure that all bids are treated objectively and even-handedly. The important point is that tenants should be aware of all options open to them and, ultimately, it is and will be for tenants to choose.
On the question of the initial disposal of Scottish Homes stock and subsequent resale—which would require the consent of Scottish Homes—the presumption is that all costs will be met by private finance.
With regard to rental policies, it is expected that tenants will transfer at their existing rent and will be fully aware of the rental regime proposed by the alternative landlord. This will be covered by tenancy agreements. The tenants will be aware of the terms of those agreements before the ballot. Scottish Homes will ensure through contractual arrangements that rental increases cannot be in excess of proposals put to tenants without its consent. Individual subsidies are, of course, available to tenants through housing benefit, of which £800 million is paid in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned multi-storey flats. Scottish Homes is looking to mix multi-storeys with other traditional stock to make the housing package more attractive to lenders.
I appreciate the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the responsibility that tenants face when forming new organisations to take on a landlord role. However, Scottish Homes provides financial support to tenants to undertake training in housing management which is provided by staff from the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations.

1195
I understand the concerns that have been expressed by the hon. Gentleman and I should emphasise that the final decision on any transfer of stock is, under the present arrangements, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I understand that, at present, Scottish Homes has received some outline proposals from interested parties regarding properties in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but discussions and consultation are at an early stage and no decisions have been taken.
I re-emphasise to the House the fact that the promotion of greater housing choice is one of the major aims of the Government's housing policy. There are a number of ways in which we are seeking to achieve this. The first is our encouragement of further home ownership, but we recognise that it is not necessarily the right option for everyone and that there is clearly a continuing and important role for the social rented sector. It is, therefore, important that people who choose to rent should be offered the choice to do so.
We are, therefore, implementing policies to encourage diversification of tenure and to make certain that tenants have a wider choice of landlords outwith the public sector from whom to rent in the future. Consistent with the policy of increasing choice for tenants, Scottish Homes has been working towards shedding its landlord role. Over the past few years, it has worked up a large-scale voluntary transfer policy and a forward programme under which it expects to dispose of the majority of its stock within the next five years.
It was expected that different solutions might emerge in different areas which would reflect the wishes of tenants—solutions which would allow them to benefit from improved services and better housing conditions and have greater say and control in relation to their housing stock. It was made clear that changes of this kind would occur only at a pace in line with tenants' wishes.
I mentioned a moment ago that tenants' interests were paramount when considering transfer of stock. That was emphasised in the guidance which my right hon. Friend issued to Scottish Homes in 1989 and on which Scottish Homes' subsequent procedures have been based. The guidance concentrated on three main areas—fair and open competition between potential purchasers; protection of tenants' interests; and value for money.
The Scottish Office would generally regard competition as preferable in most circumstances and would expect that to be the case for Scottish Homes transfers. It is only in this way that tenants will have full access to the proposals of all the alternative landlords looking to take over stock. These might include initiatives from staff or tenants, or a combination of both, or from a quite separate body such as a housing association co-op or housing trust.
Within this framework of general principles it is, quite properly, a matter for Scottish Homes as owner of the stock to establish appropriate arrangements to govern its transfer. For this purpose, it has published procedures that promote substantial safeguards for tenants and which are designed to provide equitable treatment for all parties interested in acquiring its houses. These procedures are subject to continual review and account is taken of the experience gained and lessons learnt from the substantial number of transfers that have successfully taken place since 1991.
1196
One aspect that I must mention is how the procedures involve the establishment of local stock strategies. These are prepared in consultation with tenants and interested parties at local level in all areas where Scottish Homes holds housing stock. All of Scottish Homes' housing stock is currently covered by such strategies which provide a clear statement about what Scottish Homes wants to happen with its stock. These strategies define local aims and objectives for stock in specific areas and can be used as a framework to allow for the appraisal of outline proposals.
Within the local stock strategy, further breakdown of areas varies according to local circumstances and may reflect initiatives already under way or opportunities identified by tenants and areas where there may be an interest in transfer. Each local strategy was prepared in liaison with Scottish Homes' local development and housing management staff and involved consultation with tenants' representatives and potential alternative landlords and liaison with local authority housing departments.
Of course, one of the main benefits of allowing stock to transfer to a landlord outwith the public sector, such as a housing association, is that it involves the use of private capital. Promoting the use of private finance will ensure that public funds go much further.
On the specific point of transfer to local authorities, if it were to happen, the funds that the local authorities borrowed to finance the purchase of the houses would count as public expenditure and, unless total public expenditure were to rise, it would inevitably mean reducing public expenditure elsewhere. That could mean fewer resources available to improve other local authority housing. In short, by enabling people to transfer to new landlords such as housing associations, it is possible to lever in private finance and, in so doing, get more for the public resources available. That is an important point. I should mention that to date Scottish Homes has attracted more than £40 million of private finance. If that sum had come not from the private sector but from the public sector other important proposals would have been awarded lower priority.
There are, of course, other benefits to private finance. Involving banks and building societies introduces private sector skills and disciplines to the transfer process, alongside the best traditions of the public sector. That can introduce new approaches and perspectives and boost effectiveness. They can help ensure that the new landlord starts off on a sound and sensible footing, with a properly thought-out business plan, dealing with key issues such as rent levels and repairs provision. We can be pretty sure that a financial institution will lend money only to good landlords. That, of course, is good news for the tenants who share a common interest, with the private lenders, in wanting a landlord who is efficient and effective.
There have been suggestions that the arrangement of only one alternative is too restrictive. I do not believe that to be the case. It should be recognised that Scottish Homes will be consulting tenants throughout the transfer process and tenants will have access to free, independent advice to ensure that they are fully aware of all the options, including the proposals of all alternative landlords open to them. In that way, tenants are able to inform and influence the decision-making process under which Scottish Homes offers an alternative for the ballot paper. It is only when that whole process has been completed and tenants are in a position to take a

1197
well-balanced view and make informed decisions on the question of the future landlord that they will be balloted on a transfer proposal.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have much to say in reply to the hon. Member for Springburn.
If at the end of the day the majority of tenants wish to stay with the public sector, they will have the opportunity of doing so by voting to remain with Scottish Homes. If the majority vote to transfer, all tenants should transfer. It would not allow for practical management of the stock if the minority vote against transfer were allowed to remain with Scottish Homes. I mention to the hon. Member for Springburn that out of 19 ballots, involving more than 12,000 tenants, a majority of 61.5 per cent. were in favour of transferring. So a decisive majority has been in favour of transfers.
I have already answered the point about staff. It is to be expected that there will be many instances when existing staff will wish to promote initiatives, in many cases in conjunction with tenants. Many of Scottish Homes' staff will have been part of the housing management structure of
1198
the Scottish Special Housing Association and Scottish Homes. It is natural that they will wish to promote their employment opportunities and it would certainly be unfortunate if their expertise were lost.
Even in cases where tenants take the lead themselves, in many cases they welcome the active participation of Scottish Homes' staff, which is largely on a voluntary basis. There is clear evidence that this can be highly successful as in the case of WESLO Housing management in West Lothian. That is an independent organisation which incorporates—
Mr. John McAllion: What about Waverley?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That case was at the very beginning of the whole process. There has been improvement in procedures since that time. What is significant about Waverley is that the interests of tenants were treated as paramount and the accusation was not that tenants had been exploited, but that they had had too good a deal—
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 accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the severance payments made to special advisers in each of the last five years indicating(a) the amount and (b) the date.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has not employed any special advisers during the last five years.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the total sum paid in legal aid for Mr. Jawad Hashim in connection with legal action between him and the Arab monetary fund.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A total of £2.8 million has been paid on account to lawyers representing Dr. Hashim. However, the principal legal aid certificate issued in respect of proceedings between Dr. Hashim and the Arab monetary fund has been revoked pending an appeal against revocation by Dr. Hashim. If the decision to revoke is upheld Dr. Hashim will be deemed never to have been legally aided, in which case the Legal Aid Board would be entitled to recover its costs from Dr. Hashim. The final cost of the case to the legal aid fund will depend on the outcome of the appeal and, if appropriate, any legal aid costs would be subject to taxation by the court.

TREASURY

  Disabled People
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion and number of non-industrial civil servants in the Departments and agencies for which he has responsibility are registered disabled and disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office document, "Focus on Ability".

  Mr. Nelson
  At 1 July 1994 the number of registered disabled people employed in the Chancellor's departments and agencies was 1,686, representing 1.8 per cent. of total staff. Figures for the number and proportion of all disabled people employed in the Chancellor's departments and agencies are not available, but surveys carried out by some of the Chancellor's departments and agencies suggest that there may be as many non-registered disabled people as there are registered.

  Advertisements
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions and in what circumstances in the last five years advertisements have been placed in newspapers or periodicals which have been described as being issued by or on behalf of Ministers in his Department rather than on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Nelson
  None.

  Standard Chartered Bank
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss the activities of Standard Chartered bank.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I meet the Governor of the Bank of England regularly, and a wide range of issues is discussed.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the chairman of Standard Chartered bank.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I cannot recall and I have no record of meeting the current chairman of Standard Chartered bank, or his predecessor, since my appointment as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has called for a report from the Governor of the Bank of England on Standard Chartered bank's involvement in India.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I receive regular reports from the Bank of England on a range of issues.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what improvements he is to make to banking supervision following the involvement of Standard Chartered bank in India.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  None. The Banking Acts already give the Bank of England the powers it needs to supervise the world-wide operations of United Kingdom authorised institutions.

  Budget Report
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise the tables in the 1995–96 "Financial Statement and Budget Report" to take account of the measures he announced on 8 December.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Copies of a document which contains a full set of revised tables, corresponding to those in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96", are available today from the Vote Office.

  Taxes
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer on 19 December,Official Report, column 944, if he will now show the figures for indirect taxes, broken down into (a) VAT and (b) other indirect taxes; and when figures for council tax will be available.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 25 January 1995]: The breakdown requested is in the table. Figures for council tax on a similar basis to those provided for other taxes will need to be estimated from family expenditure

  667
  survey data on actual council tax payments. At present we have figures only for such payments for the first nine months of its operation after April 1993. We need to investigate further to see whether this provides data of sufficient quantity and quality to enable reliable estimates to be made. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as I have further information on when these figures might be available.

  Indirect taxes at multiples of average earnings 1993–941

  Percentages of average male earnings

  75

  100

  150

  Single Amounts, £ per week

  Gross income

  269.33

  359.10

  538.65

  VAT

  14.81

  19.77

  30.37

  Other indirect taxes

  19.56

  24.10

  33.80

  Total indirect taxes

  34.37

  43.86

  64.17

  Percentage of earnings

  VAT

  5.5

  5.5

  5.6

  Other indirect taxes

  7.3

  6.7

  6.3

  Total indirect taxes

  12.8

  12.2

  11.9

  Married, no children Amounts, £ per week

  Gross income

  269.33

  359.10

  538.65

  VAT

  13.57

  18.98

  30.75

  Other indirect taxes

  21.93

  26.55

  36.62

  Total indirect taxes

  35.50

  45.52

  67.37

  Percentage of earnings

  VAT

  5.0

  5.3

  5.7

  Other indirect taxes

  8.1

  7.4

  6.8

  Total indirect taxes

  13.2

  12.7

  12.5

  Married, two children Amounts, £ per week

  Gross income

  269.33

  359.10

  538.65

  VAT

  13.44

  19.56

  32.89

  Other indirect taxes

  21.71

  25.38

  33.39

  Total indirect taxes

  35.15

  44.94

  66.28

  Percentage of earnings

  VAT

  5.0

  5.4

  6.1

  Other indirect taxes

  8.1

  7.1

  6.2

  Total indirect taxes

  13.1

  12.5

  12.3

  Married, two earners, no children: Earnings split 60:40

  Amounts, £ per week

  Gross income

  269.33

  359.10

  538.65

  VAT

  15.64

  21.53

  33.25

  Other indirect taxes

  25.46

  29.47

  37.43

  Total indirect taxes

  41.10

  51.00

  70.68

  Percentage of earnings

  VAT

  5.8

  6.0

  6.2

  Other indirect taxes

  9.5

  8.2

  6.9

  Total indirect taxes

  15.3

  14.2

  13.1

  1 Figures for indirect taxes are only shown for a narrow earnings range because the margin of error outside this range is too high to produce even illustrative estimates using the methods outlined in the notes below. Spending patterns vary widely between households with the same income and composition and all figures shown for indirect taxes are very approximate.

  668

  Indirect taxes at multiples of average earnings 1994–951

  Percentages of average male earnings

  75

  100

  150

  Single Amounts, £ per week

  Gross income

  278.78

  371.70

  557.55

  VAT

  16.40

  21.70

  32.97

  Other indirect taxes

  20.49

  25.26

  35.39

  Total indirect taxes

  36.89

  46.96

  68.35

  Percentage of earnings

  VAT

  5.9

  5.8

  5.9

  Other indirect taxes

  7.4

  6.8

  6.3

  Total indirect taxes

  13.2

  12.6

  12.3

  Married, no children Amounts, £ per week

  Gross income

  278.78

  371.70

  557.55

  VAT

  15.04

  20.79

  32.99

  Other indirect taxes

  22.77

  27.63

  37.92

  Total indirect taxes

  37.81

  48.41

  70.91

  Percentage of earnings

  VAT

  5.4

  5.6

  5.9

  Other indirect taxes

  8.2

  7.4

  6.8

  Total indirect taxes

  13.6

  13.0

  12.7

  Married, two children Amounts, £ per week

  Gross income

  278.78

  371.70

  557.55

  VAT

  14.89

  21.43

  35.32

  Other indirect taxes

  22.63

  26.51

  34.74

  Total indirect taxes

  37.52

  47.94

  70.06

  Percentage of earnings

  VAT

  5.3

  5.8

  6.3

  Other indirect taxes

  8.1

  7.1

  6.2

  Total indirect taxes

  13.5

  12.9

  12.6

  Married, two earners, no children: Earnings split 60:40

  Amounts, £ per week

  Gross income

  278.78

  371.70

  557.55

  VAT

  17.19

  23.49

  35.97

  Other indirect taxes

  26.67

  30.88

  39.19

  Total indirect taxes

  43.86

  54.37

  75.16

  Percentage of earnings

  VAT

  6.2

  6.3

  6.5

  Other indirect taxes

  9.6

  8.3

  7.0

  Total indirect taxes

  15.7

  14.6

  13.5

  1 Figures for indirect taxes are only shown for a narrow earnings range because the margin of error outside this range is too high to produce even illustrative estimates using the methods outlined in the notes below. Spending patterns vary widely between households with the same income and composition and all figures shown for indirect taxes are very approximate.

  Indirect taxes at multiples of average earnings 1995–961

  Percentages of average male earnings

  75

  100

  150

  Single Amounts, £ per week

  Gross income

  291.30

  388.40

  582.60

  VAT

  17.55

  23.26

  35.33

  Other indirect taxes

  21.74

  26.86

  37.65

  Total indirect taxes

  39.29

  50.12

  72.98

  Percentage of earnings

  VAT

  6.0

  6.0

  6.1

  669

  Indirect taxes at multiples of average earnings 1995–961

  Percentages of average male earnings

  75

  100

  150

  Other indirect taxes

  7.5

  6.9

  6.5

  Total indirect taxes

  13.5

  12.9

  12.5

  Married, no children Amounts, £ per week

  Gross income

  291.30

  388.40

  582.60

  VAT

  15.84

  22.03

  35.12

  Other indirect taxes

  23.96

  29.14

  40.11

  Total indirect taxes

  39.80

  51.18

  75.23

  Percentage of earnings

  VAT

  5.4

  5.7

  6.0

  Other indirect taxes

  8.2

  7.5

  6.9

  Total indirect taxes

  13.7

  13.2

  12.9

  Married, two children Amounts, £ per week

  Gross income

  291.30

  388.40

  582.60

  VAT

  15.55

  22.59

  37.47

  Other indirect taxes

  23.88

  28.07

  36.91

  Total indirect taxes

  39.43

  50.66

  74.38

  Percentage of earnings

  VAT

  5.3

  5.8

  6.4

  Other indirect taxes

  8.2

  7.2

  6.3

  Total indirect taxes

  13.5

  13.0

  12.8

  Married, two earners, no children: Earnings split 60:40

  Amounts, £ per week

  Gross income

  291.30

  388.40

  582.60

  VAT

  18.08

  24.87

  38.31

  Other indirect taxes

  28.20

  32.69

  41.58

  Total indirect taxes

  46.29

  57.56

  79.88

  Percentage of earnings

  VAT

  6.2

  6.4

  6.6

  Other indirect taxes

  9.7

  8.4

  7.1

  Total indirect taxes

  15.9

  14.8

  13.7

  1 Figures for indirect taxes are only shown for a narrow earnings range because the margin of error outside this range is too high to produce even illustrative estimates using the methods outlined in the notes below. Spending patterns vary widely between households with the same income and composition and all figures shown for indirect taxes are very approximate.

  Notes to tables:

  1. Earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. Estimates of earnings in 1994–95 and 1995–96 are based on earnings growth assumptions of 3½ per cent. in 1994–95 and 4½ per cent. in 1995–96.

  2. The estimates of indirect taxes shown exclude council tax, but include estimates of the impact of intermediate taxes on households as well as taxes on final goods and services. Estimates of the impact of taxes on final goods and services assume that these taxes are fully incident on households. Estimates of the impact of intermediate taxes are based on the relation between intermediate production costs and final consumption derived using input-output techniques.

  3. Estimates for most indirect taxes are based on equations derived from the 1985 family expenditure survey uprated to later years using forecasts of aggregate tax receipts. Estimates of VAT on domestic fuel and power, airline passenger duty and insurance premium tax are based on equations using results from the 1991 and 1992 family expenditure surveys uprated using a similar methodology. All estimates are based on the illustrative assumption that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved.

  4. Estimates of indirect taxes are very approximate because spending patterns vary widely between households with the same composition and income. The margin of error is even higher outside

  670

  the range of earnings shown, and even illustrative estimates cannot be made. Because of sampling variation, there can be substantial differences between estimates obtained from family expenditure surveys for different years.

  5. Net disposable income after income tax and national insurance is calculated on the assumption that the household receives no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only have income from employment. All earners, including wives, are assumed to pay class 1 NI contributions at the contracted-in rate. Child benefit is treated as a negative income tax in order to provide comparability with support given through child tax allowances.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when severance pay for special advisers was introduced; for what reasons; and what are the terms of the scheme.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 31 January 1995]: Severance pay for special advisers was introduced in 1977. Under current arrangements, advisers are eligible for severance payments when their appointments are terminated automatically with the end of an administration, or on the day after polling day in a general election, or when the appointing Minister leaves his or her appointment. Where an adviser is reappointed immediately after one of those occurrences, no payment is made. Similarly, if an adviser is reappointed following a break of service, the adviser may be required to pay back a proportion of any severance payment received. Severance payments, subject to tax and national insurance, are made in accordance with the scale in the table.

  Number of months pay in lieu of notice for those aged:

  Years of service

  Under 34

  34

  35 and above

  Less than two

  3

  3.0

  3

  Two but less than three

  3

  3.5

  4

  Three but less than four

  3

  4.0

  5

  Four and over

  3

  4.5

  6

  All special advisers, regardless of age, are entitled to one month's severance pay if their appointment is made within six months of the latest date by which a general election must take place, or if they resign to take part in national political activities within six months of their appointment.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Flagpole
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee why the flagpole at Westminster is not perpendicular.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  I have no reason to believe that the flagpole is not perpendicular.

  Private Dining Facilities
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee, pursuant to his answer of 1 December,Official Report, column 804, when he expects the Catering Committee to conclude its review of private dining facilities; and if he will make a statement.
  671
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  The Catering Committee has now concluded its review of private dining facilities. In its deliberations, the Committee endorsed several general principles on the proper use of these facilities, and agreed that a reasonable degree of transparency would be appropriate in releasing statistics on bookings in response to parliamentary questions, based on those provided by the then Leader of the House on 10 November 1989.

  The Committee also considered whether Members hosting a function should indicate whether they had a relevant registered interest, and agreed to a new procedure which is set out in the resolution passed on 25 January 1995, which records the Committee's conclusions and is, for the benefit of the House, set out in full:

  Resolved, That the Committee, having considered the principle and operation of private dining facilities in the House, do conclude that:

  (a) it is appropriate for the House to have private dining rooms; it is acceptable for these facilities to be used for party political functions or for "lobbying purposes"; and because of security and other implications, no alternative use of the rooms is considered appropriate.

  (b) it is unacceptable for the private dining rooms to be used for any purpose involving direct commercial gain, or as an inducement to recruit new members of outside organisations or non-Parliamentary associations.

  (c) the special status of the following Parliamentary organisations be recognised by permitting them to book the private dining rooms in their own names:

  (i) Select Committees of the House and the British-Irish Parliamentary Body;

  (ii) The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the British-American Parliamentary Group, the Council of Europe, the Western European Union, the North Atlantic Assembly and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly;

  (iii) The Industry and Parliament Trust;

  (iv) registered All-Party and Parliamentary Groups; and

  (v) established Dining Clubs.

  (d) in the interests of clarifying the stance of a Member hosting a function in a private dining room, he or she should indicate a relevant registered interest by answering the following questions, to be added to the booking form:

  (i) "Do you have a registered interest relating to your sponsorship of this function? Yes/No".

  (ii) "Are you making this booking on behalf of another Member? Yes/No."

  (iii) "If Yes, does this other Member have a registered interest relating to the sponsorship of this function? Yes/No";

  and that, in addition, invitations should be annotated appropriately "Relevant registered interest declared"".

  The Committee also agreed that the resolution should take effect from the return of the House after the Easter adjournment, and that in response to future parliamentary questions requesting statistics of the booking of private
  672
  dining rooms, I should answer giving figures on the basis of the statistics compiled from the date of implementation of this resolution.

  Finally, I wish to advise the hon. Member that the Committee's full formal "Minutes of Proceedings" are today available from the Vote Office or through HMSO.

TRANSPORT

  Drivers (Eyesight)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent his Department's system for determining the causes of road accidents seeks to identify visual defects as causative factors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The reports completed by police officers for national statistical purposes—STATS 19—are confined to the objective circumstances of the accident and do not record views about possible causes.

  Road Schemes
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those road schemes approved at the public inquiry stage since 1985 and since built, in each case giving(a) the capital cost estimate submitted to the public inquiry, (b) the actual cost, (c) the net present value estimated at the public inquiry and (d) his estimate of the net present value had the correct capital cost been approved.

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 1 February 1995:
  As you know, Mr. Watts, Minister for Railways and Roads, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for a list of those road schemes approved at the public inquiry stage since 1985 and since built, in each case giving (a) the capital cost estimate submitted to the public enquiry, (b) the actual cost, (c) the net present value estimated at the public inquiry and (d) his estimate of the net present value had the correct capital cost been approved.
  I regret that the information you asked for is not held centrally by the Agency and given the number of schemes involved a file search to extract it could only be done at disproportionate cost.
  However, I can say that a recent study of 6 schemes has indicated that the overall post-construction net present value is very close to that predicted prior to public inquiry on those schemes.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road schemes approved since 1985 are at the stage where(a) orders have been published, (b) an inquiry is pending, (c) an inquiry has been completed, the road approved and no contract has been let and (d) an inquiry has been completed, the road approved and the contract let.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  673
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 1 February 1995:
  As you know, Mr Watts, Minister for Railways and Roads, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many road schemes approved since 1985 are at the stage where (a) orders have been published, (b) an inquiry is pending, (c) an inquiry has been completed, the road approved and no contract has been let and (d) an inquiry has been completed, the road approved and the contract let.
  The information you requested will take a little time to retrieve.
  I shall write with your answer as soon as possible.

  Training Courses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list each training and tuition course with a total cost exceeding £5,000 paid for by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies during the last 12 months, showing the title and objectives of each course, the name of the organisations engaged, the total cost of each course, a summary of the responsibilities of staff members taking part and the process for course evaluation by the Department or agency.

  Mr. Norris
  This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Red Routes, Lambeth
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects red routes to come into operation in Lambeth and on which roads.

  Mr. Norris
  The traffic director for London is currently considering a revised timetable for the project as a whole, under which red routes in Lambeth would come into operation progressively between 1996 and 2000. The routes in question are specified in SI 1992 No. 1372.

  Channel Tunnel Link
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the status of the final line of the route for the channel tunnel link route announced by his predecessor in October 1991 at the time of that announcement.

  Mr. Watts
  The route announcement in October 1991 was of a broad corridor for an easterly approach to London along the lines of the proposals by Ove Arup, following a comparative assessment by British Rail of four strategic route options.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the actual or approximate public support in pence per passenger mile on services to which London regional transport provides financial support.

  Mr. Norris
  Government grant to London Transport is now used almost entirely for investment, rather than revenue support to services. However the current year's grant of £373 million is equivalent, on average, to approximately 6p per passenger mile travelled on London Transport's underground and bus services. Decisions on support for individual services are an operational matter for London Transport.

  Through Ticketing
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that through ticketing facilities will continue to be available at(a) Nunhead, (b) Peckham Rye, (c) Denmark Hill, (d) West Dulwich, (e) North Dulwich and (f) Sydenham Hill stations.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 24 January 1995]: None of these stations currently offer a complete through ticketing service because they are not linked to the computer seat reservation system which is essential for some tickets. All are able to offer through tickets not requiring seat reservations.

  The rail regulator is consulting on the requirements which should be imposed on station operators. The regulator and I are committed to easy access to through tickets for passengers.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Television Reception
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects all parts of Great Britain to be able to receive television signals from the BBC and independent television.

  Mr. Dorrell
  An estimated 99.4 per cent. of the United Kingdom population can receive television signals from the BBC and independent television. To extend coverage still further, the BBC and independent broadcasters are pursuing a programme of building about 25 new transmitters a year. The self-help television scheme provides unserved communities with the option of making their own arrangements to obtain TV signals. Technological developments, including cable and satellite, provide further opportunities for securing TV reception.

  National Lottery
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to commission market research into the socio-economic groups of lottery ticket purchasers; if he will monitor the advertising policies of the national lottery operators to ensure that tickets are not marketed specifically to groups in receipt of social security benefits or otherwise unlikely to be able to afford them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have no plans to commission such market research at present.

  The advertising policy of the national lottery operator is an operational matter. I have therefore asked Peter Davis, the director-general of the national lottery, who is responsible for regulating the operation of the national lottery, to write to the hon. Member, placing copies of his response in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what has been the total and average weekly value of ticket sales by the national lottery to date; how much of that money has been(a) allocated to good causes, (b) retained by the Treasury, (c) retained by the company and (d) awarded in prizes; and what percentage of the sums retained by the company he estimates are its operating profits.
  675
  (2) whether the national lottery operators are required to make known their operating profits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In the first eleven weeks, national lottery sales have reached £619,694,634—a weekly average of £56,334,875. Of this, to the nearest pound, £161,303,539 has been paid to the national lottery distribution fund for distribution to the good causes; £74,363,356 has been paid in lottery duty; £297,456,628 has been paid in prizes to over 12 million winners; and the remaining £86,569,121 has been retained by Camelot Group plc to cover its operating costs and profit, including the 5 per cent. commission on ticket sales paid to its retail agents.

  Figures for the operating profits of Camelot Group plc are a matter for the company. It will be filing annual returns and meeting other reporting requirements in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act and other relevant regulations.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much interest has been earned to date on that money raised via the national lottery for distributing to charities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: To date, interest of £661,699 has been earned by the national lottery distribution fund. Of this £132,869 has been attributed to the National Lottery Charities Board.

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidelines are operated by his Department as regards the use of executive search agencies to fill vacancies within his Department and his Department's executive agencies; and in what circumstances his Department employs executive search agencies instead of relying fully on departmental resources to fill vacant posts.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 January 1995]: The guidelines operated by my Department are those set out in the section of the civil service management code covering recruitment as augmented by the more detailed guidance set out in "Executive Searchlight" produced by the public appointments unit of the Cabinet Office and made widely available within my Department. No additional guidelines are issued. To date no executive search agency has been employed to fill a post within my Department or its two agencies. We rely almost completely on filling vacancies with staff from other Government Departments; linked non-departmental public bodies; and local authorities.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much his Department spent during 1994 on recruiting staff to his Department and its executive agencies; and how many staff were recruited.

  Mr. Dorrell [holding answer 27 January 1995]: My Department and its agencies spent £60,654.05 on recruiting staff during 1994. The number of staff recruited was 46.

  N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd.
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will provide estimates for the total amount that has been paid to N. M. Rothschild and Sons Ltd. with respect to any work undertaken by it on 676
  privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1992 after taking account of inflation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 31 January 1995]: There has been no expenditure of this kind.

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on how many occasions departmental officials met representatives of Ian Greer Associates(a) formally and (b) informally on 26 January to discuss matters relating to their clients' interests.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 31 January 1995]: None of my Department's officials met representatives of Ian Greer Associates, either formally or informally, on 26 January.

  Protected Wrecks
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress he now expects to make towards the resolution of the issues which have prevented the transfer of responsibility for protected wrecks in English waters to English Heritage.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 31 January 1995]: It remains departmental policy to seek to transfer responsibility for protected wrecks in English waters to English Heritage. Some issues needing to be resolved are still under discussion but the Treasury Solicitor advises that no transfer can in any case be made without primary legislation, for which there is no immediate parliamentary opportunity.

  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many licences are currently in force for archaeological work on protected wreck sites; and how many of these licensees have so far published field work information or deposited copies of their reports with the Royal Commission on the historical monuments of England.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 31 January 1995]: There are currently four licences in force covering archaeological investigation of protected wreck sites. In the last diving season 26 licences were issued in respect of archaeological investigation: three by the Secretary of State for Scotland, two by the Secretary of State for Wales, and 21 by my own Department. I expect that a similar number will be issued for the next diving season.

  There is published information about 23 of the sites for which licences were issued in 1994 and those licensed to dive are known to have published information on nine of those sites. Since 1992 one report has been formally deposited with the Royal Commission on the historical monuments of England. Full information about fieldwork reports published by those licensed to dive is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the annual cost to his Department of the functions relating to protected wrecks in English waters in each of the past five years.
  677
  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 31 January 1995]: The costs of exercising the functions relating to protected wrecks in United Kingdom waters' for the last five years are as follows:

  £000

  1990–912

  110

  1991–923

  227

  1992–934

  5307

  1993–94

  271

  1994–95

  255

  1 The majority of expenditure is incurred on a United Kingdom basis.2 The Department of Transport was responsible for underwater archaeology until April 1991.

  3 The Department of the Environment was responsible for underwater archaeology until April 1992.

  4 The Department of National Heritage has been responsible for underwater archaeology since April 1992.

  5 This figure includes costs associated with a new, expanded contract with the ADU.

  The figures include the cost of marking wrecks on land and at sea and a contract with the archaeological diving unit based at St. Andrew's university to provide advice in relation to wrecks of historical, archaeological or artistic interest. They also include approximate figures to cover the varying costs of the advisory committee on historic wreck sites, and, from April 1991, diminishing grants to voluntary organisations carrying out projects connected with the Department's underwater archaeology objectives, and departmental staff costs.

  Coaching (Cricket and Rugby)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assistance his Department has given towards the development of coaching of(a) cricket and (b) rugby football in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: Total Sports Council funding for these sports, which includes support for the development of coaching, is as follows:

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Cricket

  802,114

  587,732

  Rugby Union

  118,320

  219,196

  Rugby League

  322,110

  197,654

  A total figure is not available for 1991–92. The council also gives an annual grant to the National Coaching Foundation—£1.064 million in 1992–93, £1.494 million in 1993–94 and £1.420 million in 1994–95—which contributes to the development of coaching in these and other sports. In addition, Sportsmatch has provided total awards to cricket, rugby league and rugby union projects which include coaching or training as follows:

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Cricket

  3,000

  248,192

  199,000

  Rugby League

  40,000

  118,650

  138,042

  Rugby Union

  12,000

  352,412

  415,144

HOME DEPARTMENT

  DNA Databases
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration his Department has given to providing additional funding to police authorities to enable them to establish full DNA databases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 16 December 1994,Official Report column 828.

  British Citizens (Extradition)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British citizens have been extradited to face criminal charges involving child sexual abuse for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Maclean
  Since 1989 three British citizens have been extradited for offences involving child abuse; one each year in 1990, 1992 and 1993.

  Probation Service
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what advice will be given to the probation service on efficiency savings following the 1994 Budget statement and current probation caseload;

  (2) what efficiency savings he expects will be made by the probation service in England and Wales during the financial year 1995–96.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Government have already made clear to the probation service their expectation that improvements in efficiency across the full range of operational and support services will be vigorously pursued. It will be for individual probation committees to judge what specific steps should be taken in the light of local circumstances; but among the efficiencies to which the Government expect committees to give particular attention are the use of accommodation, information systems, inter-area collaboration and quality control.

  Probation Service
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the estimated additional cost to the probation service of working with victims during 1995–96;

  (2) what is the estimated additional cost to the probation service of enforcing national standards during 1995–96.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Grant support for the probation service in 1995–96 should be sufficient to enable it to carry out its responsibilities in relation to the enforcement of national standards and working with victims without additional provision.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff employed by the probation service in England and Wales have a previous background which is either(a) military, (b) police or (c) industry for the latest date available.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  This information is not readily available.
  679
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what adjustments were made to the probation service budget in England and Wales as a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The provisional current grant baseline for 1995–96 published after the 1993 Budget statement was £309.1 million, net of retentions and balances. The grant settlement for that year will be £306.3 million plus a further £14.8 million to support probation service partnerships with the independent sector previously funded by the Home Office.

  Community Sentencing
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be publishing his Department's consultation paper on community sentencing.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to do so before too long.

  Electro-Shock Equipment
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have taken place with Mr. Gerry Hall on the need to apply for a section 5 permit for the manufacture, possession or sale of repressive technologies, including electro-shock treatment.

  Mr. Maclean
  None.

  Confiscation Orders
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many domestic confiscation orders have been made under(a) the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and (b) part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in each year since 1992; and what were the amounts ordered to be confiscated and the amounts actually realised under each Act for each year.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given in the table.

  Confiscation order data England and Wales

  Act/Year

  Number of confiscation orders

  Amount ordered to be confiscated £

  Year

  1Amount realised £

  Drug Trafficking Act 1986

  1992

  1,002

  9,129,863

  21992–93

  5,180,900

  1993

  983

  9,678,100

  1993–94

  5,377,400

  Part VI—Criminal Justice Act 1988

  1992–93

  19

  1,354,000

  21992–93

  481,600

  1993–94

  13

  412,200

  1993–94

  265.600

  Note:

  Annual data is taken from the Criminal Statistics England and Waltes, financial year data from the Confiscation Order Financial return. The figures are therefore not directly comparable.

  1 The amounts overstate the amounts reaching the Consolidated Fund, a magistrates' courts deduct from these figures any costs incurred in enforcing domestic confiscation orders. Receivers' costs can vary from £1,000 to £5,000, depending on the complexity of the case.

  2 For 1992–93 the information collected centrally is known to be incomplete as returns were not received from all petty sessional divisions.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department spent on crime prevention in the latest year for which figures are available; and what percentage this was of total spending on the criminal justice service.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information available is as follows. Home Office expenditure on crime prevention in 1993–94 was £13.1 million. That figure is separate from and additional to public expenditure on the police which was £6.2 billion in 1993–94, an increase of 87 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. The prevention of crime is one of the key functions of the police. Public expenditure on the criminal justice system as a whole in 1993–94 is estimated to have been £9.5 billion.

  Humberside Probation Committee
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to announce a date for the replacement of Humberside probation committee by the shadow probation boards.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and learned Friend will bring forward legislative proposals for the replacement of probation committees by boards when the parliamentary timetable permits.

  Reconvictions
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 138, what are the current reconviction rates for (a) adult males, (b) adult females, (c) young adult males, (d) young adult females, (e) juvenile males and (f) juvenile females commencing probation orders and community service orders and for persons discharged from custodial sentences.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is as follows:

  Percentage of offenders convicted 1 within a two-year period following commencement of an order in 1987–90 or discharged in 1987–90 from a custodial sentence by sex and age at commencement or discharge

  Males

  Females

  All

  Aged under 172—Juveniles

  Community service order

  78

  361

  77

  Custodial sentence

  85

  58

  85

  Aged 17 to 20—young adults

  Probation order

  70

  45

  66

  Community service order

  65

  45

  65

  Custodial sentence

  71

  56

  70

  Aged 21 and over—adults

  Probation order

  50

  36

  46

  Community service order

  47

  42

  47

  Custodial sentence

  47

  36

  47

  All ages

  Probation order

  58

  39

  54

  Community service order

  56

  44

  56

  Custodial sentence

  55

  40

  54

  1 Reconvicted of a serious offence as defined by the standard list in appendices 4 and 5 of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales 1993"

  2 Until the Criminal Justice Act was implemented on 1 October 1992 it was not possible to sentence an offender aged under 17 to a probation order. Those aged under 17 who were sentenced to a community service order were all aged 16.

  681
  3 Based on a sample of only 23 offenders.

  Comparisons between different types of sentence are affected by differences in the age, sex, previous convictions and other characteristics of offenders receiving the sentences, as described in the forthcoming Home Office Research Study, "Explaining reconviction rates: a critical analysis".

  Sponsor Interviews
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals for changes to procedures used for recording and progressing requests from entry clearance officers overseas and others for sponsors living in the United Kingdom to be interviewed have been canvassed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The system of recording and progressing requests from entry clearance officers for interviews is reviewed from time to time. As a way of progressing applications, consideration is given, as necessary, to offering sponsors the opportunity for interview at a location outside their immediate area if capacity exists at another port.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many requests for sponsor interviews have been recorded by his Department in each of the last three years to date; and what is the current target time between the recording of a request for a682
  sponsor interview and the official requesting the interview receiving a report on the outcome of such an interview;

  (2) in how many cases over the last three years his Department has recorded more than one request for a sponsor interview in the United Kingdom from an entry clearance officer overseas; in how many a sponsor has waited to be interviewed more than (a) six months; (b) nine months and (c) 12 months;

  (3) how many requests for sponsor interviews have been recorded by his Department over the past year; if he will list the ports of entry to which those interview requests have been referred; in each port in how many cases (a) the interview has taken place, (b) an interview date has been offered, (c) no offer of an interview has yet been offered, (d) an interview report has been passed to his Department and (e) an interview report has yet to be despatched.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  This information is not available. Some 1,700 entry clearance interviews with sponsors were conducted between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 1994. The waiting time for interview may vary according to the operational commitments at a particular port at a particular time but the objective is for interviews on deferred EC applications to be carried out within three months of receipt of the request from the entry clearance officer.

  Leeds-Bradford Airport
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Leeds-Bradford airport was designated as a port of entry; how many and what grades of immigration service officers are currently based at the airport; what was the establishment of immigration officer staff at the comparable period of each year since the airport became a port of entry; how many immigration clerical support staff have been employed at the airport each year since it became a port of entry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Leeds-Bradford airport was designated as a port of entry on 1 March 1987. Records indicate that, since 1987, the immigration office at Leeds-Bradford airport has had the following staff in post:

  1 March 1987:

  1 Chief Immigration Officer

  7 Immigration Officers

  1 part-time Administrative Officer and

  1 part-time typist.

  1 January 1988:

  1 Inspector

  1 Chief Immigration Officer

  7 Immigration Officers

  1 part-time Administrative Officer and

  1 part-time typist.

  1 January 1989:

  1 Inspector

  2 Chief Immigration Officers,

  8 Immigration Officers and

  1 part-time typist.

  1 January 1990:

  1 Inspector

  2 Chief Immigration Officers

  9 Immigration Officers

  1 part-time Administrative Officer

  1 part-time typist.

  1 January 1991:

  1 Inspector

  2 Chief Immigration Officers

  8 Immigration Officers

  1 part-time Administrative Officer and

  1 part-time typist.

  1 January 1992:

  1 Inspector

  2 Chief Immigration Officers

  8 Immigration Officers

  1 part-time Administrative Officer

  1 part-time typist.

  1 January 1993:

  1 Inspector

  2 Chief Immigration Officers

  9 Immigration Officers

  1 part-time Administrative Officer and

  1 part-time typist.

  1 January 1994:

  1 Inspector

  2 Chief Immigration Officers

  10 full-time and I part-time Immigration Officers

  1 part-time Administrative Officer and

  684

  1 part-time typist.

  1 January 1995:

  1 Inspector

  2 Chief Immigration Officers

  10 full-time and 1 part-time Immigration Officers,

  1 Executive Officer, 1 part-time Administrative Officer and

  1 part-time typist.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of requests outstanding for sponsor interviews at Leeds-Bradford Airport; and over the last three years(a) what has been the average delay between the date a request for a sponsor interview being recorded in his Department and the interview being conducted by immigration officers based at Leeds-Bradford airport and (b) how many sponsor interviews have been conducted each week; and what representations has he received about delays in holding sponsor interviews by immigration office staff at Leeds-Bradford airport.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Local records indicate that there are currently 135 requests for sponsor interviews outstanding at Leeds-Bradford airport where the average delay in 1992 and 1993 in dealing with cases was 2.14 months in 1992 and 3.29 months in 1993. In 1994 the average delay in completed cases was 2.29 months. Some cases from 1994 have not yet been completed.

  Records of interviews are not kept on a weekly basis but a total of 27 interviews took place in 1992, 20 in 1993 and 69 in 1994.

  The information requested about representations received in respect of delays in holding sponsor interviews at Leeds-Bradford airport is not held in the form requested and cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Boards of Visitors
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what are his proposals for reviewing the role of boards of visitors at prison establishments.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I am currently setting up a review of the role of boards of visitors.

  The Prisons Act 1952 provides for a board of visitors to be appointed to every prison and young offender institution. Members of boards are lay volunteers drawn from the local community. I value the work of boards and the participation of the local community, and I am keen to maintain this involvement of lay people in the prison system. My objective for the review is to strengthen the role of boards and help them undertake their duties more effectively. With this background the review is asked to make recommendations with particular respect to:

  how this role should be redefined or clarified;

  the interface between boards of visitors, HM Chief Inspector of Prison and the prison ombudsman;

  the recruitment and appointment of boards of visitors members;

  the training of boards of visitors members;

  the national representation of boards of visitors;

  the administrative support at national and local level funding of the work of boards visitors;

  an appropriate title for boards of visitors;

  I shall be helped in the work of the review by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons; a small number of hoard members; representatives of their national

  685
  organisations and a co-opted prison governor. We will be supported by a small team of Home Office officials.

  Board members and groups with an interest in penal affairs are being invited to submit representations to the review group by 3 March. I would also welcome any representations from hon. Members. I hope to reach conclusions by the beginning of April and will announce these to the House.

  Alleged Rape Charges
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that the names and addresses of persons charged with the offence of rape and not published in the press or broadcast media unless and until those persons are found guilty.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: I am satisfied that the present law, which affords anonymity for complainants in sexual offence cases but offers no special protection for defendants in such cases, strikes a proper balance between the principle of open justice on one hand and the need to ensure that victims of sexual offences come forward on the other. I therefore have no plans to alter the law in this area.

ENVIRONMENT

  Right to Buy (Repurchase)
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to allow local authorities to use a proportion of their capital receipts to repurchase properties from tenants who exercised their right to buy and now find themselves living in accommodation which is no longer suitable and which is unsaleable on the property market.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We are currently looking at an exchange sale scheme to help local authorities to take back certain flats, which are affected by mortgageability difficulties, in exchange for selling leaseholders another home more suitable for their needs. We have received a number of representations on this which we are currently considering.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the background information on the need for new social housing lettings which he used in his decisions on the 1995–96 Housing Corporation approved development programme.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My Department takes a view on the medium-term demand for rented housing as part of the annual public expenditure survey. I will publish the necessary background information in due course.

  Housing Co-operatives
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the figures for the Housing Corporation's allocations for co-operatives for the year 1995–96; and if he will make a statement on how these relate to their housing co-operative strategy.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Housing Corporation's total allocation to housing co-operatives in 1995–96 is £9.514 million.
  686
  The projects supported reflect the policies set out in the corporation's "Housing Co-operatives Strategy" published in March 1993.

  Pollution Levels, Rotherham
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to measure levels of(a) nitrogen oxides, (b) sulphur dioxide, (c) ozone, (d) carbon monoxide and (e) PM10 in Rotherham.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department, in co-operation with local authorities, operates national monitoring networks which measure, inter alia, levels of smoke and sulphur dioxide on a daily basis, and the levels of nitrogen dioxide on a monthly basis. the sites at Brampton, Dinnigton, Maltby and Wath upon Dearne in the Rotherham area form part of the national smoke and sulphur dioxide network. The levels of nitrogen dioxide are measured at four separate sites in the Rotherham metropolitan area: Doncaster gate, Wellgate, Broom and Eastwood.

  I understand that further air quality monitoring is undertaken in Rotherham by the local authority, and at present covers ozone, nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide.

  The Government's strategy for the general development of air quality monitoring was recently set out in "Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge", a copy of which has been deposited in the Library of the House. This includes proposals for the progressive integration of national and local authority monitoring networks into a single quality-assured network.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what his Department's budget for research and development was in 1994; and what proportion of this was spent on research into radioactive waste management and disposal.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department's budget for research and development in 1994–95 is £112 million. The proportion of the Department's total research expenditure to be spent on research into radioactive waste management and disposal is expected to be 3.5 per cent.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the absenteeism rates for(a) the Planning Inspectorate and (b) the Ordnance Survey in 1994.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The provision of information on absenteeism rates in the Planning Inspectorate is the responsibility of the agency itself under its chief executive, Mr. Chris Shepley. For the Ordnance Survey this is the responsibility of its chief executive, Professor Rhind.

  I have therefore asked them to reply.

  Letter from C. J. Shepley to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 1 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the absenteeism rate for the Planning Inspectorate (PQ/940/94/95).
  The average number of days absent due to sickness, both certificated and uncertificated, was 8.75. This covers both Planning Inspectors and administrative staff.
  687
  Letter from David Rhind to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 27 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has asked me to reply to your Question about absenteeism in Ordnance Survey.
  As I intimated in my letter of 16 January, since the Occupational Health Service keeps the statistics you seek from information supplied regularly by individual departments, Ordnance Survey does not itself keep duplicate records. I am told by the Occupational Health Service that details of absenteeism rates for 1994 will be available to departments in July 1995.
  I regret that I cannot supply the information you have requested at this time.

  Westminster City Council
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be replying to the letter dated 12 January from Mr. Andrew Disnall, regarding an extraordinary audit of Westminster city council.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration replied to Councillor Dismore's letter on 30 January.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to order an extraordinary audit into the affairs of Westminster city council.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Secretary of State has no such plans.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he first became aware of the allegations of malpractice at Westminster city council; and how these were brought to his attention.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Neither the Audit Commission nor its appointed auditors has any duty to advise the Secretary of State of audit inquiries that may be initiated.

  Since late 1991 my right hon. Friend has been aware, from coverage in the media and motions before this House, that the auditor was carrying out an investigation. The Westminster auditor published his provisional findings on 13 January 1994 which was the first occasion upon which the nature of the allegations and his investigation was confirmed. My right hon. Friend made a statement to the House on that day.

  Parking Charges
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if income from parking charges made by local authorities is taken into account when calculating standard spending assessment settlements.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The income of local authorities from car parking is taken into account in determining the total of standard spending assessments. Income of this kind is also taken into account in the analyses on which the SSA formula for 'all other services' is based. But the standard spending assessment of an individual authority does not take specific account of the income from car parking of that authority.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 local authorities 688
  that gained and lost the largest sums through the changes to the education standard spending assessment formula, stating how much each gained or lost.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Taken on a comparable basis the 10 authorities which have gained the most in their education standard spending assessment for 1995–96, and the amount, are:

  £million

  Surrey County Council

  16.766

  Hertfordshire County Council

  10.328

  London Borough of Lambeth

  6.926

  Devon County Council

  6.848

  Lancashire County Council

  6.688

  East Sussex County Council

  6.404

  London Borough of Southwark

  6.308

  Berkshire County Council

  5.788

  London Borough of Croydon

  5.329

  Wiltshire County Council

  4.878

  The 10 authorities which have lost the most, and the amount, are:

  £million

  London Borough of Havering

  2.485

  Northumberland County Council

  1.980

  Norfolk County Council

  1.580

  Cheshire County Council

  1.428

  Essex County Council

  1.391

  Birmingham City Council

  1.316

  Stockport Metropolitan Borough

  1.140

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough

  1.052

  Sunderland City Council

  0.993

  Cumbria County Council

  0.934

  These tables compare the Education SSA for 1995–96 with the sum of the Education SSA for 1994–95 and the estimated net income from recoupment payments in 1994–95.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities that made representations to him regarding the changes to the education standard spending assessment formula; and on what dates these representations were made.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The authorities listed have made representations about the education element in standard spending assessments during the 1995–96 consultation period.

  Authorities

  Avon County Council

  5 January 1995

  Bedfordshire County Council

  5 January 1995

  Berkshire County Council

  5 January 1995

  Birmingham City Council

  7 December 1994

  6 January 1995

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

  7 December 1994

  22 December 1994

  5 January 1995

  Bradford City Council

  5 December 1994

  14 December 1994

  6 January 1995

  Buckinghamshire County Council

  4 January 1995

  Bury Metropolitan Borough Council

  16 December 1994

  Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  7 December 1994

  20 December 1994

  Cheshire County Council

  9 January 1995

  Coventry City Council

  23 December 1994

  10 January 1995

  689

  Authorities

  Cumbria County Council

  20 December 1994

  11 January 1995

  Derbyshire County Council

  29 December 1994

  Dorset County Council

  4 January 1995

  Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

  5 January 1995

  Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

  21 December 1994

  Hampshire County Council

  9 December 1994

  10 January 1995

  Hereford and Worcester County Council

  6 January 1995

  10 January 1995

  Hertfordshire County Council

  6 January 1995

  Kent County Council

  3 January 1995

  6 January 1995

  Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

  6 January 1995

  10 January 1995

  Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  9 December 1994

  County of the Isles of Scilly

  6 January 1995

  Lancashire County Council

  12 January 1995

  Lincolnshire County Council

  12 December 1994

  19 December 1994

  6 January 1995

  12 January 1995

  Liverpool City Council

  23 December 1994

  London Borough of Bexley

  12 January 1995

  London Borough of Brent

  12 December 1994

  5 January 1994

  9 January 1995

  London Borough of Bromley

  9 December 1994

  5 January 1995

  London Borough of Camden

  7 December 1994

  22 December 1994

  London Borough of Croydon

  15 December 1994

  21 December 1994

  29 December 1994

  London Borough of Ealing

  9 January 1995

  London Borough of Enfield

  11 January 1995

  London Borough of Harrow

  4 January 1995

  London Borough of Havering

  4 January 1995

  10 January 1995

  London Borough of Hillingdon

  23 December 1994

  12 January 1995

  Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  13 December 1994

  London Borough of Lewisham

  6 January 1995

  London Borough of Merton

  10 January 1995

  London Borough of Redbridge

  21 November 1994

  5 January 1995

  London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames

  6 January 1995

  London Borough of Southwark

  4 January 1995

  London Borough of Sutton

  22 December 1994

  21 December 1994

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  5 January 1995

  London Borough of Wandsworth

  4 January 1995

  Norfolk County Council

  23 December 1994

  Northamptonshire County Council

  13 December 1994

  3 January 1995

  Northumberland County Council

  4 January 1995

  Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

  2 December 1994

  5 January 1995

  Salford City Council

  5 January 1995

  11 January 1995

  17 January 1995

  Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

  6 January 1995

  Sheffield City Council

  6 January 1995

  9 January 1995

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

  4 January 1995

  5 January 1995

  6 January 1995

  19 January 1995

  Staffordshire County Council

  3 January 1995

  6 January 1995

  St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  5 January 1995

  13 January 1995

  Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

  6 December 1994

  4 January 1995

  690

  Authorities

  Suffolk County Council

  12 December 1994

  Surrey County Council

  12 December 1994

  23 December 1994

  Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

  22 December 1994

  12 January 1995

  Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

  5 January 1995

  Wolverhampton Metropolitan Borough Council

  29 December 1994

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution the highway maintenance indicator makes to the standard spending assessment of(a) Westminster, (b) Coventry and (c) Birmingham councils.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The table shows the information requested in respect of standard spending assessments for 1995–96.

  Local Aurhority

  Highway Maintenance Assessment £million

  Total Standard Spending Assessment £million

  Highway Maintenance as percentage of total percentage

  Westminster

  9.680

  241.849

  4.0

  Coventry

  10.244

  227.863

  4.5

  Birmingham

  35.567

  880.278

  4.0

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the effect of the changes to the education standard spending assessment formula on the standard spending assessment of Westminster and Coventry councils.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Taken on a comparable basis, the percentage increases between 1994–95 and 1995–96 in the Education standard spending assessments for Westminster and Coventry are:

  Westminster: 2.6 per cent.

  Coventry: 2.0 per cent.

  These figures compare the education SSA for 1995–96 with the sum of the education SSA for 1994–95 and the estimated net income from recoupment payments in 1994–95.

  Planning Inquiries
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the local authorities in England and Wales which have paid him the costs of local plan inquiries together with(a) the amount paid, (b) whether this money has been paid back, (c) when it was paid back, if applicable, and (d) the amount of interest from the date of refund to the present day.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I am writing to the hon. Member.

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the members of the Audit Commission with the terms of appointment, the payment received per year and the number of days worked.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Audit Commission members serving at 31 January 1995 were:
  691

  Time input (per calendar month (pcm)

  Remuneration for 1994–95 £

  Chairman—Sir David Cooksey

  4 days

  19,000

  Murray Stuart (Deputy)

  4 days

  13,034

  Sir Peter Bowness CBE

  1 day

  2,948

  Alan Brown CBE

  2 days

  5,896

  Anthony Christopher CBE

  2 days

  5,986

  Sir Terence English

  1 day

  2,948

  Sir Donald Irvine CBE

  1 day

  2,948

  Kate Jenkins

  1 day

  2,948

  Sir Peter Kemp

  1 day

  2,948

  Jeremy Orme

  1 day

  2,948

  Peter Soulsby

  1 day

  2,948

  Iris Tarry CBE

  1 day

  2,948

  Clive Thompson

  1 day

  2,948

  Tony Travers

  1 day

  2,948

  Clive Wilkinson

  2 days

  5,896

  Peter Wood

  2 days

  5,896

  Members' remuneration is taxable and non-pensionable. Adult Commission members are required to comply with the requirements placed upon the commission by statute—primarily the Local Government Finance Act 1982. Members are also expected to adhere to the Audit Commission's code of conduct which is based upon the Treasury's model code of best practice for NDPB boards.

  They are debarred from standing for Parliament and are required to declare their interests and to take steps to disengage from any activities which may lead to a conflict of interest with their responsibilities to the Commission.

  The terms of appointment of four commission members—Murray Stuart, Sir Peter Bowness, Alan Brown CBE and Anthony Christopher—end on 31 January 1995. The appointment of three new members, effective from 1 February 1995, have been announced; they are Helena Shovelton, Ron Watson CBE and John Foster OBE. From that date the deputy chairman of the commission will be Clive Thompson.

  Advertisements
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions and in what circumstances in the last five years advertisements have been placed in newspapers or periodicals which have been described as being issued by or on behalf of Ministers in his Department rather than on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Some 2,641 statutory notice advertisements have been issued by the Department of the Environment over the last five years. These normally appear under the Secretary of State's or his Ministers' name, in exercise of a statutory duty, and reflect the work of a wide range of divisions within this Department.

  Smoke Alarms
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage the fitting of smoke alarms in flats of multiple occupation; and what plans he has to make their fitting compulsory.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Local authorities have powers under part XI of the Housing Act 1985, as amended, to require houses in multiple occupation—HMOs—to have 692
  adequate means of escape from fire and other fire precautions. They have a statutory responsibility to ensure adequate fire safety precautions in HMOs with three storeys or more and with a floor space exceeding 500 sqm.

  My Department's Circular 12/92 contains the current guidance on fire precaution standards in HMOs. For smoke and fire detection, the minimum standard recommended for two-storey houses is for single-point smoke alarms. For houses of three-storeys or more, L2 fire warning systems are recommended.

  The Housing (Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990 No. 830) require managers of HMOs to ensure that all fire precautions are in and are maintained in good order and repair.

  The Government also published a consultation paper in November 1994 inviting views by 18 February 1995 on the desirability of introducing a licensing system for HMOs in England and Wales.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he first became aware of the malpractice which led to the surcharging of councillors in(a) Liverpool and (b) Lambeth; and how this was brought to his attention;

  (2) when he ordered an extraordinary audit into the affairs of (a) Lambeth and (b) Liverpool councils.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The failure of the members of both Liverpool and Lambeth councils to set a legal rate before midnight on 31 March 1985 and the district auditor's investigations which led to surcharging in each case were widely reported in the press.

  The Secretary of State did not order an extraordinary audit of either authority. The Audit Commission exercised its own power under section 22(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to direct an extraordinary audit.

  Noise Pollution
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to give higher priority to tackling noise pollution.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Local authorities have a wide range of powers to tackle noise pollution from premises and from vehicles, machinery and equipment in the street. In response to rising numbers of complaints about noise, an increasing number of authorities have introduced 24-hour noise complaint services but this is a matter for each authority to decide on the basis of local priorities and needs. An inter-departmental working party was set up in October last year to review the controls over neighbour noise and to investigate options for swifter remedies. The working party expects to complete its review shortly and I intend to consult fully on its conclusions and recommendations.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful prosecutions have been brought for noise nuisance for each year since 1979.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The numbers of prosecutions and convictions for noise nuisance in England and Wales for
  693
  each year since 1979 are as shown in the table. Figures are not yet available for 1993–94.

  Noise nuisance prosecutions and convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  1979

  245

  144

  1980

  240

  171

  1981

  269

  249

  1982

  263

  205

  1983–84

  495

  332

  1984–85

  355

  298

  1985–86

  318

  251

  1986–87

  430

  342

  1987–88

  404

  322

  1988–89

  446

  418

  1989–90

  284

  233

  1990–91

  559

  465

  1991–92

  367

  310

  1992–93

  416

  343

  Source:

  Chartered Institute of Environmental Health.

  Planning, Yorkshire and Humberside
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to introduce an adequate planning structure to implement the planning strategy he outlined in paragraph 4.9 of the Yorkshire and Humberside planning guidance January 1995.

  Mr. Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 20 January his proposals on how to take forward strategic planning in North Yorkshire, Humberside and Lincolnshire.

  The Secretary of State has endorsed the commission's comments on the need for continued local authority co-operation on economic and planning issues across the Humber estuary. It is this need which is addressed in paragraph 4.9 of the draft regional planning guidance. The Secretary of State would look to the authorities concerned to put in hand the necessary administrative arrangements to achieve this. A formal structure for this purpose is not necessary. The Government office for Yorkshire and Humberside in Leeds is, however, ready to discuss with the authorities concerned any informal arrangements they might like to develop.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals have been made against the business rate revaluation of 1 April 1990; how many are still outstanding nationally, regionally and by valuation office; and when this process is expected to be completed.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  A total of 1,231,145 proposals to alter the 1990 rating lists had been received in England by 31 December 1994, of which 295,222 were outstanding. I am placing in the Library a table which breaks these totals down by valuation office region and office.

  We expect that the vast majority of proposals received by the end of March 1995 will be cleared by the end of 1995–96. Proposals will continue to be made up to 31 March 1996, and the remainder will therefore be settled as early as possible thereafter.

  North Yorkshire
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the county name of North Yorkshire.

  Mr. Gummer
  In the light of representations I have received about the changes I am proposing to make to the structure of local government in North Yorkshire I have decided to change the name of the county to the county of the North Riding of Yorkshire. For ceremonial and related purposes the City of York, which will be a unitary authority, will be deemed to be part of the County of the North Riding of Yorkshire. This change will be reflected in the draft structure order.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which companies or other organisations are conducting contained use work with genetically modified organisms—group I or group II for research or commercial programmes—and at which sites in the United Kingdom; if he will list the documentation he or other public bodies hold concerning the nature of the work undertaken; and what monitoring he has implemented at these sites.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have arranged for the names and addresses of all persons, companies and other organisations, who have notified premises to be placed in the Library. For all of these notifications the Health and Safety Executive holds the information provided, which includes a description of the modified organism and the activity, and an assessment of the risks to human health and the environment. It also holds similar information for certain individual activities of higher risk.

  There are two forms of monitoring of the regulations. It is the responsibility of the person notifying to monitor, where necessary, for the presence of viable genetically modified organisms outside the primary physical containment. In addition, HSE's specialist inspectorate monitors compliance through a programme of inspection and enforcement.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the regulation of contained use activities with genetically modified organisms.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have been asked to reply.

  All contained use activities involving genetically modified organisms are controlled under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 1992. The regulations have now been in force for two years. The experience so far has been that they have provided adequate safeguards to protect human health and the environment.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Iraq
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the possible falsification of export licences to Iraq referred to in his Department's press statement of 20 September 1993 have now been proved; what formal
  695
  investigations have been commenced; and what criminal prosecutions have been undertaken.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Inquiries have established that, as far as the Department is aware, falsification of United Kingdom export licences for Iraq has, in the main, taken place outside UK jurisdiction. Since the introduction of new procedures the number of export licences issued for Iraq has fallen significantly. One investigation was undertaken by HM Customs and Excise but no criminal prosecution has taken place.

  Regional Electricity Companies
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what matters of public interest he will take into account in the event of a foreign conglomerate proposing to take over one of the regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In the event of such a takeover qualifying for investigation under the Fair Trading Act 1973, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would be advised on the matter by the Director General of Fair Trading. In giving his advice the DGFT would take account of all relevant factors as would the president in making his decision.

  Nort hern Electric
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what matters of public interest he will take into account when considering Trafalgar House's bid for Northern Electric;

  (2) if he will take into account the views of consumers in the north-east in his consideration of the proposed take over by Trafalgar House of Northern Electric.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be advised on the proposed merger by the Director General of Fair Trading. In giving his advice the DGFT will take account of all relevant factors, as will the President in making his decision.

  Euratom Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which of the facilities operated by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority have had sanctions imposed for infringement of article 88 of the Euratom treaty since 1988; what specific infringement occurred; and what has been done to rectify the situation.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Article 88 of the Euratom treaty provides that"The Agency shall keep a special account in the name of the Community, called Special Fissile Materials Financial Account." It contains no provision for the imposition of any sanctions.

  Nuclear Waste Shipments
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the first shipment of high level waste will take place from Sellafield via Barrow in Furness.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Arrangements for the return of such waste are, in the first instance, a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc and its customers in line with the 696
  contracts between them. I understand that no date has yet been set for the first commercial shipment.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EU Fisheries Policy
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what date, and in what circumstances, qualified majority voting was agreed to by the United Kingdom Government for fisheries policy.

  Mr. Jack
  While the Community's market regime for fish and fish products has always been based on article 43 of the treaty, on United Kingdom accession regulation 2141/70 gave vessels of all member states, subject to certain limited derogations, the right to fish throughout all member states waters and was also based on article 235 which requires unanimity.

  The UK accession treaty included a 10-year derogation from the provisions of regulation 2141/70. This enabled the UK to maintain a six-mile exclusive limit and impose certain restrictions in the six to 12 mile belt.

  In 1976, regulation 2141/70 was replaced by regulation 101/76. This regulation's treaty base also included article 235. The regulation stated that in principle vessels of all member states should have equal access to the use of all fishing grounds within the fisheries limits of member states.

  Later in 1976, the member states of the EC agreed to extend their fishery limits to 200 miles. The UK Government sought to extend the UK exclusive limit significantly, but a Council resolution, adopted in The Hague on 3 November 1976 about the creation of a 200 mile fishing zone in the Community, made no reference to this. The outcome of a European Court case in the early 1980s also suggested that, unless a decision to the contrary were taken, the principle of "free access to waters" came into force at the end of the period specified in the accession treaty.

  This was the background to the negotiations on the CFP regulations which were formally adopted at the beginning of 1983. These regulations substantially reduced other member states' access to waters within the UK six to 12 mile belt, while continuing their total exclusion from the six mile belt, and also provided for the Shetland box. Regulation 170/83 was the principal regulation and was based on article 43.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the three largest registered owners of milk quota in the United Kingdom, with(a) the quota held by each, (b) the amount of quota held which is leased, (c) the amount of agricultural land owned by each of these registered milk quota holders and (d) the amount of milk produced annually by each of the above.

  Mr. Jack
  No. An individual's entry in the Intervention Board's milk quota register, maintained under the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1994, is confidential and is
  697
  disclosed only to that individual or to a person with a valid interest in his or her holding.

  Caviar
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what quantity of caviar

  Imports of caviar (sturgeon roe) (tonnes)

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Russia/USSR

  7.4

  3.4

  7.4

  18.7

  19.4

  16.5

  8.7

  8.4

  10.3

  5.3

  Elsewhere

  25.5

  38.4

  11.9

  10.6

  25.2

  24.8

  25.7

  14.4

  22.0

  27.5

  Total

  32.9

  41.8

  19.3

  29.4

  44.6

  41.3

  34.4

  22.8

  32.3

  32.8

  Imports of caviar substitutes (tonnes)

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Russia/USSR

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  0.3

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Elsewhere

  173.0

  173.5

  236.4

  254.2

  505.6

  745.1

  388.5

  246.4

  315.4

  305.0

  Total

  173.1

  173.6

  236.4

  254.3

  506.9

  745.2

  388.5

  246.4

  315.4

  305.0

  Source:

  HM Customs & Excise (Country of Origin data).

  British Association of Sheep Exporters
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the British Association of Sheep Exporters.

  Mrs. Browning
  My right hon. Friend and I have not met representatives of the British Association of Sheep Exporters nor have we been requested to meet them.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what purposes other than those connected with the tax and benefits systems the national insurance number may be used; what plans he has to make the number more widely available for those purposes; if legislation is necessary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moss
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 6 December 1994,Official Report, column 163. The national insurance number can be used only for national insurance, tax and social security benefit purposes and there are no plans at present to introduce legislation to extend its use.

  Health and Social Services Councils
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) Roman Catholics and (b) Protestants are employed by each health and social services council.

  Mr. Moss
  There are no staff employed by health and social services councils. Staff employed by the health and social services boards service the councils.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion and number of 698
  has been imported from (a) Russia and the Soviet Union before it and (b) elsewhere in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Jack
  Official figures on imports, by quantity, of caviar—sturgeon roe—and caviar substitutes originating from Russia and the former Soviet Union and from elsewhere are given in the tables:

  non-industrial civil servants in the departments and agencies for which he has responsibility are registered disabled and disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office document, "Focus on Ability".

  Sir John Wheeler
  At 1 January 1994 there were 1,073 non-industrial staff in the Northern Ireland civil service—4.2 per cent. of the non-industrial service—who self-reported a disability. Of these 413–1.6 per cent. of the non-industrial service—were, or had been registered as disabled. In addition 81 registered disabled people are working in the Northern Ireland civil service under the employment support programme.

  Of the home civil service staff in the Northern Ireland Office one person is known to be registered disabled—0.45 per cent. of the work-force.

  Egg Production
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are employed in the egg production industry; and what was the figure five years ago.

  Mr. Ancram
  A total of 522 people are estimated to have been working on specialist egg production farms in 1989 and 605 in 1994. In addition 422 people are estimated to have been working in packing, processing and marketing eggs in 1989 and 462 in 1992, the latest year for which an estimate is available.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many parliamentary answers on health issues have been refused on the grounds of disproportionate cost or information not being held centrally(a) as a total and (b) as a percentage of all health answers in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Moss
  The information is as follows:
  699

  Year

  Number of PQs unable to be answered (a)

  PQs as a percentage of all Health answered (b)

  19901

  8

  4

  19911

  11

  4

  19921

  9

  4

  1993

  15

  4

  1994

  14

  4

  1 Due to implementation of computer system the percentage of PQs prior to 1993 are approximate.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  United States Congress
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to build relations with the new United States Congress.

  Mr. Hurd
  I visited Washington last month, partly to meet the new congressional leaders. Ministers visiting Washington invariably see Members of Congress and I have no doubt that our excellent relations with the US Congress will continue.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food relating to the re-negotiation of the EU-Morocco fisheries agreement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have been in close contact on this subject, and will continue to liaise as negotiations with Morocco develop.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Argentina and the future sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Hurd
  Co-operation between Britain and Argentina has developed well since 1990. Our exports in the first 10 months of 1994 rose 35 per cent.

  My hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, visited the Falkland Islands last weekend. He reassured the islanders that we will continue to uphold their right to self-determination and are not prepared to discuss sovereignty with Argentina.

  We have co-operated with Argentina over fisheries conservation since 1990 and we are now examining the prospects for co-operation over oil.

  China
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit 700
  the People's Republic of China to discuss Anglo-Chinese relation.

  Mr.Goodlad
  I have no plans to visit China at present.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has had about hunger and health problems in the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates as a result of the implementation of United Nation sanctions against Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Iraqi regime, not the United Nations, is responsible for the suffering in Iraq. Food and medicines are exempt from UN sanctions. Iraq has twice rejected UN schemes to provide much-needed humanitarian aid in return for limited sales of oil. The Iraqi regime's continued refusal of these offers and its exploitation of human suffering show its callous disregard for its own people.

  Overseas Missions
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the proportion of the budget for United Kingdom overseas missions currently devoted to promoting trade and commercial relations; and what was the position in 1979.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Commercial work, including export promotion and inward investment, is the FCO's largest single activity overseas, accounting for 23 per cent. of the cost of running overseas missions or 30 per cent. of frontline staff. This is broadly the same level as in 1989, the first year in which comparable data were available. With the help of efficiency savings, including a programme to reduce staff and costs in support areas, the FCO is planning to create over 100 additional commercial staff slots in posts overseas during 1995, an increase of over 9 per cent. in frontline commercial staff.

  Armenia
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards opening an embassy in Armenia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The possibility of opening an embassy in Yerevan is currently being carefully considered as part of the regular review of our representation in the states of the former Soviet Union.

  Middle East
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the peace process in the middle east.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcome the substantial progress that has been made, but we are concerned at the strains on the peace process resulting from a number of recent development, especially the dreadful bombing near Tel Aviv. We will continue to lend our full support to the peacemakers to ensure that those who oppose them do not succeed.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom rejoining UNESCO.
  701
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are continuing to keep this issue under review, but have not yet reached a decision.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the academic background of graduates entering his Department.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Graduates entering the fast and main streams of the diplomatic service and the Overseas Development Administration come from a wide variety of academic backgrounds.

  European Union
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the President of the European Commission to discuss the future of the European Union.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary meets Mr. Santer as a matter of course at Foreign Affairs Councils. The next Foreign Affairs Council is on 6 and 7 February.

  Pirate Attacks
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many attacks by pirates on British shipping off the coast of Brazil have been recorded since 1987.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Our records show six attacks since 1987: three attacks on British-flagged ships, one attack on a Hong Kong-flagged, British-managed ship and two attacks on ships with a British interest, but flagged in other countries.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to assist the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe to establish a mission in Chechnya.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We welcome the Russian decision to agree to an Organisation of Security and Co-operation in Europe fact-finding mission to Moscow and Chechnya on 24 to 27 January which explored the possibilities for greater OSCE involvement. A United Kingdom official, the director of the OSCE office for democratic institutions and human rights, was a member of the team.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet representatives of(a) the Red Cross and (b) Amnesty International to discuss human rights overseas.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross in October last year and I hope to meet him in Geneva in the margins of my visit to the UN Commission on Human Rights in February. I have no immediate plans to meet representatives from Amnesty International. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Amnesty 702
  representatives in November. FCO officials are in regular contact with Amnesty International.

  UN Peacekeeping
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the Secretary-General of the United Nations organisation to discuss the United Nations' peacekeeping work.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I last met the Secretary-General of the United Nations when he visited the United Kingdom in October. We had wide-ranging discussions covering a number of UN-related topics including peacekeeping operations.

  Cyprus
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the application of Cyprus for full membership of the European Union.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Corfu European Council agreed that Cyprus will be involved in the next phase of enlargement. The Council is committed to a review of the application, in the light of progress in the intercommunal dispute, early in 1995. We welcome the prospect of eventual Cypriot accession.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals he has to assist the Governments of Pakistan and India to resolve the Kashmir dispute.

  Mr. Baldry
  Our position has not changed. We continue to believe that the best way forward on Kashmir should involve simultaneous progress on dialogue between India and Pakistan as provided for under the 1972 Simla agreement; an improvement in human rights in Kashmir and a genuine political process there; and a clear cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir. We stand ready to offer our good offices to help resolve the dispute if both sides so wish.

  Malta
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Malta's application for membership of the European Union.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Corfu European Council agreed that Malta will be involved in the next phase of enlargement. The Council will review the application this year. We welcome the prospect of Maltese accession to the European Union.

  Africa
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about areas of disagreement with France about foreign policy in Africa; and what he proposes to try and ensure a joint approach.

  Mr. Baldry
  We work closely together with the French both bilaterally and within the EU. On 18 November, my
  703
  right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister and Mr. Balladur said both Governments would explore ideas on peacekeeping further with African partners. We are following this up. More recently, on 25 January, my right hon. and noble Friend, the Minister for Overseas Development had wide-ranging talks in Paris with French experts on Africa.

  India
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of current relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of India.

  Mr. Baldry
  Relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of India are excellent, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary saw when he visited Calcutta and Delhi last month. In particular the Indo-British partnership initiative continues to flourish. British exports to India have increased by 40 per cent. in the last 18 months, and investment approvals have increased dramatically in the last two years. The UK's largest bilateral aid programme is in India.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the current status of the mission of the United States special representative to Sudan; what he is seeking to achieve; and what progress he is making.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The US special envoy on the Sudan, Ambassador Melissa Wells, was appointed last May to work in support of regional efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Sudan. She has visited Sudan and neighbouring countries in pursuit of this.

  Palestinian National Authority
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further international discussions are taking place that are leading to proposals further to assist the Palestinian national authority with its internal security and terrorist problems.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The international committee, which co-ordinates assistance to the Palestinian police force, will meet in Gaza as one of the working groups under the local aid co-ordination committee, supported by the UN special co-ordinator for the occupied territories. The first meeting is expected to take place on 7 February.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent arrest and release by rebels of a British citizen in Afghanistan.

  Mr. Baldry
  We welcomed the release of Eden Fernandez, on humanitarian grounds. Swift and effective action by a British diplomat, who fortunately was visiting Kabul, and the helpful co-operation of the International Committee of the Red Cross, enabled his release and return, via Pakistan, to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ray Nelson
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigations have been made into the circumstances of the death of Mr. Ray Nelson in a fire at a works living quarters in Tengiz, Kazakstan on 29 December 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The police in Tengiz, Kazakstan are treating the tragic death of Mr. Raymond Anthony Nelson as an accident. Mr. Nelson was sub-contracted to TengizChevroil, which is holding its own investigation. The company's initial accident report states that Mr. Nelson remained in a burning building, looking for another person when he was overcome by smoke. The full report has not yet been completed.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors preclude residents of Gibraltar from voting for and being represented by a Euro-MP.

  Mr. Baldry
  Annex II of the 1976 Act on direct elections limits to the United Kingdom itself the franchise for elections to the European Parliament.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Independent Counsel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions in 1994 the Government sought opinions from independent counsel; and what was the total cost.

  The Attorney-General
  Information is not held centrally and could be obtained from Departments only at disproportionate cost.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Indonesia
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all Overseas Development Administration-funded forestry and forestry-related projects since 1980 in Indonesia, providing(a) the dates approved and the status of their implementation, (b) the amount and type of aid funding, (c) the main objectives of the projects and (d) the counterpart Indonesian Government or private sector bodies involved in each of the projects.

  Mr. Baldry
  A list of forestry projects has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which parts of Sudan are still inaccessible to international aid agencies and humanitarian relief.

  Mr. Baldry
  Operation Lifeline Sudan was refused access in January to seven of the 95 destinations
  705
  designated as relief distribution centres: Maiyut, Pariang, Boma, Nimule, Chunkodum, Ikotos and Mundri. These are all located in areas of military activity. Access to the Nuba mountains remains as described in my answer of 25 October 1994, Official Report, column 546.

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 13 December,Official Report, column 773, if he will make a further statement on the Pergau dam project.

  Mr. Baldry
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs announced to the House on 13 December, arrangements are being made for the outstanding commitments on this project to be met from the reserve voted by Parliament. This is outside the scope of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980.

  International Development Association
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to argue in the forthcoming IDA replenishment negotiations, that the bulk of IDA funds should be allocated to social sectors and direct poverty reduction programmes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  In the report on the 10th replenishment of IDA, donors underlined the central importance of poverty reduction in IDA's policy dialogue with borrowers, and stated that they expected the share of social sector and poverty-targeted interventions to increase steadily where justified by the country assistance strategy. In IDA-11, we will press IDA to intensify its efforts in this area.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for(a) the size of the 11th IDA replenishment and (b) the allocation of IDA-11 among the various objectives towards which it is directed.

  Mr. Baldry
  We shall be working for a substantial replenishment of the International Development Association, while taking account of the constraints on available aid programme resources. We do not expect any major shift in IDA's priority objectives of poverty reduction, sound economic management and environmentally sustainable development.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy(a) to support the United States Government's position on mandatory social safety net programmes and public consultation campaigns for all structural adjustment loans and (b) to press for their implementation, at the Paris meeting of International Development Association delegates in February.

  Mr. Baldry
  If the United States tables proposals during the IDA-11 negotiations, we and other donors will give them careful consideration.

  Turkey Ankara Metro
  Mr. James Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are being made by the Overseas Development Administration to meet expenditure in 1994–95 on the Turkey Ankara metro mixed credit aid and trade provision project.
  706
  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs announced to the House on 13 December 1994,Official Report, columns 773–74, that, following a review of aid and trade provision projects in the light of the judgment of the divisional court on the Malaysia Pergau hydro-electric dam project, arrangements would be made for outstanding commitments to certain projects to be met from funds voted by Parliament outside the scope of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980.

  Financial aid for the Turkey Ankara metro project, including the cost of monitoring, will be met from funds outside the overseas aid budget. Parliamentary approval to this new service will be sought in a spring supplementary estimate for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—Overseas Development Administration: external assistance vote, class II, vote 5. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure, estimated at £4.627 million, will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of housing benefit claimants who are likely to be affected by the tighter restrictions on the level of rent eligible for housing benefit consequent on the change to the housing benefit regulations he proposes to make from October 1995.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Much will depend on the definition of average rents to be used in the calculation of housing benefit, and other factors, including the behavioural effects of the proposals. A realistic estimate will not be possible until we have made decisions on the detailed structure of the new arrangements, following consultation with the local authority associations, the social security advisory committee and other interested bodies.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases the Child Support Agency has had to trace the absent parent; and what is the rate of success.

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Adam Ingram, dated 1 February 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number and success rate of specialist traces performed by the Child Support Agency.
  Since launch to the end of November 1994, specialist tracing action has been completed in almost 77,000 cases, 58,000 of which were successful; a success rate of 75 per cent.
  I hope that this is of help.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the outcome of the 13,281 section
  707
  18 reviews outstanding as at 31 March 1994 cited in his answer of 18 May 1994, Official Report, column 526; how many section 18 reviews of child support officers' decisions have been requested since then and how many have been cleared; and what efforts are being made to monitor the outcomes and length of time that reviews are taking to be decided;

  (2) how many section 17 reviews of child support officers' decisions have been cleared in the first half of 1994–95; how many of these resulted in a fresh assessment; and what efforts are being made to monitor the number of requests made for section 17 reviews and the length of time that reviews are taking to be decided.

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Adam Ingram, dated 1 February 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Section 17 and Section 18 reviews completed by the Child Support Agency.
  Between April and september 1994, 15,562 Section 17 reviews were cleared. From April to the end of July, 13,065 reviews resulted in the maintenance assessment being revise. From August 1994, numbers of reviews resulting maintenance assessments were no longer collected because there was no business need for the information and data collected for earlier periods had clearly shown that the overwhelming majority of reviews cleared result in a fresh assessment.
  Following enhancements to the Agency's management information systems it was found that the number of Section 18 review applications outstanding at 1 April 1994 was 9,537, which differs from the figure of 11,732 given in the answer of 18 May 1994. Between April and November 1994, a further 18,766 review applications were received and 18,671 applications were cleared.
  Enhancements to our Management Information Systems enable us, from August 1994, to identify the number of Section 18 review clearances which actually result in a review being completed, against those considered not appropriate to Section 18 and those refused or withdrawn. However, there is no business requirement to record the number of completed reviews which result in a change to assessment. From August we are also now able to measure the proportion of Section 17 and Section 18 reviews completed within specific age bands.
  I hope that this is of help.

  Number of unemployed claimants by benefit entitlement at the second Thursday of the given months (GB)

  thousands

  All unemployed claimants

  Unemployment Benefit only

  Unemployment Benefit and Income Support

  Income Support only

  No benefit

  1991

  November

  2,313

  507

  119

  1,386

  301

  1992

  February

  2,553

  566

  129

  1,530

  328

  May

  2,546

  545

  124

  1,564

  313

  August

  2,641

  525

  117

  1,651

  347

  November

  2,687

  534

  121

  1,664

  368

  1993

  February

  2,840

  578

  123

  1,769

  370

  May

  2,759

  543

  116

  1,765

  335

  August

  2,821

  532

  108

  1,817

  364

  November

  2,640

  483

  101

  1,744

  312

  Household Commodities
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has on the proportion of households in the bottom 10 per cent. of income distribution which have(a) a car, (b) a television, (c) a video, (d) a telephone, (e) a washing machine, (f) a fridge freezer or freezer and (g) a home computer (i) in the latest year for which figures are available and (ii) in 1979.

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table.

  Percentage of individuals in the bottom 10 per cent. of the income distribution who live in households with access to consumer durables, in 1979 and 1991–921

  Before Housing Costs

  After Housing Costs

  1979

  1991–92

  1979

  1991–92

  Car or van

  39

  51

  40

  53

  Television

  93

  297

  93

  297

  Video

  4—

  60

  4—

  65

  Telephone

  47

  74

  47

  73

  Washing machine

  69

  87

  69

  86

  Fridge freezer or freezer1

  29

  79

  32

  81

  Home computer

  4—

  20

  4—

  21

  Notes:

  1 The latest period for which figures are available is 1991–92; that is the calendar years 1991 and 1992 combined.

  2 The latest period for which information on televisions is available is 1990–91.

  3 The large increase in access to fridge freezers or freezers mainly reflects a rise in the access to fridge freezers over the period.

  4 Information on videos and home computers was not available in 1979.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each of the last three years the numbers unemployed and drawing(a) national insurance benefit only, (b) national insurance and income support and (c) income support only; and if these three sets of data for each year could also be presented in percentage terms of the total claimant unemployment count.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the tables.
  709

  Number of unemployed claimants by benefit entitlement at the second Thursday of the given months (GB)

  thousands

  All unemployed claimants

  Unemployment Benefit only

  Unemployment Benefit and Income Support

  Income Support only

  No benefit

  1994

  February

  2,727

  503

  104

  1,802

  317

  May

  2,551

  428

  113

  1,729

  281

  August

  2,542

  381

  132

  1,763

  266

  Notes:

  Figures are based on a 100 per cent. count.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and component parts may not sum to totals.

  Source:

  Quarterly Analysis of Unemployed Claimants.

  Percentage of unemployed claimants by benefit entitlement at the second Thursday of the given months (GB)

  Percentages

  Year

  All unemployed claimants

  Unemployment Benefit only

  Unemployment Benefit and Income Support

  Income Support only

  No benefit

  1991

  November

  100

  21.9

  5.2

  59.9

  13.0

  1992

  February

  100

  22.2

  5.0

  59.9

  12.8

  May

  100

  21.4

  4.9

  61.4

  12.3

  August

  100

  19.9

  4.4

  62.5

  13.2

  November

  100

  19.9

  4.5

  61.9

  13.7

  1993

  February

  100

  20.4

  4.3

  62.3

  13.0

  May

  100

  19.7

  4.2

  64.0

  12.1

  August

  100

  18.9

  3.8

  64.4

  12.9

  November

  100

  18.3

  3.8

  66.1

  11.8

  1994

  February

  100

  18.4

  3.8

  66.1

  11.6

  May

  100

  16.8

  4.4

  67.8

  11.0

  August

  100

  15.0

  5.2

  69.3

  10.5

  Notes:

  Figures are based on a 100 per cent. count.

  Percentages are rounded to one decimal place and component parts may not sum to totals.

  Disabled People (Discrimination)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of the report prepared by SIA Ltd. on the analysis of responses to consultation on Government measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people.

  Mr. Hague
  The total cost of producing and printing the document, including the sum paid to SIA Ltd. for research and analysis, was £73,000.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will commission a report on the analysis of responses to the Government consultation on pensions similar to the analysis carried out by SIA Ltd. on Government measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No. The report of the pension law review committee included an analysis of the written responses to the committee's consultation document. Since the publication of that report, the Department has consulted widely on a large number of issues, and received detailed and technical responses. These were placed in the Library on Thursday 22 December 1994 in 710
  response to the hon. Member's earlier question, on 19 December 1994, Official Report columns 930–31.

  Benefits
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to help improve the take up of benefits by older people.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Benefits Agency pursues a number of initiatives to ensure that all sectors of the public, including older people, are aware of the availability of benefits. A leaflet, FB32 "Benefits after retirement", gives information on a wide range of benefits available to older people. The first stage of the one-step benefit delivery service was completed in July, providing information locally on all major benefits, plus help with claims. Information material is also available through other, non-Benefits Agency, outlets. The social security freeline service provides information and advice on all benefits.

  Pensions, Australia
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has had
  711
  about the level of British pensions paid to people living in Australia; what replies he has sent; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We have received a number of letters recently about non-payment of annual pension increases to British pensioners living in Australia. We have also received representations from the Government of Australia. It would cost an additional £105 million a year to uprate British pensions paid there. In view of the continued need to contain public expenditure, we have no plans to change our policy on this issue.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has studied the comments made on 24 January by Australia's Minister for Social Security about the level of British pensions paid to people living in Australia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We have seen the press release issued by the Minister's office. We have no plans to change our existing policy on indexation.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what use his Department or its executive agencies makes of private hospitals in testing applicants for benefits; if he will list(a) those private hospitals which have contracts from his Department or its executive agencies to carry out work during the current financial year, (b) the types of medical testing which will be carried out, (c) the number of patients to be treated under those contracts and (d) the value of the contracts; and what factors led his Department to use these facilities rather than national health service hospitals.

  Mr. Hague
  Only the War Pensions Agency makes use of private hospitals in testing applicants for benefit.

  (a) General Healthcare Group plc trading as BMI Healthcare Audiology Services (BMI) are currently contracted to carry out audiological examinations for the War Pensions Agency.

  (b) In each case pure tone audiometry is performed and depending on the circumstances, tympanometry and/or Evoked Response Audiometry may also be performed.

  (c) BMI performed just over 105,000 pure tone audiometric tests.

  (d) This information is commercial in confidence.

  Prior to this contract being awarded, audiological services were provided by a fragmented network of private individuals throughout the United Kingdom that had been appointed by senior medical officers in the various regions. However, a wide variance of service reporting standards and unacceptable delays in some areas led to the decision to undertake a competitive tendering exercise for the nationwide provision of audiological services. Many expressions of interest were received, including some from individual NHS hospitals. However, upon extensive and thorough evaluation of all submissions, a single contract was awarded to General Healthcare Group plc, its tender best matching the contract strategy of providing a uniform quality service to pre-determined standards and offering the best value for money.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Disabled People
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion and number of non-industrial civil servants in the Department and agencies for which he has responsibility are registered disabled and disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office document, "Focus on Ability".

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The number of registered disabled people in the Departments and agencies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible and other areas which fall to the Cabinet Office vote is as follows:

  Number of RDP

  Total staff in department

  Percentage of RDP

  Cabinet office OPSS (including CCTA)

  18

  1,316.5

  1.4

  CCC

  3

  397.5

  0.75

  CSC

  —

  253

  —

  OHS

  0.5

  113

  0.4

  RAS

  3

  137.5

  2.2

  COI

  4

  502

  0.8

  HMSO

  40.5

  2,002

  2

  The figures represent full time equivalent posts; part time staff are shown as 0.5.

  Figures for the number of all disabled people employed within the Departments and agencies as a whole are not available. However, 51 staff in the central Cabinet Office/OPSS and CCTA have a disability which they consider might affect them at work.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many tenants of the Duchy are in receipt of housing benefit.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Duchy has no record of tenants who may themselves be in receipt of housing benefit. The Duchy receives housing benefit in the form of rental payments on behalf of tenants for four properties.

  Open Government
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many applications for the release of information under the code of practice on access to government information since April 1994 have been(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful; and in the latter case what reasons have been given.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  This information is not available centrally, but information on the first nine months of operation of the code of practice is being collected for a report to be issued shortly by the Office of Public Service and Science.

  Open Government
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make available documentation in its original form in instances where information is released under the code of practice on access to government information.
  713
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  There is no commitment that pre-existing documents, as distinct from information, will be made available, but paragraph 52 of the guidance on the code of practice states:"Requests for information should be met in the simplest, most cost-effective way. This will usually be by letter giving the information requested […] There may be occasions on which it is appropriate to send photocopies—for example of a letter which has been published or a factual record …"

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) in which circumstances a Minister is not expected to notify the Member for the constituency visited by the Minister of a ministerial visit to the constituency, under paragraph 71 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", May 1992;

  (2) what constitutes adequate notice of a ministerial visit, under paragraph 71 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" May 1992;

  (3) in which circumstances hon. Members are (a) invited and (b) not invited to make suggestions to Ministers about the inclusion of places which it would be helpful to visit, under paragraph 71 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", May 1992.

  The Prime Minister
  It is for individual Ministers to ensure that they comply with paragraph 71 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and to judge what constitutes adequate notice. "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" makes it clear that informing the Members for the constituencies that they intend to visit is a courtesy which they should take special care not to overlook.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Medical Advisory Service
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many nurses were employed by the Health and Safety Executive's employment medical advisory service in the years 1974 to 1994;

  (2) how many (a) doctors and (b) nurses were employed within the Health and Safety Executive's Health policy division and its predecessors in each year since 1974;

  (3) how many doctors were employed by the Health and Safety Executive's employment medical advisory service in each year since 1974.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Job Vacancies (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives he is developing to improve access to information on employment vacancies for people living in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment 714
  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. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about initiatives to improve access to information on employment vacancies for people living in rural areas.
  Local initiatives are being developed by many of the Employment Service's (ES) rural offices to improve our clients' access to vacancy information. These often involve provision of vacancy displays in post offices, libraries, community centres and other focal points in small rural communities. Local press and radio are also used to publicise our services.
  The ES programme Development Fund is being used to develop rural initiatives and supplement the more traditional forms of vacancy filling in scattered communities. Mobile Jobcentres have been provided in several areas and Freephone services are being used to make Jobcentre services more accessible to clients in the more remote areas. Access to vacancies and advisory services has also been provided by our Claimant Advisers through Outreach projects. These initiatives will be subject to evaluation in the future and consideration may then be given to wider delivery.
  You may also be interested to know that an internal working group has been set up in Scotland to consider how existing ES services might be further developed to meet the needs of ES clients in rural areas.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidelines he has issued in respect of the geographical size of the catchment area served by the Jobcentres.

  Miss Widdecombe
  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. Malcolm Bruce, dated 1 Februry 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the guidelines he has issued in respect of the geographical size of the catchment area served by Jobcentres.
  There are no specific guidelines on the geographical size of catchment areas. Decisions on the location of Jobcentres and the area they serve are made primarily on the basis of how the best possible service can be provided to clients taking economic, demographic and geographic factors such as travel to work patterns into account.
  The network of local offices nationally was reviewed in 1990 as part of the Employment Service's (ES) integration programme, which is about merging Jobcentres and Benefit Offices into a single location of ES Jobcentres.
  The location of the new integrated Jobcentres and the areas they serve were decided using the factors mentioned above to provide, wherever possible a service appropriate to the local economy and labour market. Since 1990, 925 integrated Jobcentres have been created, with a further 47 planned in the current financial year.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion and number of non-industrial civil servants in the Departments and agencies for which he has responsibility are registered disabled and disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office document,"Focus on Ability".

  Miss Widdecombe
  On 1 July 1994 the number of registered disabled people employed as non-industrial civil servants in the Employment Department group was
  715
  2,342, representing 3.9 per cent. of the total. Figures for the number and proportion of all disabled people are not available as the Department does not record information on people who have chosen not to register as disabled.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of men aged 55 to 64 years were active in the labour market in(a) 1967, (b) 1977, (c) 1987 and (d)

  Miss Widdecombe
  Latest estimates from the summer 1994 labour force survey show that 64 per cent. of men aged 55 to 64 were economically active. Equivalent figures for 1987 and 1979—the earliest available comparable data—were 68 per cent. and 84 per cent. respectively.

  South Thames TEC
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what indicators were available, and when, to providers to South Thames TEC in respect of its insolvency;

  (2) when the state of solvency of the South Thames TEC was at such a point as to render it advisable for providers to ask for cash in advance.

  Mr. Paice
  I understand that the board of South Thames training and enterprise council invited my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to appoint a receiver as soon as it became apparent to them that the TEC was insolvent. This was as a result of a report by a team of accountants acting on behalf of the Department, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Before that point the terms on which providers contracted with the TEC were a matter for their commercial judgment. I have no direct knowledge of the indicators available to providers prior to the appointment of the receiver though I understand that the appointment was preceded by a period of difficulty in relations between TEC and its providers when, for example, payments to some providers were delayed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what alternatives to the South Thames TEC existed for providers of training opportunities guaranteed by Government before the insolvency of the TEC.

  Mr. Paice
  The Government do not guarantee that training opportunities will be contracted to any provider of training. The extent to which training providers had alternatives to their commercial contracts with South Thames training and enterprise council will have depended on the nature of their business. Many providers will also have contracts with other TECs in London and elsewhere.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many training providers were not paid by(a) the Manpower Services Commission at the time it was wound up and (b) the South Thames TEC.

  Mr. Paice
  At the time the Manpower Services Commission ceased to exist, its contractual responsibilities on training were transferred to the Training Commission and business continued as normal. As for South Thames training and enterprise council, it is for the receiver to specify what number of training 716
  providers have not been paid as a result of it's receivership.

  Advertisements
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on how many occasions and in what circumstances in the last five years advertisements have been placed in newspapers or periodicals which have been described as being issued by or on behalf of Ministers in his Department rather than on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There have been no occasions where advertisements have been placed in newspapers or periodicals which have been described as being issued by or on behalf of Ministers in the Employment Department rather than on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

  North West Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many members are on the board of the North West training and enterprise council; and what is the gross turnover.

  Mr. Paice
  The total number of board members on the 14 north-west training and enterprise councils is currently 198. Their total income in 1993–94 was £263,600,572.

HEALTH

  Next Steps Agencies
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many parliamentary questions she has referred to chief executives of next steps agencies in each year since 1992.

  Mr. Sackville
  Five parliamentary questions were referred to agency chief executives in the 1992–93 parliamentary Session. Two parliamentary questions were referred to chief executives in 1993–94 and so far in 1994–95 one parliamentary question has been referred.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set out for each of the next steps agencies in her Department, whether they have acquired their own headquarters buildings and, if so, at what purchase cost or annual rental; how many support staff they have required who were not required when their operations were within her Department; how many of them publish periodical journals and at what annual cost; how many have fleets of executive cars or single executive cars and at what annual cost; how many have specially designed logos and at what cost; how many have corporate clothing and at what cost; and what is the cost of specially designed and printed corporate stationery.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are four next steps agencies within the Department of Health:

  Medicines Control Agency

  Medical Devices Agency

  National Health Service Estates

  National Health Service Pensions Agency

  I have asked the chief executive of each of them to reply to the right hon. Member in respect of their own agency.
  717
  Agencies operate within the framework of demanding quality standards and tight financial control of civil service running costs and other financial targets, set out in the White Paper "The Civil Service, Continuity and Change", Cm 2627. In the usual way their expenditure is subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Staff in agencies remain civil servants, but total civil service manpower in my Department has reduced at the same time as my Department's next steps agencies have established. Improvements in efficiency or effectiveness brought about by my Department's agencies are a matter of record.

  Letter from A. F. Cowen to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 26 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Health has asked me to reply to your question in so far as it relates to the NHS Pensions Agency.
  The NHS Superannuation Scheme became an Executive Agency of the Department of Health from 20 November 1992 and continued in it existing premises (Hesketh House) at Fleetwood which are leased via Property Holdings from the Co-operative Society. The acquisition of a separate Headquarters was not necessary. At launch the Agency had some 650 staff. It currently employs 494 whole-time equivalent staff which includes 4 staff recruited on contracts to support the Agency's development—the Chief Executive; a professionally qualified accountant; a human resources professional; and an information technology specialist. Our corporate objective is to secure a running cost reduction of 20 per cent. below the 1992–93 baseline whilst measurably improving our service to customers.
  We do not publish periodical journals, we are required to publish our statutory Annual Report and Accounts. With regard to vehicles, the Agency has continued to use the Private Use Scheme run by the Department of Social Security. There are currently six vehicles available to regular travellers. The annual stationery budget pre and post Agency status remains at £110,000 per annum. The Agency does not have a corporate clothing policy but on launch 22 messengerial staff were provided with replacement uniforms needed because of the nature of their work. This is a continuation of pre Agency practice.

  Letter from Alan Kent to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 26 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Health has asked me to reply to your recent question insofar as it relates to the Medical Devices Agency.
  The Medical Devices Agency was established in September 1994 with the primary purpose of protecting the public health and safeguarding the interests of patients and users by ensuring that medical devices meet appropriate standards of safety, quality and performance.
  The Agency remains in the same premises it occupied as the Medical Devices Directorate of the Department of Health. In May 1995 we will move to another building on the civil estate, sharing facilities with other staff of the Department of Health and making an estimated saving on Departmental budgets of about £4.5 million over the four years to 1998–99.
  The Agency employs the same number of support staff now as before its establishment. We have accommodated within existing resources work on personnel and finance services previously provided centrally by the Department.
  The Agency does not publish periodical journals and has neither executive cars nor corporate clothing.
  The Agency logo and stationery were designed together at a cost of just over £12,000. The extra cost of printing the stationery was just under £6,000. The new logo and stationery have improved our communication with manufacturers and users of medical devices and so contributed to the Agency's primary purpose of safeguarding public health.
  718
  Letter from Dr. K. H. Jones to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 24 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to the points of detail in your Parliamentary Question with respect to Medicines Control Agency (MCA).
  You may be aware that the MCA has been fully funded by fees from the pharmaceutical industry since it became a Next Steps agency in July 1991.
  We have remained in our original accommodation on the civil estate. No additional support staff have been employed other than those required to handle functions conducted now by MCA that were previously the responsibility of the Department of Health or to service the Agency's growing workload from the pharmaceutical industry.
  We publish a bi-monthly newsletter, MAIL, which has been in publication since June 1973. The annual cost is £18,000 and, while it is supplied free of charge to all licence holders, a small annual fee is paid by subscribers who are not licence holders and who are not directly involved in regulatory affairs. The Agency also publishes, three or four times a year, "Current Problems", first produced in 1975, which is a newsletter to all doctors and pharmacists in the UK, updating them on issues in the field of drug safety. The cost of each bulletin is £55,000, the bulk of which relates to distribution costs. Like MAIL and all MCA activities, it is fully funded by fees from the pharmaceutical industry.
  The Agency has no executive cars or corporate clothing. Our logo was designed in-house by a member of staff at no additional cost and our stationery is of a similar weight and quality to that used by other parts of the Department of Health.

  Letter from J. Locke to Mr. Gerald Kaufman, dated 27 January 1995:
  Further to the Secretary for States written answer to you on the 24th January 1995, I detail below the information requested:
  NHS Estates was established as a Next Steps Agency on the 1st April 1991. From that date until the 28th March 1993 its staff were mainly based in London using existing Department of Health accommodation. The notional cost of the accommodation was £1,617,000. From the 1st April 1993 the Agency moved to offices in Trevelyan Square Leeds for which the Agency pays a current annual rent of £370,000.
  Currently the Agency has 9 support staff who were not required when the Agency was part of the Department. These generally represent Finance and Personnel functions taken over from the Department. The total cost of services provided by the Department to the Agency has dropped from £999,000 in 1991–92 to £347,000 in 1994–95.
  We publish one periodical every quarter known as "Newslink", a review of the latest developments affecting the healthcare estate. In 1994–95 its production costs were £18,786. Prior to this the Department published "Health Service Estate", a more substantial and expensive publication, until April 1991.
  We do not provide a fleet of executive or individual cars. Providing they meet the normal Government usage criteria, our staff may apply for vehicles provided by the Department's transport section.
  The Agency has a logo that was designed in parallel with the NHS Management Executive logo, before it was established in 1991. The costs of producing the logo were paid by the Department.
  The only item of corporate clothing commissioned by the Agency was a bulk purchase of specially designed ties at a cost of £931.
  Our stationery incorporates the Agency logo and office address details to a similar specification and cost as the Department of Health. No extra costs are incurred by their inclusion.
  I hope this answer provides you with the information requested.

  NHS Beds
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS beds, overall and by region, have been closed since 1979; and how many NHS beds there are at present.
  719
  Mr. Sackville
  Information on bed closures is not available centrally. The latest information on the average number of available national health service beds is published in "Beds availability for England, Financial Year 1993–94", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Tranquillisers
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence her Department has of the effect of the use of the benzodiazepine group of tranquillisers upon patients to whom they have been prescribed by their general practitioner.

  Mr. Bowis
  The effects of benzodiazepines on patients are described in the British National Formulary, a copy of which is available in the Library, which is issued by the Department to all general practitioners free of charge. The main effects include reduction in anxiety and induction of sleep. The British National Formulary also gives details of the side effects which some patients may experience from using benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been done by her Department into involuntary tranquilliser addiction.

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to encourage the development of non-addictive tranquillisers.

  Mr. Bowis
  None. We are seeking to reduce tranquilliser dependency by encouraging general practitioners to review use of benzodiazepines and replace them, as necessary, with behavioural, cognitive and other psychotherapeutic methods of treatment and, if appropriate, antidepressants. Family health services authorities have been asked to discuss with GPs local targets for reductions in benzodiazepine prescribing. To assist with this process, the Department has distributed copies of the Mental Health Foundation's booklet "Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Benzodiazepine Dependence" to every family health services authority, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Air Fresheners (Allergies)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each regional health authority, the number of patients diagnosed as suffering from an allergy to air fresheners for the latest year she has figures; and what were the figures(a) five and (b) 10 years ago.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available.

  Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the correlation between specialties that have the longest waiting lists in the NHS and the level of private sector earnings of the consultant concerned.

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what correlation she has made between the English regions with the most private sector beds and the length of their waiting lists.
  720
  Mr. Malone
  We have no evidence of a causal connection between the number of private sector beds in a region and length of waiting lists.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of private patients see an orthopaedic surgeon in under a month; what is the figure for NHS patients; and what assessment she has made of the reason.

  Mr. Malone
  Waiting times for private patients are not identifiable from information available centrally. In the quarter ended 30 September 1994 approximately 44 per cent. of patients seen in the trauma and orthopaedics specialty, which includes orthopaedic surgery, were seen within four weeks of written referral by a general practitioner.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those NHS trusts where over the past 12 months patients have reportedly been kept waiting on a trolley for longer than two hours.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to public funds of the production, printing, distribution and advertising of the patients charter when launched(a) in 1991 and (b) in 1995; and how many copies were printed in each case.

  Mr. Malone
  The cost of producing, printing, distributing and advertising the original patients charter when launched was just over £2.8 million. Twenty three million copies of a summary version were printed, and half a million copies of the full charter. The cost of launching the new charter is estimated as £535,000 and 3.25 million copies have been printed.

  Blood Transfusion Centres
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions she has had with the National Blood Authority regarding the future of regional blood transfusion centres;

  (2) what response she has made to the Keith Jerrome report on the future of the national blood transfusion centres; and what plans she has for implementing its recommendations.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Blood Authority has undertaken a thorough and widespread consultation on its proposals for reorganisation. It is currently considering the comments received during the consultation, including those received from trades unions. The authority has announced the establishment of an independent panel which will ensure that the comments received during the consultation have received full and objective consideration. The authority hopes to produce final proposals in around three months.

  Central Heating
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will commission research into the links between central heating and long-term illness and disability;

  (2) whether possible links between central heating and long-term illness and disability have been taken into account in setting "The Health of the Nation" targets.
  721
  Mr. Bowis
  The relationship between central heating and health is complex. For this reason no account was taken of such a postulated link in setting "The Health of the Nation" targets. The Department has no plans to commission research specifically on central heating and long-term illness and disability.

  Drug Treatment Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to complete and publish her review of the drug treatment service.

  Mr. Bowis
  The task force to review the effectiveness of treatment services for drug misusers is due to report to Ministers in January 1996.

  Advertisements
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions and in what circumstances in the last five years advertisements have been placed in newspapers or periodicals which have been described as being issued by or on behalf of Ministers in her Department rather than on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. In the last five years, the Department has where necessary used the description Department of Health or Departments of Health.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for improving care given to the elderly in need of health care.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have made substantial improvements to services for elderly people and will continue to do so. The priorities and planning guidance for the NHS: 1995–96 requires authorities to identify needs and put specific actions in hand to ensure further improvements, and to secure care in the community, including continuing health care, in effective collaboration with local authorities and other agencies.

  Physiotherapy
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified and unqualified physiotherapists are practising in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sackville
  At 30 September 1993 there were 10,460 state registered physiotherapists practising in the national health service in England. Legislation provides that for direct employment in the NHS and local authorities, practitioners must be "state registered". No figures are available centrally on the number of physiotherapists practising in the private sector.

  Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Note:

  Figure rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the absenteeism rates for(a) the Medicines
  722
  Control Agency, (b) National Health Service Estates, (c) the NHS Pensions Agency and (d) her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  The absenteeism rate for the Department including the Medicines Control Agency, National Health Service Estates and NHS Pensions Agency for 1994 is not yet available.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many parliamentary answers have been refused on the grounds of disproportionate cost or information not being held centrally(a) as a total and (b) as a percentage of all answers in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 12 December 1994,Official Report, columns 470–71 for information on replies stating that information is not held centrally for the 1989–90 to 1993–94 sessions. A search on POLIS has shown that, up to 26 January, 50 questions have been replied to in this form which is 3.7 per cent. of replies given so far in the 1994–95 Session.

  Information on disproportionate costs replies is shown in the table.

  Session

  Number

  Percentage of total answered

  1989–90

  11

  0.24

  1990–91

  21

  0.68

  1991–92

  5

  0.33

  1992–93

  38

  0.64

  1993–94

  42

  0.83

  1994–951

  7

  0.52

  Source:

  POLIS.

  1To 26 January 1995.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on whom do the costs fall when a long-stay stroke patient is transferred from a hospital bed to a nursing home but requires continued nursing.

  Mr. Bowis
  The decision would depend on the results of an assessment of the patient's health and social care needs.

  Hospitals, Bolton
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many long-stay beds for the elderly are available in Bolton hospitals;

  (2) if Hulton hospital is planned to continue as a hospital for the long-stay elderly;

  (3) what plans there are to close Hulton hospital without replacement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The provision of health services in Bolton is a matter for Wigan and Bolton health authority, and the hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman for details of hospital services for the elderly and its plans for the future.

  Resident Accommodation Charges
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will make a statement on the position of the spouse of an elderly person contributing to nursing home care whose sole asset is part ownership with the spouse of the marital home in respect of continued residence in that home;

  (2) if she will make it her policy that in no case the spouse of an elderly person contributing to nursing home care whose sole asset is part ownership of the marital home will have to leave that home against his or her wish.

  Mr. Bowis
  When assessing a resident's ability to contribute towards the costs of nursing home care, the legislation already requires local authorities to ignore the value of property when the spouse continues to live there.

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  England

  2,517

  2,483

  2,475

  2,525

  2,606

  Northern and Yorkshire

  351

  353

  333

  346

  388

  Trent

  272

  262

  255

  250

  265

  Anglia and Oxford

  170

  192

  198

  184

  183

  North Thames

  398

  392

  370

  401

  369

  South Thames

  323

  314

  340

  335

  355

  South and West

  304

  312

  336

  315

  320

  West Midlands

  251

  259

  244

  263

  260

  North West

  386

  352

  347

  380

  405

  Special Health Authorities

  56

  48

  52

  53

  60

  Source:

  KH03 returns.

EDUCATION

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her latest estimate of the cost of a surplus primary and secondary school place.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The average premises-related cost of maintaining a surplus place is estimated to be £182 a year for a primary school and £303 a year for a secondary school at 1995–96 prices. The actual cost and the scope for realising savings from removal of surplus places in practice will depend on local circumstances.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if she will list for each subject on the national curriculum, except English, history and mathematics, the publications, guidance and teaching material which has been sent to schools since 1988; if she will give the cost for each subject; and whether the publications are pertinent to the revised national curriculum;

  (2) pursuant to her answer on 24 January, Official Report, columns 169–72, if she will list for each of (a) English, (b) mathematics and (c) history which publications, guidance and teaching material sent to schools are pertinent to the revised national curriculum.

  Mr. Forth
  The documents listed under the first heading in the answer of 24 January set out the

  Intensive Therapy Beds
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive therapy unit beds there were in each region in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: Information is provided in the table on the average daily number of available designated intensive therapy beds for England, excluding neonatal intensive care, and for each regional health authority area, in the years 1989–90 to 1993–94. However, in addition to these services provided in units designated as intensive therapy units, intensive therapy can also be delivered in a variety of hospital departments, such as neonatal intensive care, coronary care units, accident and emergency departments, renal units and high dependency units. It is for each purchasing authority to determine the appropriate level and type of provision of intensive therapy based on an assessment of the needs of their population, taking account of local priorities.

  requirements of the current or previous national curriculum for English, mathematics and history; and the curriculum guidance listed under heading 3a related to these requirements. The current requirements will be superseded by those of the revised national curriculum as set out in the documents listed under the second heading, but the guidance listed under heading 3a will continue to be relevant to the revised national curriculum in as much as this is essentially a slimmed down version of the existing curriculum.

  The documents listed under heading 3b are in the main annual publications relating to each year's assessment. arrangements and are directly relevant therefore only to the year to which they relate, though teachers may use a previous year's tests in their teaching and, as with the curriculum materials, the content remains relevant because the tests assess core elements of the curriculum which are largely unchanged.

  The following list shows the publications relating to national curriculum subjects other than English, mathematics and history, arranged under similar headings to those used in the answer of 24 January. The separate costs of the documents listed under the second heading cannot be disaggregated for the reason given in the answer of 24 January, but the total costs of the revised national curriculum documents were included in that answer. I will write the hon. Member as soon as possible with the costs of the documents listed under the third and fourth headings. The relevance of the documents listed to the revised national curriculum is as explained above.
  725

  1. Statutory documents containing or relating to attainment targets and programmes of study for the current or previous national curriculum

  Production costs £

  Distribution costs £

  Science in the National Curriculum

  762,0001

  198,0001

  Science in the National Curriculum (1991)

  251,000

  76,000

  Technology in the National Curriculum

  630,0001

  185,0001

  Geography in the National Curriculum

  888,000

  243,000

  Modern Foreign Languages in the National Curriculum

  172,000

  90,000

  Music in the National Curriculum

  488,000

  175,000

  Art in the National Curriculum

  490,000

  175,000

  Physical Education in the National Curriculum

  502,000

  179,000

  Order removing sex education from "Science in the National Curriculum"

  12,000

  7,000

  1 These figures are estimates.

  The cost of miscellaneous deliveries in all subjects subsequent to the initial bulk distributions has totalled approximately £257,000.

  2. Statutory documents containing Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study for the revised National Curriculum

  Science in the National Curriculum

  Design and Technology in the National Curriculum

  Information Technology in the National Curriculum

  Geography in the National Curriculum

  Modern Foreign Languages in the National Curriculum

  Music in the National Curriculum

  Art in the National Curriculum

  Physical Education in the National Curriculum

  The National Curriculum

  Key Stages 1 and 2 of the National Curriculum

  3. Non-Statutory Curriculum guidance Science

  1989 Science Non-Statutory Guidance

  1991 Science Explorations

  1991 Science Non-Statutory Guidance

  1992 Forces

  1993 Electricity and Magnetism

  1993 Energy

  1993 Teaching Science at Key Stages 1 and 2

  1993 Teaching Science at Key Stages 3 and 4

  1993 Earth Sciences—Primary

  1993 Earth Sciences—Secondary

  1994 Chemical Changes

  1994 Genetics and Ecology

  Design and Technology

  1990 Design and Technology Non-Statutory Guidance

  1991 Implementing Design and Technology at Key Stages 1 and 2

  1991 Implementing Design and Technology at Key Stage 3

  Information Technology

  1990 Information Technology Non-Statutory Guidance

  Geography

  1991 Geography Non-Statutory Guidance

  1993 Teaching Geography at Key Stages 1 and 2: an INSET Guide

  1993 Teaching Geography at Key Stage 3: an INSET Guide

  1993 An Introduction to Teaching Geography at Key Stages 1 and 2

  1993 An introduction to Teaching Geography at Key Stage 3

  Modern Foreign Languages

  1992 Modern Foreign Languages Non-Statutory Guidance

  1993 Target Practice

  726
  Art

  1992 Art Non-Statutory Guidance

  Music

  1992 Music Non-Statutory Guidance

  Physical Education

  1992 Physical Education Non-Statutory Guidance

  4. Assessment of pupils Science

  Key Stage 1

  1994 Optional Science Pack

  Key Stage 2

  1993 Pilot Tests

  1994 Pilot Tests

  1995 Tasks

  Key Stage 3

  1991 INSET material (Ma & Sc)

  1992 Pupils' Work Assessed

  1992 School Assessment Folder

  1992 Tests

  1993 Sample Test Questions

  1993 Tests

  1993 Assessing Sc1

  1993 Pupils' Work Assessed

  1994 Level 1&2 Tasks

  1994 Tests

  1995 Level 1&2 Tasks

  Key Stage 4

  1993 Scl: Scientific Investigation

  Technology

  Key Stage 1

  1992 Children's Work Assessed

  1992 Optional Tasks

  1993 Optional Level 4 Tasks

  1993 Working with the current Order (D&T)

  Key Stage 2

  1993 Working with the current Order (D&T)

  Key Stage 3

  1993 Assessment material Te5

  1993 Sample Test Questions (IT)

  1993 Long Task and Test Questions (D&T)

  1993 Tests

  1993 Pupils' Work Assessed (IT)

  1994 Optional Tasks

  Geography

  Key Stage 1

  1993 Optional Tasks

  Key Stage 3

  1992 Teacher Assessment at KS3

  1993 Pupils' Work Assessed

  Modern foreign languages

  Key Stage 3

  1992 Teacher Assessment at KS3

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total income received since 1988 for the sale of documentation relating to changes in the national curriculum.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on income from the sale of documents relating specifically to changes to the national curriculum is not available. Income from the sale of all documents relating to the national curriculum and its assessment since 1988 by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and its predecessors is estimated at around £0.9 million. In addition the Department for Education has received royalties from Her Majesty's Stationery Office as a result of its sales of national curriculum documents estimated at £0.2 million since 1988.

  Bradford University (Bursaries)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received about her decision to cease offering bursaries for those wishing to undertake postgraduate language training at Bradford university; what consultation took place with Bradford university prior to her decision being announced; what evidence she has that bursaries for such courses are available from alternative sources; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received correspondence from Professor David Johns. vice chancellor and principal of Bradford university, and five other letters about the withdrawal of bursary support for students undertaking the postgraduate diploma in interpreting and translating course at Bradford university. The decision was taken as part of the review of public expenditure for 1995–96 in which my right hon. Friend takes account of demands and priorities for spending.

  A survey undertaken in January 1994 by the Department indicated that more than 60 per cent. of students on the interpreting and translation courses at the four institutions receiving bursaries through the scheme were undertaking their studies without support from the Department.

  Schools (Special Measures)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list those schools which have been identified by Her Majesty's chief inspector as in need of special measures.

  Mr. Forth
  The following schools have been identified as failing or likely to fail to provide an acceptable standard of education, and hence as in need of special measures:

  LEA maintained secondary schools

  Battersea Technology College, Wandsworth

  Cross Green High School, Leeds

  Dick Sheppard School, Lambeth

  Fairfax Community School, Bradford

  Hackney Downs School, Hackney

  Lilian Baylis School, Lambeth

  Northicote School, Wolverhampton

  St. Mark's School, Hammersmith and Fulham

  St. Joseph's Academy, Lewisham

  St. Richard of Chichester School, Camden

  Tamarside Community College, Devon

  The Hammersmith School, Hammersmith and Fulham

  Grant maintained secondary schools

  Stratford School, Newham

  LEA maintained middle schools

  Abbey Farm Middle School, Norfolk

  LEA maintained primary schools

  Crook Primary School, Durham

  Earlsmead Primary School, Haringey

  Francis Askew Primary School, Humberside

  Hockwold Primary School, Norfolk

  Morningside Primary School, Hackney

  Norbridge Primary School, Nottinghamshire

  Rough Hay Primary School, Walsall

  Roundthorn Primary School, Oldham

  St. John the Divine C of E Primary School, Lambeth

  St. Stephen's C of E Primary School, Lambeth

  South Park Infants School, Redbridge

  The Drive County Primary School, Gateshead

  728
  LEA maintained special schools

  Brookside Special School, Derbyshire

  Fred Nicholson Special School, Norfolk

  Secondary School Performance Tables
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost of circulating a copy of the secondary school performance tables for 1994 to every school.

  Mr. Forth
  The secondary schools performance tables 1994 were distributed to schools as part of the same exercise as the distribution of 1994 tables of school and college performance 16 to 18 age group. It is not possible to disaggregate these costs. Single photocopied pre-publication tables were mailed to all schools and colleges listed in the tables at an estimated cost of £4,500. Further printed copies, to pass on to parents, were sent to all schools and colleges for an additional cost estimated at 106,000.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many three-year-olds and four-year-olds there are in nursery classes in schools, not including primary reception classes, in each local education authority in England and Wales; and what percentage this represents of the population in those age groups for the latest figures available.

  Mr. Forth
  Information about the number of pupils under five years of age being taught in nursery classes in maintained primary schools in each local education authority area in England in January 1994 is shown in the table. Under fives provision in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Pupils under five years of age in nursery classes in maintained primary schools in each LEA in England January 1994

  LEA

  Pupils1

  Percentage of population

  Camden

  794

  20

  Greenwich

  2,354

  34

  Hackney

  2,038

  33

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  898

  24

  Islington

  1,134

  28

  Kensington and Chelsea

  560

  17

  Lambeth

  1,742

  25

  Lewisham

  2,264

  32

  Southwark

  2,038

  29

  Tower Hamlets

  2,088

  36

  Wandsworth

  1,885

  28

  Westminster3

  880

  23

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,833

  40

  Barnet

  1,669

  20

  Bexley

  1,373

  22

  Brent

  2,270

  33

  Bromley

  156

  2

  Croydon

  1,080

  11

  Ealing

  2,720

  34

  Enfield

  1,622

  22

  Haringey

  2,223

  38

  Harrow

  1,003

  19

  Havering

  454

  8

  Hillingdon

  3,049

  45

  Hounslow

  2,493

  43

  Kingston upon Thames

  851

  24

  Merton

  2,142

  44

  Newham

  3,496

  44

  Redbridge

  1,156

  19

  Richmond upon Thames

  723

  17

  729

  Pupils under five years of age in nursery classes in maintained primary schools in each LEA in England January 1994

  LEA

  Pupils1

  Percentage of population

  Sutton

  1,603

  34

  Waltham Forest

  2,270

  34

  Birmingham

  7,935

  26

  Coventry

  1,837

  21

  Dudley

  2,390

  29

  Sandwell

  3,687

  44

  Solihull

  1,837

  35

  Walsall

  2,943

  40

  Wolverhampton

  2,478

  35

  Knowsley

  2,059

  42

  Liverpool

  4,597

  37

  St, Helens

  1,401

  30

  Sefton

  1,746

  22

  Wirral

  1,894

  21

  Bolton

  2,255

  29

  Bury

  1,341

  26

  Manchester

  6,441

  48

  Oldham

  2,429

  37

  Rochdale

  1,174

  18

  Salford

  2,511

  40

  Stockport

  1,007

  13

  Tameside

  1,991

  31

  Trafford

  1,872

  33

  Wigan

  1,898

  22

  Barnsley

  2,665

  45

  Doncaster

  3,427

  41

  Rotherham

  2,822

  39

  Sheffield

  4,640

  35

  Bradford

  5,146

  35

  Calderdale

  1,834

  34

  Kirklees

  3,425

  32

  Leeds

  7,139

  37

  Wakefield

  3,857

  43

  Gateshead

  1,514

  30

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,318

  33

  North Tyneside

  2,005

  42

  South Tyneside

  1,537

  37

  Sunderland

  2,237

  28

  Avon

  3,334

  13

  Bedfordshire

  3,906

  24

  Berkshire

  4,181

  19

  Buckinghamshire

  2,152

  12

  Cambridgeshire

  1,452

  8

  Cheshire

  3,791

  14

  Cleveland

  6,815

  42

  Cornwall2

  1,466

  12

  Cumbria

  2,223

  18

  Derbyshire

  7,440

  30

  Devon

  2,395

  9

  Dorset

  741

  5

  Durham

  3,949

  25

  East Sussex

  1,178

  7

  Essex

  2,218

  5

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  1,554

  4

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,276

  7

  Hertfordshire

  7,074

  26

  Humberside

  7,414

  31

  Isle of Wight

  143

  5

  Kent

  1,723

  4

  Lancashire

  3,870

  10

  Leicestershire

  5,093

  20

  Lincolnshire

  1,165

  8

  Norfolk

  466

  3

  North Yorkshire

  3,222

  18

  Northamptonshire

  2,308

  14

  Northumberland

  2,318

  30

  Nottinghamshire

  11,995

  43

  Oxfordshire

  1,768

  11

  Shorpshire

  1,784

  16

  Somerset

  425

  3

  730

  Pupils under five years of age in nursery classes in maintained primary schools in each LEA in England January 1994

  LEA

  Pupils1

  Percentage of population

  Staffordshire

  4,560

  16

  Suffolk

  2,906

  16

  Surrey

  2,349

  9

  Warwickshire

  1,301

  10

  West Sussex

  518

  3

  Wiltshire

  548

  3

  England2 3

  268,361

  21

  1 Excludes pupils who became five years of age by 1 January 1994.

  2 Includes the Isles of Scilly.

  3 Includes the Corporation of London.

  Schools, Warwickshire
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much Warwickshire is spending on non-statutory areas of education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally. Local education authorities' returns of their expenditure do not distinguish between expenditure on pupils of statutory and non-statutory school age. However, I understand that Warkwickshire LEA may be able to provide this information, and I suggest that the hon. Member writes to the chief education officer.

  Training Courses
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list each training and tuition course with a total cost exceeding £5,000 paid for by(a) her Department and (b) her agencies during the last 12 months, showing the title and objectives of each course, the name of the organisations engaged, the total cost of each course, a summary of the responsibilities of staff members taking part and the process for course evaluation by the Department or agency.

  Mr. Boswell
  Only one course costing £5,000 or more was attended by a member of DFE staff in the last 12 months. The course was "Challenges for Change" organised by Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd. group training. The cost of the course was £5,136 plus VAT. The main course objective was:"to identify emerging social, political, economic and technological trends".

  The officer concerned was responsible for providing advice on schools policy for a region of England. The officer was required to report on the value of the course both to himself and to the Department.

  Education Committee, Warwickshire
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the current number of officers employed by the Warwickshire county council's education committee; and what the number was in 1990.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The employment of LEA officers rn
  is entirely a matter for the LEA concerned. The Department does not collect such information.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many further education colleges have achieved their student targets;
  731
  (2) how many further education colleges have had their budgets cut because of non-attainment of student targets;

  (3) if the methodology used by the Further Education Funding Council in allocating money to further education colleges includes criteria covering socio-economic factors.

  Mr. Boswell
  Details of individual colleges' student targets, the funding of individual colleges, and the funding methodology, are matters for the Further Education Funding Council. I am asking the council's chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Severance Payments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what advice and guidance she offers to universities and other institutions of higher and further education concerning severance payment to senior staff.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Secretary of State does not offer advice and guidance on severance payments to institutions within the higher and further education sectors. However, the Further Education Funding Council has required its institutions, from their first accounting period in 1993–94, to disclose in their final accounts emoluments of senior postholders, showing the principal separately; and the aggregate amount paid to senior postholders as compensation, together with the number of persons receiving such compensation.

  The Higher Education Funding Council for England requires the institutions for which it is responsible to disclose separately details of any compensation for loss of office to the vice-chancellor, or equivalent, and higher paid staff whose annual remuneration exceeds £50,000, together with the salaries of senior staff and vice-chancellor's emoluments. This requirement will be effective for institutions' 1994–95 accounts.

  Patent Royalties
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list for each university the amount of patent royalties received for each year since 1986; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not currently available centrally.

  Religious Festivals
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what account has been taken of religious festivals in drawing up the 1995 GCSE timetable.

  Mr. Forth
  The construction of the GCSE common timetable is a matter for the examining groups, acting through the joint council for the GCSE.

  Advertisements
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education on how many occasions and in what circumstances in the last five years advertisements have been placed in newspapers or periodicals which have been described as being issued by or on behalf of Ministers in her Department rather than on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Forth
  In the last five years all departmental advertisements have been issued under the Department's name.

  Pupil Statistics
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list for each local education authority(a) the education standard spending assessment per pupil for (i) primary, excluding non-statutory age pupils, (ii) secondary and (iii) post-16 and (b) the actual expenditure per sector and the percentage difference between the standard spending assessment and the actual expenditure.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is not available in the form in which it has been requested. I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many applications she has had from independent schools to join the grant-maintained sector.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  To date, applications have been received from three independent schools to join the grant-maintained sector. One is from an interdenominational Christian school in Bradley Stoke, Avon. The other two are from independent Catholic grammar schools in Wirral. Other schools have expressed interest or sought further information.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what account is taken of savings, investments or value of property in determining who is eligible for assisted places at independent schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 20 January,Official Report column 722. Eligibility for an assisted place is determined by reference to parents' gross income from all sources. No account is taken of capital and other assets or the value of property in assessing parental means.

  Direct Grant Schools
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education from which former direct grant schools she has received applications to enter the grant-maintained sector.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following grant-maintained schools were formerly direct grant schools:

  Canon Slade School, Bolton

  Notre Dame School, Sheffield

  St. Boniface's College, Devon

  St. Anne's Convent School, Hampshire

  St. Francis Xavier's College, Liverpool

  Ursuline Convent High School, Essex

  National Youth Agency
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what have been the main components of the cost of the National Youth Agency in each year since its establishment, including(a) the yearly Government grant and (b) the initial start-up costs.

  Mr. Boswell
  Grants paid or allocated to the National Youth Agency by the Department for Education in the period 1991–92 to 1995–96 were as follows:
  733

  £ million

  Core grant

  Additional grants

  Total grant

  1991–92

  1.165

  0.180

  1.345

  1992–93

  1.236

  0.068

  1.304

  1993–94

  1.287

  0.399

  1.686

  1994–95

  1.336

  0.380

  1.716

  1995–96

  1.297

  0.358

  1.655

  Core grant provides funding for the agency's agreed annual work programme including internal audit and the administration of youth work development grants. Additional grant covers funding for initial start-up costs, special initiatives, and grants for disbursement to other bodies.

  In addition to these grants, the agency received in 1991–92 grants from the Home Office—£232,640—the Department of Health—£69,000—and the Welsh Office—£18,000. It received further grants from the Home Office in 1992–93—£143,834–1993–94— £149,000 and 1994–95—£151,111.

SCOTLAND

  NHS Supplies Division
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the redundancies announced at the NHS supplies division of the Common Services Agency do not impair that division's ability to monitor and advise trusts on potential hazards in equipment involved in patient care.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The restructuring of the supplies division makes provision for the continued availability of the defects and hazards service. A service level contract with the management executive of the NHS will provide for defects in equipment and other items to be fully investigated and the outcomes reported to the NHS in Scotland.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff were employed in each of the past five years in the NHS supplies division of the Common Services Agency.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of staff— whole—time equivalent—employed was:

  1990: 139

  1991: 139

  1992: 139

  1993: 137

  1994: 106

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the turnover of the NHS supplies division of the Common Services Agency in the most recent year; and what is his estimate of the savings it achieved through discounts for bulk purchase.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The turnover in 1993–94—the latest year for which information is available—was £201 million.

  Savings through discount on bulk purchases are estimated to be in the region of £23 million per annum. This level of savings is expected to continue to be achieved through the mechanism of central contracts.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many NHS trusts in Scotland(a) have
  734
  contracts with the NHS supplies division of the Common Services Agency for equipment service and (b) have switched such contracts to alternative suppliers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Six trusts have entered into firm contracts for equipping work for the next year. Information is not available on alternative contracts which trusts may have entered into with other providers. Not all trusts will require an equipping service in the course of the coming year and in the past some directly managed units who have since become trusts provided their own in-house equipping service.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the meeting took place between Mr. Dunmore, the director of the NHS supplies division of the Common Services Agency, and the NHS executive in Scotland to discuss the future of the division; if he will place copies of the minutes of that meeting in the Library; and what guidance was issued to NHS trusts in Scotland relating to purchasing of equipment through the NHS supplies division.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Staffing and organisation of the supplies division is a matter for the board of the Common Services Agency.

  There have been no meetings between the NHS management executive and Mr. Dunmore, the director. No specific guidance has been given to NHS Trusts, but they are expected to obtain best value for money in purchasing.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies he has undertaken to assess the additional administrative costs to the NHS in Scotland if NHS trusts cease to purchase equipment in common through the NHS supplies division of the Common Services Agency, and instead enter into separate contracts with individual suppliers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No studies are required since in making purchasing decisions NHS trusts will ensure that best value for money is achieved.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion and number of non-industrial civil servants in the Departments and agencies for which he has responsibility are registered disabled and disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office document "Focus on Ability".

  Mr. Lang
  The number and proportion of non-industrial staff who were registered disabled in the Departments and agencies for which I have responsibility are set out in the table that follows. The table records the position as at 1 July 1994. The table also lists those cases where central personnel records indicate that an individual is disabled although not registered.

  The Scottish Office, moreover, recently undertook a survey of disability and long-term health conditions in the workplace, which covered staff in the Scottish Office and its agencies—for the Scottish Prison Service only headquarters staff were covered. The survey of some 7,680 staff—including 493 industrial staff—revealed that 97 felt that they were affected "a great deal" and a further 300 "to some extent" by a disability or long-term health condition in the workplace. This represented a total of 5.2 per cent. of all staff. These results suggest that there may be at least as many non-registered disabled people in Departments as there are registered.
  735

  Non industrial staff at 1 July 1994—Disability

  Headcounts

  Department/Agency

  Disabled—Registered

  Disabled—Not Registered

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  All Staff

  The Scottish Office and its Executive Agencies:

  SO Core

  63

  1.4

  8

  0.2

  4,590

  Historic Scotland

  1

  0.3

  —

  —

  386

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  1

  0.5

  —

  —

  193

  Scottish Agricultural Scientific Agency

  1

  0.8

  1

  0.8

  125

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  7

  4.0

  2

  1.1

  174

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  4

  2.6

  —

  —

  151

  Scottish Prison Service

  2

  0.1

  —

  —

  4,110

  Associated Departments:

  General Register Office for Scotland

  2

  0.8

  —

  —

  257

  Scottish Records Office

  2

  1.6

  —

  —

  129

  Other Responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland:

  Forestry Commission

  21

  1.0

  51

  2.4

  2.092

  Crown Office

  6

  0.5

  —

  —

  1,126

  Scottish Courts Administration

  6

  0.8

  7

  0.9

  760

  Registers of Scotland

  37

  3.1

  —

  —

  1,136

  School Class Sizes
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the number and percentage of pupils in primary schools in(a) January 1992 and (b) January 1994, being taught in classes of over 30 in (i) each local education authority and (ii) in total; and what was the percentage change;

  (2) what was the number and percentage of pupils in secondary schools in (a) January 1992 and (b) January

  Education authority primary schools

  September 1991

  September 1993

  Education authority

  Number of pupils in classes over 30

  Percentage of all pupils

  Number of pupils in classes over 30

  Percentage of all pupils

  Percentage change

  Scotland

  72,202

  16.4

  74,894

  17.1

  +0.7

  Borders

  448

  5.3

  544

  6.3

  +1.0

  Centra]

  3,954

  16.9

  3,972

  17.1

  +0.2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,137

  16.7

  2,052

  15.9

  -0.8

  Fife

  4,944

  15.9

  5,435

  17.5

  +1.6

  Grampian

  6,900

  15.6

  6,556

  14.6

  -1.0

  Highland

  1,503

  7.6

  1,996

  10.4

  +2.8

  Lothian

  11,344

  20.2

  11,885

  20.7

  +0.5

  Strathclyde

  34,235

  16.7

  34,642

  17.2

  +0.5

  Tayside

  6,580

  20.3

  7,558

  23.1

  +2.8

  Orkney

  157

  8.7

  64

  3.5

  -5.2

  Shetland

  —

  0.0

  —

  0.0

  0.0

  Western Isles

  —

  0.0

  190

  7.2

  +7.2

  Strathclyde Divisions

  September 1991

  September 1993

  Education authority

  Number of pupils in classes over 30

  Percentage of all pupils

  Number of pupils in classes over 30

  Percentage of all pupils

  Percentage change

  Argyll and Bute

  538

  9.5

  287

  5.3

  -4.2

  Ayr

  6,424

  18.7

  6,478

  19.2

  +0.4

  Dunbarton

  5,798

  19.2

  5,138

  17.5

  -1.7

  736
  1994, being taught in classes of over 30 in (i) each local education authority and (ii) in total; and what was the percentage change.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information on class size is that which is collected biennially in the September school census. The information requested, for education authority primary and secondary schools at September 1991 and September 1993, is given:
  737

  Strathclyde Divisions

  September 1991

  September 1993

  Education authority

  Number of pupils in classes over 30

  Percentage of all pupils

  Number of pupils in classes over 30

  Percentage of all pupils

  Percentage change

  Glasgow

  8,321

  14.6

  8,068

  14.3

  -0.3

  Lanark

  7,172

  15.4

  6,717

  14.8

  -0.5

  Renfrew

  5,982

  18.8

  7,954

  25.2

  +6.3

  Education authority secondary schools'

  September 1991

  September 1993

  Education authority

  Number of pupils in subject classes ver 30

  Percentage of all pupils in subject classes

  Number of pupils in subject classes over 30

  Percentage of all pupils in subject classes

  Percentage change

  Scotland2

  57,109

  1.7

  89,069

  2.5

  +0.8

  Borders

  31

  0.0

  342

  0.5

  +0.5

  Central

  3,497

  1.7

  535

  0.3

  -1.4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,530

  1.5

  615

  0.6

  -0.9

  Fife

  1,765

  0.8

  2,371

  0.9

  +0.1

  Grampian2

  1,129

  0.3

  4,189

  1.2

  +0.9

  Highland

  2,015

  1.3

  3,616

  2.0

  +0.7

  Lothian

  2,311

  0.6

  8,996

  2.1

  +1.5

  Strathclyde

  41,869

  2.8

  62,282

  3.8

  +1.0

  Tayside

  2,962

  1.2

  6,123

  2.4

  +1.2

  Orkney

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0.0

  Shetland

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0.0

  Western Isles

  0

  0.0

  0

  0.0

  0.0

  Strathclyde Divisions

  September 1991

  September 1993

  Education authority

  Number of pupils in subject classes over 30

  Percentage of all pupils in subjest classes

  Number of pupils in subject classes over 30

  Percentage of all pupils in subject classes

  Percentage change

  Argyll and Bute

  2,153

  4.6

  155

  0.3

  -4.3

  Ayr

  4,246

  1.7

  2,715

  1.0

  -0.7

  Dunbarton

  560

  0.2

  13,975

  5.4

  +5.2

  Glasgow

  11,501

  3.3

  15,224

  4.0

  +0.7

  Lanark

  14,595

  4.0

  9,168

  2.3

  -1.7

  Renfrew

  8,814

  3.5

  21,045

  7.9

  +4.4

  1 The information available only allows the numbers of pupils in classes over 30 to be estimated from the average class size of a subject-stage entry in each school's timetable. Pupils are counted once for each subject taken.

  2 The figures for 1993 exclude two schools for which information is not available.

  Countryside Commission
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of remuneration and expenses for the board members of the Countryside Commission for Scotland during its last full year of existence.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The chairman and vice-chairman of the Countryside Commission for Scotland received remuneration and reimbursed expenses. The other 12 board members received reimbursed expenses only. The annual report of the commission for 1991–92 shows that total remuneration was £23,793 and the total of reimbursed expenses was £28,216.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff have(a) retired at age 60 years or (b) retired early before age 60 years in each of the
  738
  department's and agencies for which he is responsible, in each of the past five years; and what was the cost to the public purse of retirement packages in each case in each of these years.

  Mr. Lang
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of remuneration and expenses for the board members of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland during its year of existence.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Members of the main board, the regional boards and of the science, research and development board of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland received remuneration, according to their time commitment, and reimbursed expenses. The annual
  739
  report for the council for 1991–92 shows that total remuneration for the 67 people involved for all or part of the year was £418,000 and the total of reimbursed expenses was £80,000.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to public funds of the production, printing, distribution and advertising of the patients charter when launched in 1991; and how many copies were printed.

  NHSiS—discharges2 by health board area of residence; years ending 31 March

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19941

  All areas3

  1,015,151

  1,059,951

  1,094,827

  1.158,055

  1,230,326

  Argyll and Clyde

  86,596

  90,655

  96,979

  102,200

  108,616

  Ayrshire and Arran

  70,803

  75,092

  78,822

  83,365

  91,556

  Borders

  20,039

  21,129

  21,619

  23,755

  25,092

  Dumfries and Galloway

  26,489

  28,827

  29,966

  32,446

  35,198

  Fife

  65,583

  68,727

  72,955

  75,394

  78,756

  Forth Valley

  51,994

  56,956

  59,797

  62,927

  65,158

  Grampian

  101,205

  104,052

  104,368

  108,474

  112,057

  Greater Glasgow

  202,695

  207,707

  210,736

  221,818

  236,531

  Highland

  37,712

  39,130

  40,980

  43,536

  45,600

  Lanarkshire

  106,942

  110,783

  114,259

  121,948

  130,692

  Lothian

  142,158

  149,851

  154,798

  168,549

  182,389

  Orkney

  3,426

  3,628

  3,593

  3,759

  3,966

  Shetland

  4,495

  4,828

  4,630

  5,023

  5,275

  Tayside

  81,919

  84,927

  86,232

  89,265

  93,453

  Western Isles

  5,784

  5,887

  6,466

  6,666

  7,056

  1 Provisional.

  2 Comprises inpatient and day case discharges for non-psychiatric specialties and inpatient admissions for psychiatric specialties.

  3 Includes those patients resident outwith Scotland and those whose area of residence was not recorded, Excludes patients treated outwithi Scotland.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs there were in(a) the manufacturing

  Employees in employment, in each industry, at September

  Manufacturing

  Engineering1

  Aerospace2

  Year

  Number of employees

  As percentage of all industries

  Number of employees

  As percentage of all industries

  Number of employees

  As percentage of all industries

  1979

  601,700

  28.5

  255,200

  12.1

  10,600

  0.5

  1980

  549,700

  26.6

  231,000

  11.2

  11,200

  0.5

  1981

  502,400

  25.3

  211,300

  10.6

  11,100

  0.6

  1982

  470,600

  24.4

  203,400

  10.S

  9.900

  0.5

  1983

  441,700

  23.3

  194,100

  10.2

  8,500

  0.4

  1984

  433,700

  22.8

  187,500

  9.8

  7,900

  0.4

  1985

  433,000

  22.7

  184,600

  9.7

  8,200

  0.4

  1986

  415,500

  22.2

  170,300

  9.1

  8,200

  0.4

  1987

  406,900

  21.6

  163,200

  8.7

  8,200

  0.4

  1988

  412,600

  21.2

  163,900

  8.4

  8,100

  0.4

  1989

  402,400

  20.5

  165,800

  8.4

  8,600

  0.4

  1990

  403,300

  20.2

  170,600

  8.S

  8,800

  0.4

  1991

  381,000

  19.0

  160,200

  8.0

  8,900

  0.4

  1992

  368,800

  18.5

  155,400

  7.8

  8,000

  0.4

  1993

  361,800

  18.2

  151,000

  7.6

  7,800

  0.4

  1994

  352,100

  17.9

  149,800

  7.6

  6,800

  0.3

  Main source:

  Employment Department, Quarterly Employment Estimates.

  Notes:

  1 Figures represent Standard Industrial Classification (1980), Division 3, Metal Goods, Engineering and Vehicles Industries.

  Source:

  2 Scottish Register of Employment.

  740
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total cost of launching the patient's charter in Scotland in 1991, was £32,550. This included printing and distributing 16,000 copies.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of admissions for each health board for the last five years for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  industry, (b) the engineering industry and (c) the aerospace industry in Scotland in each year since 1979; and what those figures represented in percentage terms of the total Scottish work-force.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is given in the table.

  Private Health Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South can expect a reply to his letter of 9 November 1994 to the general manager of Orkney health board concerning private contracts for non-NHS facilities entered into by the health board;

  (2) when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South can expect a reply to his letter of 9 November 1994 acknowledged on 10 November 1994, to the general manager of Greater Glasgow health board concerning private contracts for non-NHS facilities entered into by the health board.

  (3) when the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South can expect a reply to his letter of 9 November 1994 to the general manager of Highland health board concerning private contracts for non-NHS facilities entered into by the health board.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The acting general manager of Greater Glasgow health board replied to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South on 2 December 1994. Replies to his letters to the general managers of Orkney and Highland health boards are for these boards to consider.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many properties have been transferred by Scottish Homes from its ownership to that of other landlords; if he will indicate(a) when these properties were transferred, (b) the results of the ballots undertaken among the tenants prior to these properties being transferred, (c) the numbers of tenants in each case transferred against their expressed wishes to another landlord and (d) the name of the landlord to whom the properties in these cases were transferred;

  (2) how much Scottish Homes has spent on its public relations function during the financial year 1993–94; how much it has set aside for tenant information relating to its stock transfer proposals; and how much money has been spent up until this point on publicising its stock transfer proposals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is a matter for Scottish Homes. I have asked the chairman of Scottish Homes, Sir James Mellon, to write to the hon. Member with the relevant information.

  National Library
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure the sound use of available resources at the national library of Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The national library of Scotland is an important natational institution which provides valuable services to users in Scotland and beyond. My officials and I take a close and regular interest in the effectiveness of the corporate planning and financial management systems in the library. In keeping with the Government's policy towards non-departmental public bodies, the Scottish Office Education Department will now undertake a regular policy and financial management review of the library, focusing on key issues which will have a bearing on future policy developments at the library. The review will be conducted by Mr. Colin Imrie, a principal at the Scottish Office attached to the Scottish 742
  Office Education Department for the purpose of this review. I expect his report, including recommendations, to be completed this spring. Interested parties can contact Mr. Imrie at the following address:

  The Scottish Office Education DT0

  Room 613, 43 Jeffrey Street

  Edinburgh

  EH1 1DN

  Tel: 031 244 5360

  Fax: 031 244 5526

  M74
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contractors are responsible for upgrading the M74; what is the deadline for improvements by contractors upgrading the M74; what are the daily financial penalties incurred by the contractors for work completed after the deadline on the M74; and what changes have been made to the contract concerning completion by the deadline on the M74.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: At present, there are two contractors working on the upgrading of the A74 to motorway: Morrison Construction on the length between Ecclefechan and Eaglesfield and Castelli-Girola between Eaglesfield and Kirkpatrick Fleming. Contracts have recently been completed by Barr, Balfour Beatty and Miller Civil Engineering. A contract to divert the Evan Water in advance of the main works has been let to Barr very recently; but work has not yet started.

  When bidding for the Scottish Office road contracts, contractors submit their own completion dates with their tenders and these are taken into account when deciding which firm should be awarded the contract. The completion date becomes part of the contract, and the contractor becomes liable for liquidated damages if he is late. There is provision in such contracts to extend the time for completion—for example, due to exceptional weather conditions, which would delay the onset of liquidated damages.

  The Ecclefechan to Eaglesfield contract is due to be completed on 3 December 1995, and the liquidated damages payable for late completion are £5,500 per day. The contract is on programme.

  The Eaglesfield to Kirkpatrick Fleming contract was due for completion on 26 November 1994, and liquidated damages of £8,200 per day will be due, calculated from that date, except to the extent that the contract conditions relating to an extension of time apply. The appropriate application of these conditions to the circumstances of this contract is currently being considered. The terms of the contract therefore render it unnecessary to make changes concerning the completion date. The road is expected to open to traffic in mid-1995.

DEFENCE

  Regimental Mascots
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost of regimental mascots in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Soames
  The costs of purchasing officially recognised mascots, together with the cost of food, accommodation and ceremonial accoutrements, are met
  743
  privately by regimental associations. Their travel and veterinary costs are met by my Department, but these are minimal and are not therefore separately identifiable.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the bids he received for the sale of houses at RAF Finningley, near Doncaster, (b) the criteria for determining the successful bid, (c) the name of the successful organisation and (d) the agreed purchase price.

  Mr. Soames
  Bids for the sale of 93 houses at RAF Finningley were received from the following:

  Bassinder Dapo Housing Association

  Ellinson

  Five Jays

  Gerrard Lewis

  Glaister

  Hetton Properties

  Hodge and Co.

  JSM Properties

  G.A. Melt

  R. Northgreaves

  J. B. Pettifer

  Sable Properties

  South Yorkshire Housing Association

  Woodwiss

  Yorkshire Metropolitan Housing Association

  The highest compliant bid was accepted once it had been determined that the bidder was capable of honouring the conditions of sale. The successful bidder was Hodge and Co. The agreed purchase price is commercial in confidence.

  Executive and Advisory Bodies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Defence if he will list by name and rank those personnel who have left his Department in the last two years and who now serve on his Department's executive or advisory bodies; if he will identify the advisory or executive body in each case; and if he will give the remuneration received in each case.

  Mr. Soames
  Four appointees have retired from my Department in the last two years and currently serve on a Ministry of Defence non-departmental public body. These are detailed:

  Executive body
  Vice Admiral Sir Barry Wilson KCB, appointed as Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Royal Naval Museum.
  Captain B. Gibbs RM, appointed as a Trustee of the Royal Marines Museum.

  Advisory body
  Flight Lieutenant Z. Gunn, appointed as member of the Anglo-American Community Relations Committee.
  Major P. Lawson, appointed as member of the Anglo-American Community Relations Committee.

  None receives any remuneration.

  Recruitment Applications
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many applications to join defence or defence-related companies from his Department's personnel have been refused in the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. The purpose of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments is to ensure that no cause of suspicion of impropriety exists. All applicants are therefore approved either unconditionally or subject to 744
  a waiting period of up to two years, or with a ban on the involvement of the applicant in a specific project or area of work on behalf of the employer.

  Property Sales
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings owned by his Department have been sold to(a) local authorities, (b) housing associations and (c) other buyers since 1 January 1994.

  Mr. Soames
  The number of dwellings sold to local authorities, housing associations and other buyers between 1 January and 31 December 1994 was as follows:

  Local Authorities: Nil

  Housing Associations: 231

  Other Buyers: 1,315

  Unfortunately, my answer of 15 December, Official Report, column 814, contained an error. The number of dwellings sold to housing associations during financial year 1994–95 should have read 229, not 237.

  Housing Offices
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) in which city the Crown housing trust has its offices; and what has been the total cost of building and leasing the offices since 1 January 1994;

  (2) in which city the defence housing executive has its offices; and what has been the total cost of building and leasing the offices.

  Mr. Soames
  The staff initially recruited for a housing trust and now employed on setting up the defence housing executive were originally accommodated in Ministry of Defence offices in London. Since August 1994, they have occupied other Government offices in central London at a cost to my Department of approximately £165,000.

  Eurofighter 2000
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's latest estimate for the cost of the Eurofighter 2000 project; what was the original estimated cost; when the Eurofighter is due in service; and when it was originally due in service.

  Mr. Freeman
  The estimated total cost of EF2000, comprising the costs of development, production and integrated logistic support, to the United Kingdom is £14.9 billion. The original estimated total cost in 1986 was £12.7 billion at today's prices.

  At the time of the original approval, the EF2000 entry into service date was December 1998. Reorientation of the project, agreed by the Defence Ministers of the EF2000 partner nations in December 1992, has changed this to December 2000.

  Bowman Combat Radio System
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's latest estimate for the cost of the Bowman combat radio system; what was the original estimated cost; when the Bowman system is expected to be in service; and what was the original in-service date of the project.
  745
  Mr. Freeman
  The latest estimate for the cost of the Bowman combat radio system is £1.9 billion. The original estimated cost in 1988 was £1.5 billion, which equates to £2.1 billion at current prices. The in-service date for Bowman is January 2000. The original in-service date was 1995.

  EH101 Helicopters
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's latest estimate for the cost of the EH101 Merlin; what was the original estimated cost; when the EH101 is expected to be in service; and what was the original in-service date of the project.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department's latest estimate for the cost of the EH101 Merlin is £3,925 million. The estimated cost in 1991, at the time the Merlin prime contract was placed on Loral-ASIC—then IBM-ASIC—was £3,799 million, at 1994–95 prices. The Merlin is expected to be in service in 1998; the original in-service date, upon the approval of development in 1982, was 1993.

  Boxer Communications System
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's latest estimate for the cost of the Boxer communications system; what was the original estimated cost; when the Boxer communications system is expected to be in service; and what was the original in-service date of the project.

  Mr. Freeman
  The latest estimate for the cost of Boxer is £337 million at 1994–95 prices. The original cost was £211.3 million at 1994–95 prices. Boxer is planned to be in service on 30 June 1996. The original in-service date was 31 December 1992.

  Facsimile Messages
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will prohibit the use of facsimile messages between royal naval establishments unless the telephones used have automatic memory dialling facilities to avoid mis-dialling errors.

  Mr. Soames
  No. Automatic memory dialling is already widely used where appropriate.

  Electric-shock Equipment
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with BAe Royal Ordnance about the sale of electric-shock batons to(a) Saudi Arabia and (b) other countries.

  Mr. Freeman
  None, prior to the recent publicity regarding the alleged supply of such equipment. The company has denied both publicly and to my officials that it has ever supplied such equipment.

  Infantry Regiments
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name each of the front-line infantry regiments.

  Mr. Soames
  A list of current Regular infantry regiments is as follows:

  Regular Infantry Regiments

  The Guards Division

  Grenadier Guards

  Coldstream Guards

  Scots Guards

  746

  Irish Guards

  Welsh Guards

  The Scottish Division

  The Royal Scots

  The Royal Highland Fusiliers

  The King's Own Scottish Borderers

  The Black Watch

  The Highlanders

  The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  The Queen's Division

  The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (First and Second Battalion)

  The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (First and Second Battalion)

  The Royal Anglian Regiment (First and Second Battalion)

  The King's Division

  The King's Own Border Regiment

  The King's Regiment

  The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire

  The Green Howards

  The Royal Irish Regiment

  The Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  The Duke of Wellington's Regiment

  The Prince of Wales's Division

  The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment

  The Cheshire Regiment

  The Royal Welch Fusiliers

  The Royal Regiment of Wales

  The Royal Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Berkshire Regiment

  The Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment

  The Staffordshire Regiment

  The Light Division

  The Light Infantry (First and Second Battalion)

  The Royal Green Jackets (First and Second Battalion)

  The Parachute Regiment (First, Second and Third Battalion)

  The Brigade qt. Gurkas

  The Royal Gurkha Rifles (First, Second and Third Battalion)

  Residential Garrison Duty
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the known and foreseeable residential garrison duty tours; if the units on residential garrison duty are more or less than battalion size; and if he will name those units which are on residential garrison duty tours at present and planned to be in the future.

  Mr. Soames
  Apart from Germany, there are three overseas garrisons that include resident major units: Hong Kong, Brunei and Cyprus. In Hong Kong the only such unit is the 1st Battalion, Royal Gurkha Rifles. It is due to leave Hong Kong in October 1996 and will be replaced by two successive battalions on four month unaccompanied tours. In Brunei there is one Gurkha battalion, currently the 2nd Battalion, Royal Gurkha Rifles which is due to remain there until November 1996 when it will be replaced by the 3rd Battalion, Royal Gurkha Rifles. In Cyprus there are two battalions resident at any one time. The current battalions are the 1st Battalion; the Royal Irish Regiment, which will be replaced by the 1st Battalion Royal Gloucester, Wiltshire and Berkshire Regiment in May 1995, and the 1st Battalion, Royal Green Jackets, which will be replaced by the 1st Battalion, Royal Kings Regiment in January 1996. Each garrison also includes minor units from non-infantry arms and services.

WALES

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the trend in the number of unwanted teenage pregnancies in Wales.

  Mr. Richards
  The number of teenage pregnancies in Wales fell from 7,300 in 1984, to 6,400 in 1991—the earliest and most recent years for which figures are available. Over the same period the rate of conceptions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19 increased from 64.5 to 70.4. It is not known how many of these pregnancies were unwanted.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion and number of non-industrial civil servants in the departments and agencies for which he has responsibility are registered disabled and disabled as defined by the Cabinet Office document, "Focus on Ability."

  Mr. Redwood
  There are 48 registered disabled people amongst the non-industrial staff in the Welsh Office, representing 2 per cent. of the total. Figures for the number and proportion of all disabled people employed in the Welsh Office are not available. A survey of staff using self-categorisation of disability suggested that there were a further 53 staff with a disability who have chosen not to register.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients by general practitioner practice are waiting to be seen for in-patient treatment for orthopaedics and ophthalmology in South Glamorgan.

  Mr. Richards
  The requested information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average waiting time of patients, by general practitioner practice, for in-patient treatment for orthopaedics and ophthalmology in South Glamorgan.

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested could be provided only with the consent of individual general practitioners. The consent could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what average hours consultants on maximum part-time contracts work for the NHS and how many hours in the private sector.

  Mr. Richards
  Maximum part-time consultants are expected to devote substantially the whole of their professional time to their NHS work. Information is not available centrally on the average number of hours such consultants work in the private sector.

  Language Units, Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make new funds available for language units in Clwyd local education authority; and if he will make a statement.
  748
  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend announced final decisions on the local government revenue settlement for 1995–96 for Wales on Monday 30 January. It will be for Clwyd local education authority to decide how much they spend on the services for which they are responsible, including language units.

  In addition to the above, Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales is to report to my right hon. Friend on the recording, monitoring and follow-up of absence by schools, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of current practices. This is expected shortly.

  School Repairs Programmes
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to assist those local education authorities that have initiated programmes of major repairs to schools.

  Mr. Richards
  My support for local authority expenditure is in the form of revenue support grant arid permission to borrow. It is for each local authority to determine how its available resources are allocated between the services it provides, in the light of its statutory responsibilities and its perception of local needs and priorities.

  Local Authority Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local education authority schools there are in Wales.

  Mr. Richards
  A total of 2,021 as at January 1994.

  School Staff Redundancies
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from schools concerned about teaching and staffing redundancies in 1995–96 following consultations on revenue support allocations for education in the next financial year.

  Mr. Richards
  The Department has received a number of representations from schools concerned about staffing levels in 1995–96. My right hon. Friend does not make revenue support allocations for education. It is for each local authority to determine how much of its available resources to direct to the services it provides, including education, in the light of its statutory responsibilities and its perception of local needs and priorities.

  School Class Sizes
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning class sizes.

  Mr. Richards
  Class sizes are a matter for individual school governing bodies.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of whether hospital consultants are complying with the terms of their NHS contracts and whether private practice interferes with the function of the NHS or disadvantages non-paying patients.

  Mr. Richards
  It is a matter for individual health authorities and NHS trusts to satisfy themselves that hospital consultants are fulfilling the terms of their NHS
  749
  contracts. Consultants who undertake private practice accept that their NHS work should receive priority at all times and employing authorities are entitled to expect no diminution in the level of service to NHS patients as a result of this arrangement.

  Special Needs Children
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new funds he proposes to assist special needs children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  Local authority expenditure on education, including provision for special needs children, is funded through the local government revenue settlement. It is for individual local authorities to determine how much is allocated to education, in the light of local needs and priorities.

  Upland Farm Incomes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what were the net income figures for upland cattle and sheep farms in each year from 1988–89 to 1993–94; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what were the net farm incomes for hill sheep farms in each year from 1988–89 to 1992–93; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what were the net income figures for hill cattle and sheep farms in each year from 1988–89 to 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is included in the statistical tables which were released when the results of the autumn hill review were announced on 29 November. A copy of these tables is available in the Library of the House.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people sit on two or more non-departmental public bodies in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  As at 1 December 1994, there were 59 people appointed to two or more non-departmental public bodies in Wales.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people sit on non-departmental public bodies in Wales.

  Three and four-year-olds in nursery education

  Four-year-olds in nursery education

  Part time

  Full time

  Part time

  Full time

  Number

  Per cent.1

  Number

  Percent.1

  Number

  Per cent.2

  Number

  Per cent.2

  Clwyd

  4,622

  44.3

  90

  0.9

  1,551

  30.1

  90

  1.8

  Dyfed

  937

  11.3

  1,101

  13.3

  266

  6.5

  609

  14.8

  Gwent

  4,463

  35.9

  313

  2.5

  1,488

  24.0

  154

  2.5

  Gwynedd

  641

  10.8

  194

  3.3

  217

  7.3

  194

  6.5

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,565

  10.2

  3,339

  21.8

  477

  6.1

  1,176

  15.1

  Powys

  4

  0.1

  294

  10.5

  1

  0.1

  198

  14.1

  South Glamorgan

  3,121

  26.8

  128

  1.1

  1,036

  17.8

  48

  0.8

  West Glamorgan

  4,333

  46.3

  1

  —

  1,354

  29.4

  —

  —

  Wales

  19,686

  25.8

  5,460

  7.2

  6,390

  16.8

  2,469

  6.5

  1 As a percentage of three and four-year-old population.

  2 As a percentage of four-year-old population.

  Note:

  Ages are estimated as at 31 December 1993.

  Source:

  School Census January 1994.
  750
  Mr. Redwood
  As at 1 December 1994, 1,377 people sat on non-departmental public bodies in Wales. Of these, 761 have been appointed by me or my predecessors. Details are given in "Appointments by the Secretary of State for Wales, 1 December 1994" which is available in the Library of the House.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many general practitioner fundholders there are in the county of Gwynedd;

  (2) how many general practitioner fundholders there are in the county of Clwyd.

  Mr. Richards
  In Gwynedd there are nine general practitioner fundholding practices—one third wave and eight fourth wave; these include five practices in one group of three and one group of two. A further two practices are preparing to become fundholders from 1 April 1995.

  There at 19 general practitioner fundholding practices in Clwyd—one first wave, nine second wave, eight third wave and one fourth wave; these include four practices in two groups. Another practice is preparing to become a fundholder from 1 April 1995.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how much was spent per pupil on(a) primary and (b) secondary education in the counties of (i) Dyfed, (ii) Mid Glamorgan, (iii) South Glamorgan and (iv) Gwent in 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how much was spent per pupil on (a) secondary and (b) primary education in the county of Gwynedd in each year from 1990 to 1993; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how much was spent per pupil on (a) primary and (b) secondary education in the county of Clwyd in each year from 1990 to 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested for 1993–94 is not yet available. Figures for earlier years are available in tables 10 and 14 in the Welsh Office "Education Finance Bulletin" produced by the training and education intelligence unit, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Liwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the figures for net product and farming income in Wales in each year from 1981 to 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is as follows:

  Net product £000

  Farming income £000

  1981

  202,645

  60,035

  1982

  228,274

  78,856

  1983

  200,304

  40,434

  1984

  233;185

  58,686

  1985

  228,735

  29,946

  1986

  237,012

  46,957

  1987

  251,565

  55,484

  1988

  261,338

  69,780

  1989

  268,062

  45,987

  1990

  261,032

  28,499

  1991

  268,266

  28,318

  1992

  272,086

  39,687

  1993

  339,067

  117,246

  1994

  360,868

  139,518

  Truancy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he is taking to eradicate truancy.

  Mr. Richards
  We attach great importance to the elimination of truancy and are continually looking at ways in which to effect this. Over the past 12 months or so we have;issued guidance to schools and LEAs on the policy and practice on categorisation of absence;
  published details of absence levels at individual secondary schools for the first time;
  encouraged LEAs to look more closely at individual pupils' absence rates and the reasons for them, and urged them to make more use of school attendance orders where appropriate; reminded parents through the revised Charter for Parents in Wales of their duty to ensure that their children attend school regularly; and
  supported projects totalling £663,500 on pupil discipline, bullying, and attendance including initiatives to combat truancy. The level of funding for 1995–96 has increased to £800,000 and the successful projects will be announced shortly.

  Nursery Education
  Mr Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) four-year-olds and (b) three and four-year-olds are in receipt of nursery education; what percentage of the total number of children in that age

  Session

  Total number

  Not answered on the grounds of disproportionate costs or information not held centrally

  Per cent.

  1989–90

  63

  4

  2.52

  1990–91

  37

  3

  1.11

  1991–92

  23

  2

  0.46

  1992–93

  63

  9

  5.67

  1993–94

  39

  5

  1.95

  1994–95 (up to 23 January 1995)

  9

  —

  —

  752
  group that constituted; and if he will give the figures by each education authority.

  Mr. Richards
  The figures in the following table relate to children in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools. Children in reception or ordinary classes in maintained primary or special schools are not included, neither are children in non-maintained schools, nurseries and playgroups.

  Ysgol y Berwyn, Y Bala
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when a decision will be made on the application by Ysgol y Berwyn, Y Bala for the reinstatement of its sixth form; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  As soon as possible.

  Quarrymen
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now take steps to facilitate a study into the incidence of emphysema and chronic bronchitis amongst slate quarrymen and former quarrymen, compared to the whole population; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no plans to set up such a study.

  Housing
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 25 January,Official Report, column 155, on the Department of the Environment's consultation document on a licensing system for houses in multiple occupation in England and Wales, if he has anything to add to his answer.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This document was issued in England only. The separate consultation arrangements, I described in my last answer, apply in Wales. The Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment will, of course, be discussing the outcomes of our separate consultations.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many parliamentary answers on health issues have been refused on the grounds of disproportionate cost or information not being held centrally(a) as a total and (b) as a percentage of all health answers in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Redwood
  Following a general search on POLLS, answers which contained the words "Health" or "NHS" are shown in the following table:

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

Nuclear Missiles
Lord Jenkins of Putneyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether Western ballistic missiles were targeted on Moscow; whether this is still the case; if not, what is the present position; and what is known about the targeting of such operational missiles based in the area of the former Soviet Union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Minister of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, in the early part of 1994 both the United Kingdom and the United States made joint announcements with Russia that each nation's strategic nuclear missiles would be detargeted by 30th May. All three nations later confirmed that that action had been completed. It is not our practice to comment further on matters of targeting.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving the facts as they are at the moment. As the missiles are apparently now detargeted, is it not the case that they cannot be deterring anyone or else they are deterring everyone? So will the Government's practice of referring to those deadly weapons as deterrents now be stopped? Since one assumes that the weapons will now never be used, would it not be a good plan to make them out of marzipan in future?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord. Such weapons still provide a useful minimum deterrent for the UK's defences. I shall welcome the day when the noble Lord forms the same view as I do. I accept that the detargeting of our strategic deterrent is obviously unverifiable, just as whether the Russians or the Americans have detargeted theirs is unverifiable. We still believe that it is a worthwhile confidence-building measure.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would it not be admirable if they did deter everyone and continued to do so?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that they do deter most people. I am afraid that they do not deter the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what progress is being made in decommissioning the ballistic missiles which are apparently rusting away in the former Soviet Union?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is obviously a matter for the Russian authorities. If we can provide any technical assistance, we are more than happy to do so whenever possible.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will my noble friend give some idea of the time-scale for retargeting these missiles should the necessity arise?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can merely say that they can be retargeted quickly.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not, however, an extremely expensive way of going on? All these missiles probably prevent our having as many military bands as we might otherwise have. May I suggest to the Minister that in future he has a token missile about the place and spends a little more on military bands?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Trident programme absorbs something of the order of 2.5 per cent. of our budget, a small proportion for the valuable deterrence it provides.

BR South Eastern Region: Rolling Stock
2.39 p.m.
The Viscount of Falklandasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept British Rail's decision that there is no commercial case for taking up their option to purchase more Networker trains for use in the South Eastern Region.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the commercial case is a matter for British Rail. It concluded that there was no commercial case for ordering further trains now on the terms offered last year by ABB Transportation. However, British Rail has indicated that it would want to re-examine the commercial case if an improved offer were received.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, the commuters from Kent will not find that an encouraging Answer. Is the Minister aware that less than a year ago the Minister in another place, Mr. Freeman, welcomed the ordering from the York manufacturers of new rolling stock for the South East, and said that there was a prima facie case for renewing the rolling stock? How can that view have changed so radically within so few months?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, our policy has not changed. It is still very much our policy to encourage worthwhile deals under the private finance initiative. As I said, BR has indicated that it will, without prejudice, consider any new offer, provided that it makes business sense and would be likely to fall within the PFI rules. BR's decision was a business decision based on an analysis of commercial costs and maintenance schedules.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that ABB offered a leasing arrangement which would not have breached BR's external finance limits and involved no capital costs to the taxpayer?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, BR did not decline to pursue the ABB option because of pressures on resources. It did so because the deal no longer made any sense when BR took into account the comparative costs of the new trains and the cyclical maintenance schedules of the existing rolling stock.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, will the Minister use his influence to urge the private finance initiative to get BR and ABB York around the negotiating table? If they could reach a satisfactory outcome for new Networker trains for the South Eastern Region, ABB York could stay open and 750 jobs would be saved, many of them highly skilled.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we value the existence of a thriving railway manufacturing industry. It is for BR to decide what equipment it needs and when. The private finance initiative has provided opportunities. Indeed, the previous deal, which was agreed under the private finance initiative, provided a great innovation in access to capital.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that ABB is a highly skilled operation which specialises precisely in this field? As a result of British Rail's decision, which it will review at a later stage, people in that company are being declared redundant. The ability to manufacture rolling stock, which is so necessary for British Rail, will be lost. Cannot we achieve a reasonable arrangement between British Rail and the manufacturer of rolling stock for a rolling programme that will keep people employed at what they do well?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I recognise the value of the ABB capacity and the work that it has done in building rolling stock. However, it is not for the Government to second guess the commercial decisions of BR as to when it requires rolling stock and what rolling stock it requires.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is believed that within the past 18 months a promise was made by a Member of Her Majesty's Government that the rolling stock on the South Eastern Region, which is between 35 and 45 years old—older than my noble friend—would be replaced? How can a decision be taken on a commercial basis that does not replace such old rolling stock, which is causing the Eurostar to be held up and many passengers to doubt the safety?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, any comments made on the matter by my honourable and right honourable friends were made in good faith and based on the then commercial case. It is for BR to make a decision. The
1490
carriages are old but they are well and safely maintained. BR will make a decision about when it needs a rolling stock.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to his judgment the carriages appear to resemble many of us in this House; old yet reliable? In his view of transport policy generally, what importance does he place on the unreliability and the inconvenience caused to so many passengers? Does he believe that those are important issues which should be taken into account? Does he agree with the view expressed by his honourable friend in another place, the Member for Ryedale, that to allow these works to close —that is what is at stake—would be the most perverse crime that the Government could commit against the people of York? Does the Minister have any sympathy with that point of view?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes, I have sympathy with those who work in ABB and those who manage the plant. They have produced good rolling stock which has served the railways of this country. But I also recognise that BR, in making its commercial decisions, must weigh up the costs and benefits of new stock as against continuing the maintenance of its existing stock. BR has decided that the existing stock requires replacement in 1999.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister suggest that the clammy hand of the Treasury had nothing to do with the decision? Is it correct that behind the mysterious talk about a commercial case, which appeared not to have influenced Ministers in the assertions that they made repeatedly last year, being convinced by the commercial case, the issue needs to be properly cleared up?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I cannot make the issue clearer. Our view is that which I have expressed. It was a commercial decision for BR and the question of revenue, as raised by the noble Lord, was not a reason for the decision.

UK World Interests: Study
2.48 p.m.
Lord Kennetasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to carry forward the review of Britain's place in the world which they began at a recent meeting at Chequers.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, at Chequers on 13th January, Ministers took a comprehensive look at the United Kingdom's interests in the world and how to make the best use of our assets to pursue them. We will continue to study how best to identify and expand the use of these assets.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, since we appear to have 19 minutes left for Question Time, would the Minister care to expand on that Answer? As a result of the announcement of the Chequers meeting, one gained the strong impression that the study was to be a continuing one, not merely that the Government would keep an eye

1491
on our future in the world. The impression was given that they would continue the study and perhaps one day finish it and make a statement.
Is it the Government's intention that the study should be carried out in-house by the usual combination of Ministers and senior civil servants, or will they consider going further afield and bringing in people from universities and other institutions who are skilled in considering such matters? Will they even—dare I suggest—include Members of both Houses of Parliament, possibly not confined to members of their party?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, sketches a very broad canvas. It is appropriate to begin by explaining that the meeting on 13th January was convened as a meeting of a relatively small number of senior people to conduct a kind of brain-storming session. From time to time it is appropriate for senior Ministers and officials to get together to try to see the way forward. In this instance, the focus was on the rest of the world other than western Europe, which seems to generate so much debate currently.
It was an informal meeting and it is intended to follow up a number of the points raised. That work runs in parallel with the wider, ongoing process of consultation and listening which the Government do in that regard. Noble Lords will not need me to explain to them that a great deal of valuable expertise and information, bearing in mind our trade interests in the wide world, is to be found outside the realms of government. It may be of interest to noble Lords to know that the 75th anniversary celebrations at Chatham House are to be celebrated with a major conference on that theme on 29th March at which, I understand, there will be widespread representation.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, will the Minister tell us who were the Ministers with brains at that brain-storming meeting at Chequers? Did they discuss the Government's policy—I assume that it is still the Government's policy—that we should be at the heart of Europe?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that all the Ministers in the Government have brains. I am afraid that I do not have the details of all those who were in attendance at the meeting at Chequers. I understand that there were present a number of the most senior members of the Government. Noble Lords may recall that I said that the meeting did not focus on the problems of western Europe. Having said that, it is the Government's policy now, as it has been, and will be in the future, to be at the heart of Europe.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend elucidate what exactly is meant by the English word "brain-storming" when applied to meetings and how does it differ from meetings which are not brain-storming?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble and learned friend puts me in considerable difficulty because I was not present at the meeting in question. I am merely advised that it was a brain-storming session. As I
1492
understand it, the aim was to have a wide-ranging, informal discussion, if necessary canvassing radical ideas, to investigate all the options in an informal atmosphere and to see how we can advance Britain's policies to everybody's advantage.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a committee of reflection has been set up to consider the inter-governmental conference to be held in 1996 associated with the Council of Ministers? I understand from the newspapers that the Foreign Secretary is to chair a Cabinet committee on the same subject. Given the importance of the IGC for the future of this country and its role in Europe, and given the divisions in both major parties in the country, is any provision likely to be made for widening the consultation? Following on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is there any possibility that the Opposition parties and, more widely, the general public could be invited into discussion on those issues as is happening now in the Netherlands and Germany? As another strong democracy, surely we should be able to do that here.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, there is a committee of this House which looks very carefully into matters relating to all things European. Clearly, there will be widespread debate both in this House and in another place in the run-up to the IGC. In addition, unless something extraordinary happens in relation to the temper of the media, there will be an enormous amount of debate about the subject in that department too. Bearing in mind the fact that the members of the British public never seem to be backward in coming forward in letting their elected representatives know their views on those matters, I feel confident that by the time the IGC takes place, the issues will have been widely and comprehensively canvassed throughout the land. Those taking the decisions at that time will be well aware of what is public opinion in that respect.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that that period of discussion will be extremely important? As he said, the whole future of Europe will be affected by the inter-governmental conference. We shall be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. That should not be merely a celebration; it should also provoke a thinking session as to how we fulfil our role within the UN. Will the Minister put forward to his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary the idea that there should be a continuing discussion? That may take the form of a debate in this House or a Select Committee. However, does the Minister not agree that this is the time at which we should think extremely carefully about the role of Britain in the world?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I agree. It is very much for that reason that the Prime Minister convened the meeting on 13th January. Inevitably, there will be very wide-ranging debate. In this House, that is a matter for the usual channels. As I said, I feel confident that both here and in another place there will be plenty of

1493
discussion about the matter. It is a characteristic of a free country that there is free debate about all matters political.
Lord Pym: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that one of our most valuable national assets is the English language, which is gradually becoming the language of the world? Although we already invest a certain amount in it, does he not agree that further investment in the spread of our language would show a very handsome return and would be of genuine benefit to our country?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right about the value of the English language and its widespread use throughout the globe to the benefit of all those who use it. That was one of the matters considered at the meeting at Chequers on 13th January.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, do the noble Lord and the Government agree that one of our most urgent tasks is to prevent war and genocide in Europe?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is absolutely correct. That was the reasoning behind the recent speech made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence in attempting to further the Government's thinking in relation to that.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Government consider discussing this vitally important matter with the Confederation of British Industry, the TUC, and UNISON, which represents a great many doctors and nurses from different specialties? Those three great organisations could contribute a great deal to the Government's policies. The Government should welcome the views of all important organisations, as well as the views of both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I feel confident the Government will take seriously any views which they consider contribute positively and constructively to the debate.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, will my noble friend tell us on what day of the week the meeting was held?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend has noticed that the meeting was held on Friday, 13th January.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I confirm my personal willingness to take part in the intellectual turbulence which appears to have descended over Chequers. Are the Government aware that one of the roles of the United Kingdom in the world is to lead it, as it has done so often during the past two centuries? Will the Government address themselves to the leadership of the nation by getting to the heart of the nation? That will avoid the necessity for periodic genuflection towards everything that comes from Brussels.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as your Lordships know, the British Government do not genuflect in a servile way to anyone.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Chatham House conference to be held on 29th March depends upon the success of the Foreign Office in raising contributions to finance it from business? If so, what success has been achieved so far? I gather that the Prime Minister and the shadow Foreign Secretary have been booked to speak at the conference.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the shadow Foreign Secretary have been booked to speak at the conference. I understand that it is scheduled to take place on 29th March.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, will the Government reflect on their policy of placing Britain in the heart of Europe? According to my understanding of geography, that would put us somewhere about the position of Switzerland and would prevent us from using our maritime links to trade with the rest of the world. Bearing in mind the fact that the Government have presided over a rundown in our merchant marine sector over the past 10 or 15 years, can the Minister explain what action the Government propose to take to ensure, first, that we are not placed in the heart of Europe and, secondly, that we can see an expansion and development of our merchant navy?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I explained earlier, the Government's policy has been, is, and will continue to be, that we should be at the heart of Europe. We do not concede that there is any incompatibility with that and being a trading nation all around the world.
Lord Elton: My Lords, when there are only three Questions on the Order Paper, is it really necessary to go on flogging a dead horse to complete the full half hour?
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Judd: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that central to the Government's foreign policy is continued, permanent membership of the Security Council? Further, will the Minister agree that permanent membership of that council faces us with immense responsibilities of global leadership? In that context, can the Minister explain why the Government went along with the cancellation of the planned special Security Council meeting in January to discuss the pressures on the UN system at present and the desperate need for regeneration and revitalisation of that organisation? Can the Minister assure the House that, in the Government's preoccupations, central to their thinking is the need for a pro-active foreign policy rather than a reactive foreign policy and the importance, above all, of greater emphasis on conflict resolution and pre-emptive diplomacy?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I can confirm that the noble Lord is correct. It is central to our foreign policy to remain a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. We are fully conscious of the responsibilities that rest on our shoulders as a result. I

1495
am afraid that I am not in a position to answer the specific point raised by the noble Lord, but I shall write to him with the answer.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on the relaxed and constructive way in which he has handled this lengthy Question. I hope that he will draw the matter to the attention of his right honourable friend and point out that certain parts of the debate were quite a live horse.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments. I shall certainly pass on that message.

Pensions Bill [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Pensions Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 13,

Clauses 86 to 99,

Clauses 14 to 71,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 72 to 85,

Clauses 100 to 110,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 111 to 114,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 115 to 130,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 131 to 145,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 146 to 150,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 151 to 154—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Combating Juvenile Delinquency
3.4 p.m.
Lord Northbournerose to call attention to the case for addressing the problems of juvenile crime, delinquency and truanting by making available co-ordinated education and support for young parents, and prospective parents; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope to convince your Lordships this afternoon that crime and unemployment, major scourges of our society, could both be substantially reduced if every child received the kind of "good enough" parenting which it needs and
1496
to which it is entitled. Professor Donald West, who is professor of criminology at Cambridge University, speaking recently at a seminar concluded:
"There is a vital link between the emotional well-being of children and the rising tide of juvenile crime".
In his well-known study, Crime and the Family, published in 1993 by the Family Policy Studies Centre, David Utting came to the same conclusion: there is a link between crime and early experience in the family. Helena Kennedy QC, a leading barrister dealing with children's cases, recently said:
"We spend £1,500 million each year locking people up in prison, which is usually at the end of a process which starts with problems in childhood. A relatively small investment in family support, and mental health services for children, would revolutionise the Criminal Justice System."
For the past quarter of a century, recorded crime figures in England and Wales have risen on average by around 5 per cent. per year. Violent crime is on the increase. Much of that criminal activity is by young people. Almost half of all male offenders known to the police are under 21, and 20 per cent. are under 17.
I believe that your Lordships will agree that unemployment is one of the most important predisposing causes of crime. Particularly for men, unemployment leads not only to poverty but also to humiliation. In this country today we have 2.4 million people unemployed, of whom 1.8 million are men.
In today's global market low skills mean low wages or unemployment. Today, education and training are more important than they have ever been. Yet some of this country's children are not getting the education that they need. We know that some schools are not as good as they should be, but there is a much more important reason; namely, that some children arrive at school without the emotional and social skills which they need to settle down and to learn.
There is a specific set of social and emotional characteristics which are essential for a child when he or she starts school. These have been called by American workers,
"the emotional foundations of school readiness".
It seems that those first days at primary school may well be the most important days in a child's life. During those days he either discovers that he is able to get on with other children—to become part of the group, can settle down to work and relate to teachers—or he discovers that he cannot cope with relationships with other children, he does not trust the teachers, he does not accept that there are boundaries to reasonable behaviour, and he is bored by work which he cannot understand. Such children reject school. They switch off and refuse to try to learn and they usually become disruptive. Later, they turn to truanting. Last year, 12 per cent. of all school children in primary and secondary schools in this country truanted for 12 or more half days in the year.
In that context, the importance of pre-school education was recognised by the National Commission on Education chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, who, unfortunately, cannot be in his place today due to an appointment in the north country. The Government have also recognised the importance of

1497
pre-school education and have committed themselves to making it available to every child over four years of age. It is indeed true that pre-school education can help some children, but often, by the time a child gets to four years old, self-defeating attitudes and social rejection are already ingrained. Problems of emotional disturbance and failure to settle down in school have been shown to be caused by early childhood experience. The roots of the problem go back to the child's life in the family before he goes to school.
Recent research suggests that children seek to make sense of their environment even in the first months of their life. It is then that they first find their efforts encouraged—or not. It is then that they first conclude that the world seems organised and reasonably predictable—or not. It is then that they first learn that adults near to them are basically supportive—or not. Through simple, everyday actions, children learn very clearly whether their needs are important to their parents, whether their effort is supported, whether promises will be kept and whether they are loved. It is in the first three years of life that the foundations for later learning are laid down. Hence the enormous importance of parenting.
So why are some parents failing to give their children the kind of support in the early years that they need? In July last year the all-party parliamentary group for parenting, of which some of your Lordships are members, and the body representing the International Year of the Family jointly held four parliamentary hearings in another place. Some of the conclusions of those hearings are interesting in this context. One was that there is no such thing as a perfect parent. We can all subscribe to that. What children need is simply "good enough" parenting.
Another point which was made was that nearly all parents want to be good parents when they start out. But many, when they start out, have no idea of the difficulties and sacrifices involved. Stress is a major cause of inadequate parenting. Stress may be caused by the breakdown of family relationships or by external factors such as unemployment, poverty, debt, alcohol, violence and so forth. Young lone parents are of course particularly vulnerable. Loneliness and lack of self-confidence are common causes of inadequate parenting. All parents need help at some time. Do not we all know that? Traditional mechanisms in society today—such as grandparents, the extended family and so forth—are not always in place. We have to create a society in which it is realised that there is no shame in asking for help.
I believe that it is not helpful to blame inexperienced parents, especially when they are trying to do their best. What they need is help. With just a little help a vastly greater number of parents could be "good enough" parents. The good news is that it is possible to help parents. We know this because it is being done successfully across the country, here and there, by voluntary organisations and by some local authorities.
I decided to become involved in the issue of parenting in October 1993 and since then I have been contacted by over 140 different voluntary bodies working in this
1498
field. In addition there are the local authorities. Much excellent work is being done, but it needs to be greatly extended and to be put on a more permanent, secure and nationwide footing. Examples of the kind of things that are being done to support parents include home visiting by such organisations as Home-Start, and by trained volunteers; family centres and parent and toddler groups, such as those sponsored by the National Children's Homes, Barnardo's, the NSPCC and many local authorities; playgroups, in which the outstanding parent organisation is the Pre-School Playgroups Association, and telephone help-lines such as Parentline, Parentlink, Exploring Parenthood and others.
In addition to support, or perhaps prior to support, young people need preparation for parenthood. Education about relationships and life skills should be taught in primary and secondary schools. Relationship education helps children prepare for their future relationships and it can help to break the cycle of unhappy relationships in families which can otherwise be passed on from generation to generation. That cycle of deprivation was identified by the late Lord Joseph more than a decade ago. Relate has been working in the field of relationship education.
Family friendly employment practices can help. The Midland Bank is an enlightened employer in this respect. It has realised that it is easier to recruit and retain good employees if employment patterns are adjusted to reduce the stress which is caused when a good employee also wants to be a good parent. There are other ways to help parents on which I should like to spend time, but I think that time forbids that. I hope that some of those issues will be touched on by other speakers. They include such things as the structure of families in our society today; single teenage mothers; the role of unemployed fathers and of course the tax and benefit system.
Finally, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the enormous savings to the Exchequer and to the taxpayer, and the enormous savings in human terms through the avoidance of wasted lives, which could be achieved if we could reduce the number of children who are damaged in their early life by not receiving the "good enough" parenting that they need. In 1991–92 public expenditure for criminal justice was nearly £3,000 million. In the same year the value of goods stolen was £3,500 million pounds. The cost of keeping a child in a secure training centre will be between £100,000 and £150,000 a year. The cost of residential care is around £35,000 a year. The cost of fostering is between £13,000 and £15,000 a year. Contrast that with the cost of putting a Home-Start volunteer into a child's home. That is about £150 a year. The cost of a place in a pre-school playgroup is about £280 per year. It does not need a high success rate to make parent support a good investment:
Supporting vulnerable children by supporting their parents does not cost a lot of money. It has been proved to be successful. Compared to the cost of prison services or the cost of unemployment, it is an incredibly good investment, so why is it not happening? Could it be that the financial pressure on each of the three great spending departments—the Home Office, education and

1499
health—is so great that they are playing "pass the parcel"? Everyone is fumbling in his pocket and no one wants to pick up the bill. Surely a government who are prepared to spend so much on police and prisons should be prepared to invest just a little on crime prevention. Surely a government who are prepared to spend so much on education would be wise to spend a tiny proportion on reducing disruption in class and on the remedial teaching which is needed. Surely a government who are prepared to spend so much on physical health should be prepared to spend just a little on the emotional health of children.
If money is short, do not spend the money on research, do not spend it on experimental projects; spend it on extending existing good practice which has been proved to work. Spend it on supporting and extending projects which have been proved to be successful. Let us invest in success. Is there any other single investment which could produce such a gigantic dividend in financial and human terms? My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.17 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, first of all I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for bringing this important matter before your Lordships' House. In 1988 the Government appointed a committee to inquire into discipline in schools. The committee was given very wide terms of reference. I chaired it. It reported in January 1989. The fifth chapter of the report dealt with the role of parents and the importance of "socially responsible parenting". I have little time to apologise for or expand on that educationally acceptable phrase in this timed debate.
Good parenting is, of course, both firm and loving. Those who are familiar with their Bibles have no difficulty with this combination. In my experience it is children who have been starved of love and affection who both have the greatest difficulty and cause the greatest difficulty. They it is who most predictably cause serious disruption in school and become the truants, delinquents and, later, the criminals who are the subject of this debate. Those starved of firm direction follow close behind. Those starved of both have the worst handicap and, as adults, pose—let us not forget—the greatest threat to society, as the noble Lord has pointed out. All have been denied what commentators call socially responsible parenting.
We recognised that school age parenthood was a rare but growing phenomenon; that it was a result, very often, of inadequate parenting in the deprived family of the child mother; and that it would inevitably be repeated in the next generation unless the cycle could be broken. It is a very rapid cycle. The children of school age pregnancies themselves become schoolchildren, and school problems, within a matter of five years. We saw that schools are in a uniquely important place in that cycle, but that they can only contribute to breaking it. They cannot break it on their own. They must be encouraged to make their contribution and others must also contribute.
1500
Accordingly, one of our recommendations was that:
"the Secretaries of State should ensure that education for parenthood is fully covered as a cross-curricular theme in the National Curriculum".
We made it with diffidence, given the difficulty of teaching the subject appropriately in school. But it was necessary in part because our next, and more important, recommendation would take time to implement. This was that:
"the Government should implement a post-school education strategy aimed at promoting socially responsible parenthood"—
the subject of this debate.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government accepted that recommendation, as they accepted all but two of our many recommendations. Can my noble friend tell your Lordships' House, now that the children born to school-age mothers in that January have themselves been in school for up to a year, what steps they have taken to develop that strategy, what the strategy is, and how it is working? If not, what have they put in its place?
3.20 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, most of us will want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for introducing the debate, and will sympathise with him for having a debate in which there is such a limited time to speak.
I should like to launch straight into what most of us would agree are the ideal standards in society and the framework within which to bring up children. We would like to see strong civic standards and strong institutions, which make for a happy and productive community. I believe that few noble Lords will disagree that many of those characteristics in our society have been subject to deterioration over a long time. I do not wish to lay blame for that at the feet of any particular government. It is one of the facts of life.
Within that sad state of affairs we have seen, particularly in deprived areas, children being born into a life in which there is little chance of love and affection, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, and with the ensuing lack of the trust and confidence in others which is so necessary in bringing up children.
Examples are very important for children at an early stage. Television must bear some responsibility. If children do not have a family environment in which good examples are set they will turn to bad examples, whether those are violent television programmes or a delinquent brother who may well be stealing motor vehicles, and so on.
Truanting inevitably leads to the possibility of crime. Most of us have been tempted by truancy at one time or another, but we have not all become criminals.
Noble Lords who have heard me speak on previous occasions will know that I am enormously keen on the provision of pre-school places. I believe that before the age of five, when children enter formal schooling, they need engagement with other children, preferably with their mothers. This morning I went to the very encouraging launch of a reshaped organisation called the Pre-School Learning Alliance—formerly the Pre-School

1501
Playgroups Association—which is attempting to do just that. Through its pre-schools throughout the country the association now has nearly 1 million children under its umbrella. Another 350,000 are on its waiting list. It needs money and funding, and I hope that the Government will take note of that fact. I know that they are already taking note, but I stress that it is a priority. If parents are failed by society then they in turn will fail their children, with all the disastrous results that we have seen.
3.23 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, by the iron rules of the House we are condemned to a symphony of sound bites, but in the few moments available I shall pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and those who have supported him so eloquently.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has brought before us a subject which has been neglected for far too long. I speak as one who, like other noble Lords, has been involved with youth work in one way or another over many years and has written and spoken about the subject. I published a book on young offenders in 1993.
Most of us who have talked and written about the subject have not said much about parents. Today I shall quote briefly in the time available some of the views of a remarkable woman called Shirl Marshall who has founded a society called Aftermath, which deals with the problems of parents of offenders. She has been in close touch with the parents of the two boys aged 10 and 11 who murdered a little baby aged two. Therefore she knows what she is talking about. She has been concerned not only with juveniles but also with adults. Today I refer to her views on juveniles and particularly the parents of those who have committed such grave crimes. I am a patron of Aftermath, but I am unpaid so I do not think that I need to declare an interest.
The first point I wish to raise is the terrible distress and agony of parents whose children have committed grave crimes. They ask themselves the everlasting question: "Where did I go wrong?". When it is brought home to them what has happened the parents undergo a terrible shock. They begin to recognise some of the damage in their own personalities, which they may have inherited. They are often themselves damaged personalities.
Those who counsel the parents have to ask how they can help those parents to help the young offenders. The short answer is that they have to understand and come to terms with their own damaged personalities to avoid that damage being passed on to their children.
That is not the whole of wisdom, but the information comes from someone who is in daily touch with the parents of children who have done these terrible things.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend—
Noble Lords: Order!
3.26 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, many of us are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne for bringing this subject, which is of such crucial importance, to the attention of the House.
There are many excellent organisations working in this field. I shall not list all 140 of them, being conscious of the text used by a former Member of this House—sadly recently deceased—when he became vicar of Great St. Mary's, Cambridge:
"If you must bore men, well and good; but must you bore your God also?".
I shall therefore mention a few.
One nationally-known organisation is Homestart. Its research on 500 families showed that 82 per cent. of the parents had themselves suffered childhood trauma and, not surprisingly, 45 per cent. of them had poor parenting skills. That brings out a vital point. A theme which runs through the Old Testament is that the iniquity of the fathers will be visited upon the children to the third and fourth generation. Alas, that it is all too true. Childhood trauma leads to childhood trauma; poor parenting breeds poor parenting. But the good news is that that vicious succession can be broken by skilled help. Parents who experienced poor parenting can nevertheless be helped to overcome that legacy and develop parenting skills themselves.
Another body that does crucial work is the Family Nurturing Network in Oxford. It aims to prevent and reduce physical and emotional abuse by running programmes for groups of families where positive nurturing and parenting skills are learnt. Trained volunteers work with the children at the same time as skilled professionals work with their parents. Short-term evaluation clearly indicates the value of the programme. Children are able to concentrate at school, make friends and develop an increased sense of personal and social responsibility. Parents find ways of managing and avoiding difficult situations and having fun with their children.
There are also organisations such as the Parent and Family Education Unit at the City Literary Institute, which recognises that successful raising of children today depends upon partnership between parents and schools. There are, of course, many other organisations which other Members of the House may mention, such as Parentline, the Family Caring Trust and so on. The point about all this work is that it has very direct results in reducing juvenile crime, and does so in a cost effective way. It is particularly needed in this country.
A recent Euro barometer study found that UK respondents were less likely to see "bringing up and educating children" as the most important purpose of the family—less than one in four did so, compared with about six in 10 Portuguese, Greek, Italian, French and Spanish respondents. That work is cost effective; it is desperately needed and it works.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for being so keen not to waste time that I

1503
spoke out of turn and nearly cut out the speech of the right reverend Prelate. I am grateful, as are other noble Lords, to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for introducing the topic.
There are things that can be done. Although the motives for schoolgirl pregnancies are dubious, they are not all bad. Many young, single mothers have been longing to have some object of affection, and to be the unquestioned object of affection of their baby. Therefore they are willing and anxious to help their babies. However, they are totally ignorant about what happens when a baby stops being a baby who can be lumped about, and starts being a person in his or her own right, talking and having a will of his or her own. At that stage the ignorance and lack of experience from their own childhood makes it quite impossible for very young, single mothers to give the child the emotional stability that he or she needs.
We have heard about numbers of small activities in local areas which seek to remedy that situation by educating young parents. I believe that that is the way forward. I have seen some incredibly good and fruitful work undertaken in one of the worst areas just outside Birmingham, where 80 per cent. of members of a block of flats were single mothers. The local GP's wife, all by herself, brought together a group of parents and children. She began to educate the parents, the children went on to nursery school, they increased their vocabulary and began to understand about communication.
I believe that such communication is at the heart of what I call abuse of children; namely, that no adult person talks to those children. They develop no notion of the fact that grown-ups can be on their side, can help them and can be people with whom they communicate. Many children arrive at school or pre-school activities with a vocabulary of about five words, most of those expletives. To start with such a background makes the task incredibly difficult for teachers. But for the children to have gained experience of communication and affection before that age is of enormous importance.
Another medium which is under-exploited is that of radio. I refer to programmes to which mothers and children can listen together from which education may be gained by stealth. They lead to common shared enjoyment and shared moral values. It is an area in which new charities are emerging. Applications have been made to the Department for Education for help. What is needed is not vast sums of money, but seed money, supportive money, for those small local groups.
That brings me to the melancholy part of what I have to say: that such support from Government entails collaboration between different government departments. It entails the Department for Education, the Department of Health, the Home Office and the social services actively working together. Having said that, your Lordships may well think, "The whole thing is hopeless". Over and again, efforts at collaboration have been defeated, generally by small, technical disagreements between different departments. I conclude by beseeching the Government and Ministers to find ways of saying that such collaboration can be
1504
achieved, but not by saying, "That must go to that department, and that is contrary to the other department's policy". Please let us have collaboration.
3.34 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, 50 per cent. of those found guilty of criminal offences are under 21. Therefore clearly we must spend a far higher proportion of our resources on crime prevention in particular among children where criminal tendencies often originate. All too often good home influences are lacking; there may be no home. Teachers are hard pressed. They have little time or perhaps aptitude to deal with the problems of individual children.
A charity called School's Outreach has shown what can be done by careful, dedicated work. School's Outreach sends highly trained counsellors into schools at the invitation of headteachers. The counsellors develop close personal relationships with disturbed children and have shown that in many cases problems can be resolved. The children are more prepared to confide in an external counsellor than in staff.
School's Outreach is a proven success but on a small scale, limited by financial resources. One headteacher reported on the major success of having a School's Outreach counsellor. In the year before the counsellor was appointed, there were 50 exclusions. In the two years following the appointment, the number fell to four. Similarly, in the two years before appointment, staff turnover was 90 per cent. In the two following years there were no staff changes. Parent/school relationships and attendance both showed marked improvement. There was major progress in dealing with bullying and resolving conflicts among the children.
That shows that School's Outreach does wonderful work. It is a valuable investment in our children's future in every sense of the word. However, the charity is limited in what it can do by financial resources. Some noble Lords who are interested in School's Outreach have sought on a number of occasions to obtain financial support from the Department for Education, and indeed from the Home Office which would find it a good investment in reducing costs of criminal activities later in life. The Department for Education and local authorities to whom we have been referred plead that there is no money available. I implore Her Majesty's Government to look again at the problem. The money invested in an organisation such as School's Outreach would have a quick payback in reducing crime and the huge costs associated with it and, of course, in enhancing our children's personal future.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, like charity, good parenting should begin at home, but too often it does not. When I first began to visit family centres run by the National Children's Home to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred—we are all indebted to him—I was astonished and appalled to find young mothers literally being taught how to play with their children instead of sticking the child, strapped in a

1505
high chair, in front of the telly. They were being taught also such advanced culinary arts as how to boil an egg and how to cook mince.
We all have an interest in helping inadequate parents avoid transmitting their own inadequacy at compound interest to succeeding generations. In declaring my own interest, I shall concentrate briefly on what NCH Action for Children is doing through the operation of more than 100 family centres. The form of provision ranges widely. At one end there are drop-in centres which provide play facilities, a toy library, and perhaps a crèche—a place where mothers can sit down for much needed company and a good gossip, and where they can receive advice on benefits and housing. At the other end there are highly structured projects undertaking intensive and highly skilled therapeutic work with deeply disturbed parents and children. To parents, such centres offer help and hope.
The objective is always to build on such strengths as families have and to improve parenting skills in child care, budgeting and healthy diet, and to provide counselling. Family centres help parents to identify their own needs and to find solutions to their problems. Running through all their work is the building of self reliance and independence and helping families to solve their difficulties together and to stay together.
The voluntary organisations, such as NCH Action for Children, can lead the way, but what they can do by way of provision is limited. Their needs are still growing at a time when the social services budgets from which local authorities, in partnership with such agencies as NCH, can meet those needs are being cut. As we have heard so often, manifestly, prevention is better than cure. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, emphasised, care about people, building and rebuilding family structures, and strengthening the very fabric of our society—all provide an unanswerable case for putting more public resources into family support.
3.40 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I wish to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for introducing the debate. I should like to endorse enthusiastically the remarks that he made during his introductory speech and to accept his invitation to speak on particular projects.
I chair a project set in Leeds known as Leeds Education 2000; it is part of a national initiative which has its emphasis on learning in the community. Leeds Education 2000 works with a pyramid of schools in the inner city part of Leeds where there is a high proportion of both ethnic minorities and single parents. Four nurseries in this area decided that they would like to set up a pilot project to help parents in supporting their children's learning and development in the first three years of life. So the Home Early Learning Partnership was launched, funded by private business, by the Leeds Tech and by the local city action team, in order to provide time for home visits. That, I think, is the key to this particular initiative. People actually visit the homes of parents. It also provides training for staff, play
1506
equipment for toy libraries, support by educational psychologists and, not least, the monitoring and evaluation which is necessary for such a project.
All the indications are that this initiative has been warmly welcomed. Many parents, particularly young parents, are beginning to realise that learning is something that takes place in all kinds of settings and that such activities as involving your children in sorting the laundry, playing with pots and pans, and trips to the shops are learning opportunities. Children can learn enormously if their parents take the time to be with them. One teacher said: "Children need a running commentary on everyday happenings". As children gain the confidence to learn, so parents also gain confidence. One of the spin-offs of such a project, as has already been mentioned, is that parents themselves discover their own skills and their own possibilities. Already in that part of Leeds parents are beginning to realise that they can work in schools; some of them go on to do NVQs. So far as the children are concerned, the benefits can already be seen in the nurseries: children settle into nursery more quickly and are more easily able to relate and to learn.
I looked carefully through the evaluation which was mounted by Leeds Metropolitan University. It outlined in good academic terms a number of positive contributions. It finished with what seemed to me a marvellous comment that there is a warm glow from having succeeded in developing something so worth while. I hope that the fact that the experience is shared in your Lordships' House this afternoon will be noted not only by the Government but by all those involved in education.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, at the Jesuit school which I attended as a boy we learnt the old Jesuit maxim:
"Give me a child for the first seven years, and you may do what you like with him afterwards".
Modern research points to the same conclusion. The first few years play a huge part in deciding the direction of a child's life. In America in 1992, the non-profit organisation Zero-to-Three published a report, backed by voluminous research, entitled Heart Start. This report stresses that a child's performance at school depends on characteristics largely formed by the age of three, and that children neglected by their parents in their early years are the poorest performers at school. Drug use and delinquency all too often follow.
Heart Start recommends education for parents in infant development and the expansion of family support programmes to provide parents with the skills and help they need to bring up their children. The report emphasises some great successes. A programme in Syracuse, New York state, gave child care and family support over the first five years of low-income children's lives. Ten years later, the children —especially the girls—were doing far better at school than a similar group who had not been in the programme. As young adolescents, the boys had committed a quarter of the crimes of the non-programme boys and their offences were far less serious.

1507
Another American success story has been the High/Scope Perry pre-school project for disadvantaged children in Michigan. When the children reached the age of 27, researchers calculated that every dollar invested in High/Scope saved seven dollars 13 cents in the costs of criminal justice, welfare and so on.
Government help for such children in Britain must be a wonderful investment. What is needed is an increase in assistance for agencies working in this field. A potential source of funds is the £30 million a year for three years which the Government mean to spend on the new secure training centres for 12 to 14 year-old persistent offenders. Five secure training centres with 40 places in each are planned. The total of 200 places appears to have been arrived at completely arbitrarily. I suggest that the Government take a fresh and imaginative decision: they should reduce the number of secure training centres to four and the number of places to 160, thereby releasing £6 million a year; use even a part of that money to divert children at risk from becoming criminals; back programmes along the lines proposed by Heart Start; properly fund organisations like Relate, Home/Start and other agencies. If the Government have the will, so much can be done to reduce juvenile delinquency and crime. Let the Government invest wisely in the children of this country.
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, yesterday I attended a day conference run jointly by the Rural Development Commission, Kids Club Network, the National Council for Child Care Voluntary Organisations and the Association of County Councils. Figures were given that in 1984 there were 9.6 million women working; by 1993, that figure had risen to 11 million. Therefore, we must consider how the children of women working can be cared for at a rate which those women can afford to pay.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, I attended the Pre-School Learning Alliance which used to be the Pre-School Playgroup Movement. It was announced this morning that there are 350,000 under-fives waiting for a place in playgroups.
Very good work is being done by Dr. Gillian Pugh of the early childhood unit of the National Children's Bureau, and, of course, by the Association of Directors of Social Services. Dr. Pugh heads a forum for the under-fives. I plead with her that the forum should consider the needs of parents, for the troubles, happiness, joys and sorrows of parents are reflected in the children. Research by the Rowntree Trust and at the Maudsley Hospital reveals that children very soon, even within a day, reflect the problems of the parents. Therefore, I suggest that while, of course, we must look after the children, we should concentrate on helping the parents. I believe that that would do much to diminish many of our problems.
I wish to make a plea for departments to work together. At the moment there is a different ethos and a different way of looking at childcare and of implementing childcare policies among different departments. The Department for Education has the
1508
figures—I have asked but have been unable to get them—for children excluded from school and children not attending school. A small boy said to me the other day, "Miss, if you want to do a job, get yourself excluded from school". "How do you do that?" I asked. I shall not tell noble Lords what he told me, but he got himself excluded from school for two years and is still not in school.
The Department of Health has a broad and caring outlook on children but one completely at variance with that of the Home Office. There is then the separate question of housing and the environment. In fact, seven departments are involved in meeting the needs of children and families. I suggest that there should be a committee of civil servants from those departments. They agree that there is a committee; but they do not listen to one another. I suggest that the committee should have a chairman who is objective and outside all the departments but who will see that the departments work together and have the same policies so that parents and those of us who work for children know where we are going.
3.51 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, getting married is looked upon as a very happy day. But unfortunately many, many marriages break down quite soon after they are made. We find parents in conflict with one another, and on some occasions in violent conflict. That violence automatically has an effect on the children in the family.
I work alongside the NSPCC in the Midlands and the Birmingham City Council education committee. They are currently working together on a combined teaching programme in schools to make children understand that that is not the whole of life. Learning about violence in the home automatically translates in school into crime and bullying. The NSPCC, which knows many of the families that are on the register, working alongside the teachers is creating a better-informed child; one who sees that life can be better than what he or she has previously suffered.
I should like to mention a special scheme with which I am involved—the St. Basil's scheme for the young homeless. For 16 to 20 year-olds, over the past 12 months, we have put forward the St. Basil's supported lodgings scheme. At the present moment we have over 50 landladies and husband-and-wife teams registered with the scheme, offering accommodation to young people after they have been carefully vetted to make sure that they will not cause problems in those families. They are then accepted into the families. So young people are being matched with landladies and landlords to ensure compatibility, and there is support from the very outset.
The scheme is cost-effective and is also beneficial in many cases to those who act as foster parents (if that is what we want to call them; they do not want that name). It also means that the private sector therefore works with a charity. In the long run it provides a supportive environment for many young people who are as old as 16 or 18 and have never known a family life. The

1509
scheme helps to mould their attitudes to self and society. We hope that it will be beneficial to them and to their children.
3.54 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, the only advice that was given to me when I became a bishop was, "If it moves, bless it". I am not sure that I had much more advice when I became a parent. Like most people of our generation, my wife and I just got on with it and were helped often by members of our family.
But things have changed across the generations since then. We know that there has been a breakdown in the structure of family life. There are so many people for whom there is no communication within the family between youngsters and parents. There are the influences that have invaded the home and almost removed normal conversation from many homes, which is a tragedy. There are few good role models. Things have changed radically; and many parents today cannot keep pace with the way in which their youngsters think, since the thinking of a generation alters so fast. That is the background.
It is remarkable—and it has been said more than once today—that in our country there are 140 organisations that address the question of parenting, when a large number of people in this country do not even know that it is a problem. It is a tremendous tribute to our nation that so much voluntary work has gone into seeing this as a problem and aiming to meet it. I am thrilled about that. We have heard mentioned organisations such as the Family Care Trust; Relate; Flame; the Mothers' Union; and Care. Imaginative things are going on. Care, for instance, has a huge number of adventure holidays whereby one parent and one offspring go on holiday together—mother and son, father and daughter, or whatever it happens to be—to learn to relate to each other during a specially constructed holiday. The organisation has taken 30,000 people through their marriage strengthening seminars, and so on. All that is very imaginative.
I have spoken to the people in my own diocese who work particularly on this theme. I asked: what are the three things that you would want to say? These are the three points made. First, this work is labour-intensive. The courses being run in our diocese require two carers to 10 parents across eight weeks. That is a lot of people involved in caring. The good news is that almost anybody can do it. It is not necessary to be a professional. You can master the material and teach it, and that is good. Therefore, a higher profile for parenting from the Government, and publicly throughout the nation, will help draw more people into the action that is needed. The second point is that it is not just a matter of that part of society where there is crime. Every section of society needs help over parenting. The third point has come up time and again this afternoon—it was right at the centre of the welcome Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—namely, co-ordination. We have the resources and a lot of the people, but we simply cannot get the schools, the Department of Health, the voluntary societies and the
1510
Church to work together. That is the real problem. No quick fix is possible. It may take 10 to 15 years to get to the roots of society in order to change things. But it is happening, and it needs a real boost from the centre. I hope that we can give it that boost this afternoon.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, we live in a society of opportunity for all; but inevitably that means an ever-widening gap between those who have thrived and those who have failed. The relative deprivation of the weak has encouraged them to try to reach equality through crime—hence the worldwide crimewave.
Most delinquents come from families that have a history of violence, unemployment and crime. Such families produce problem children who grow into problem adults, and they in their turn produce problem children. There is also a direct link between marital conflict and delinquency. Parental conflict, in turn, can be the result of stress through poverty. Lancaster University found that half the families of delinquents had a weekly family income of less than £60. But also, early marriage, live-in girlfriends and single parentage must make their contribution. The young drift off without education or skill, without ethics or self-respect and with no fixed abode. They are unable to get work and have no money. They drift into theft, rackets and anything else in order to survive, and soon land in prison. Desperation may not excuse, but it encourages crime.
The penalties which must be, and are correctly, imposed by the courts can make the position worse for such families and their children. Probation is rated as a severe sentence and can, of course, have a beneficial influence. Fines can make matters worse. For example, destitute single mothers are often fined for not having television licences. Without TV, the children become even less controllable. Where fines are imposed on destitute mothers, probation should offer them piecework such as they can do in their own home, so that—only if they wish to do so—they can earn credits with which to satisfy their debt to the court without further strapping their meagre income.
Schools may be the only good influence for the child from a bad home and may be the only opportunity for such a child to learn the problems in store with early marriage or single parenthood. Without home training, there is no other resource but the teacher. Teachers must be adequately trained in this field. Parenting is, after all, a skill. It can be learned in the classroom. Often teachers find themselves confidants to distraught parents who have marriage problems. Teachers are not trained to deal with that kind of thing and do not have the confidence to try to help. It would be a great advantage for parental problems to be brought into teacher training, to help teachers make tomorrow's adults into better parents.
Sex education is now in place, but the broader "relationship" education is less clearly defined. Such education is not a feature of initial teacher training and tends to be squeezed out by the pressure of other subjects. Despite its great importance for the future of the nation, relationship training rarely attracts mainstream funding. If the state of parenthood for the

1511
coming generation is to be tackled, teachers must be trained in relationships and be able to make that vital contribution when parents themselves are failures. Even then, it will take a generation to improve things.
4.1 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Northbourne is to be congratulated on bringing forward this subject for debate today, when we hear and read so much about the problems that some families suffer.
The International Year of the Family saw a renewed interest and concern about the need to support parents. What is needed is more instruction and guidance to young people embarking on what is a complete change in their lives. It is no longer just two people to please themselves but at least one other human being, whose needs are almost constant when he (or she) is small.
It is very necessary for young boys as well as young girls to be taught about parenthood. The International Year of the Family also found that men in this country apparently work longer hours than any of their European counterparts. Until we see the growth of family friendly policies in the workplace, it is difficult to see how men in this country will be able to rebalance their work and new home commitments. I am told that many new young parents arrive home, sit down and say, "Oh dear, what do we do now?"
The Children Act 1989 was intended to be interpreted more broadly, but limited resources have instead led to a focus on crisis work. It would seem to make more economic sense if it were possible to identify children and families who could benefit from support before they reach crisis point. The National Children's Bureau finds that there is a lot of evidence that broad mainstream services can provide parents and young children with the kind of start they need and prevent them from reaching a crisis point later. Every local authority is required to review services for children under eight every three years. This year we are coming up to the second review. It would seem to be a good opportunity for local authorities to look at services provided for parents and young children together. There are many different providers and many different voluntary bodies involved. It would seem to be a chance to link all those services together to provide a more coherent approach to the subject.
Is the Minister aware of the NSPCC's work at its Stradbroke Family Centre in Sheffield, which offers not only individual sessions with mothers and fathers but group work for parents as well? Likewise, in Barnsley, the children protection team offers therapeutic work with children and families where neglect and abuse are a concern. Those two projects in Yorkshire are typical of many NSPCC centres throughout the country which are trying to help parents and children.
During her antenatal clinic, the mother will too busy with exercises to take in much about the time after the birth. But at the postnatal clinic, perhaps her GP could make sure that she is seeing her health visitor when she calls and asks her any questions that she may have. One way in which young mothers might be helped in the postnatal period is by friends going to visit her, perhaps
1512
just to talk. That would be especially helpful if the young mother is suffering from depression following the birth of her child.
When young people are growing older, they think about examinations or finding work. Should not they also be taught to think about parenthood in the future—as I have just said, boys as well as girls? Could the Minister suggest some way in which it could be brought to the attention of society in general that we all have a responsibility to help make our country a happy place in which to live? We should therefore prepare young children, as they get older, for the possibilities of future parenthood and show them how to prepare for it.
4.5 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for introducing today's debate. Effectiveness in dealing with juvenile delinquency is entirely dependent upon identifying accurately the factors that predispose children towards criminality. The one incontestable fact to have emerged from research is the direct causal link between inadequate or downright bad parenting and a predisposition to delinquency in children. As Professor Kolvin puts it:
"Good parenting protects against the acquisition of a criminal record".
As a society, we therefore have a responsibility to foster and instil good parenting skills in all parents. That is a view endorsed by the Government. The Home Office reply to Recommendation 11 of the sixth report from the Home Affairs Committee in the 1992–93 Session states:
"The Government has always regarded the family as having a crucial influence on young people's moral standards. Teaching children the difference between right and wrong is a process which must begin in the home and continue throughout childhood. Schools and churches also have an important part to play in this process …But this must be in addition to parental responsibility, not a substitute for it".
It is a not a major conceptual leap to recognise that the principle of training parents—not just some but all parents, both prospective and actual—in the necessary skills to acquit their responsibilities is a sound one. Parenting skills are not inbred; they have to be learned. As Mia Pringle put it:
"Modern parenthood is too demanding and complex a task to be performed well merely because we have all once been children".
My noble friend, when she winds up, may argue that financial prudence militates against any expenditure on universal provision of parenting classes. The reality is that potential mechanisms to provide such a service at a relatively small cost are already in place. The national curriculum at secondary level and antenatal and postnatal courses are possible vehicles for disseminating training in parenting skills.
More pertinently, the Government's commitment to universal provision of pre-school education for all four to five year-olds is curiously opportune in this context. Many forms of pre-school provision, particularly play groups, are already actively engaged in the process of educating parents in the skills necessary for good parenting. Indeed, the PPA perceives that particular aspect of its work, with the associated benefits that it

1513
brings of enhancing the self-esteem of parents and bringing them more into the mainstream of society, to be of equal importance to its primary aim of providing play group activity.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the High/Scope research in the United States concluded that nursery educated children were, when older, five times less likely to commit criminal offences. Clearly, parentally-involved pre-school provision could—and should be permitted to—confer a double benefit: that of enabling both children and parents, as well as breaking the "cycle of deprivation".
In conclusion, I offer your Lordships the following observation from Dr. Gillian Pugh:
"Parenthood today is a demanding and at times stressful, lonely and frustrating experience; and if society continues to put high expectations on parents, then it must also provide sufficient support to enable them to fulfil their obligations with knowledge, understanding and enjoyment".
4.8 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I served for about 27 years as a member of a board of visitors at a young offenders' institution. I have seen hundreds and thousands of young people who have turned to crime. When I ask them how they did at school, many would say that they had truanted—truanted from big comprehensive schools. Sometimes they will turn up in the morning, check in, go away, come back, have a free lunch and go away again. Big comprehensive schools with no form teacher are very easy places from which to truant. I often felt that the teachers were quite pleased not to see the disruptive children there.
I remember one particular young man who told me that, when he came back from the pub, he used to pick up his baby and shake it. That is very dangerous indeed. At one time in that young offenders' institution at an evening class child care was taught by a prison officer's wife who was a health visitor. All young offenders' institutions should have such classes. That class was exceedingly popular. It was always full of 30 keen young people who were eager to learn. It was really useful. Most of those young people were prospective parents, if not already parents.
Two education Bills ago, I moved an amendment to have life skills as part of the curriculum. The Government would not accept it. I am still as sure now as I was then that it should be part of education for all children. One young man who had never been in trouble but whose parents divorced when he was seven, said to me, "You know, the most important thing is never taught; that is, how to be a good parent".
So many children are hurt and disillusioned by parents breaking up. They have no useful model to pass on to their own children. It is a cycle of deprivation which could be remedied and helped by education on good parenting and healthy life skills. I should like to pay tribute to the family service units which do so much to teach families to cope when they find that they have problems. But they are a small drop in the ocean. I found that a high percentage of young people who turned to crime had been in care. Can the Minister say whether
1514
any research is being done on the reasons for that? Children need stability and a firm foundation upon which to build their lives. I hope that the Minister will do all she can to help the Government realise how important this subject is.
4.11 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for his able introduction of this Motion; it is something about which the Government are extremely concerned. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health asked the Churches for an overview on the family, including parenting, and the report will be published in three or four months. I can tell your Lordships that it will indicate a great lack of funds for the necessary projects.
On Monday last the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice asked why there was less crime among the youth in the 1930s—a time of high unemployment—than there is today. He suggested that the answer was the strength and discipline of the family which prevailed in the 1930s and which was much stronger then than now. That is a measure of the problem we are discussing.
As my noble friend said, the costs of the breakdown or failure of parenting are enormous. I shall not continue with that point, but it is vital to realise that a small amount of money spent on the education of young people in parenting could save the Exchequer a great deal of money later.
I believe that there is a measure of co-operation between the voluntary, statutory and government agencies. I should like to echo what other noble Lords have said about a much greater co-ordination being needed among the government departments and other agencies and organisations. There is a need to improve relationship skills right across the board. That is a matter close to the heart of the recently formed Relationships Foundation in Cambridge.
I want to turn to one specific proposal that I put forward to my noble friend the Minister. As has been said, there is now education for parents of antenatal and postnatal care of babies. I should now like to see that education extended. For instance, when a child is brought for immunisation, the parents should be educated in the parenting of small children. When their first child joins a primary school, there should be education in the parenting of older children, and when the first child goes to secondary school, there should be a brief course for educating parents on teenagers. A small sum of money spent on good education for parenting would save the Exchequer millions of pounds.
4.14 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this Motion in the terms that he has. While not disagreeing with anything that has been said so far, I am concerned, in the short time available, to attempt to widen the focus a little and challenge the automatic assumption that a psycho-social problem must have psycho-social causes. In most cases it does. But in the realm of juvenile crime

1515
there is now plentiful evidence to show that there are sometimes other forces at work as well, and that parents and educators would do well to take note of them.
I am talking here about the links between diet and behaviour which have been demonstrated in a substantial number of studies over the past 20 years, most notably in prison populations in the States where, for example, reductions of up to 45 per cent. in antisocial behaviour have been recorded after a switch to a wholefood diet. Indeed, this led in Los Angeles to a ban on highly processed foods in all juvenile institutions in the city.
If there were time I could have amplified the evidence by reference to cases like the one known to me locally, where a young lad has only to come into contact with sugar, wheat or milk to go totally berserk, beating up his mother, starting fires and going out and stealing cars. But the best I can do is refer any who are interested in further evidence to previous speeches I have made on the subject (17th March 1993 at col. 1524, and 15th March 1989 at col. 277). They are not all as dramatic as this case of extreme food sensitivity, but they mostly involve a crucial lack of the nutrients needed for proper brain function, mostly from a junk food diet, often at the age of peak growth which is also, incidentally, the age of peak offending.
The fact that this is not more widely known is, I believe, due to the separation of cultures whereby criminologists and nutritionists do not generally read each other's literature, and tend to resist pleas to look at the problem on a multidisciplinary basis—a counterpart to the lack of collaboration between government departments that has already been mentioned. It is also, I am afraid, due to the lamentable gaps in medical education in the field of nutrition.
But a bright spot was the announcement of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in reply to what I said two years ago, that the Home Office was proposing to fund a study to he conducted by Dr. Jonathan Brostoff of the Middlesex Hospital to look further into the links between diet and delinquency. I can report that that study is now nearing completion.
Meanwhile parents can only be made aware of the possibility of such links (in fact, many of them are actually a good deal more aware than the so-called professionals), tap in where necessary to the considerable expertise of bodies like the Hyper-Active Children's Support Group, and pay careful attention to what goes into their children's mouths as well as their minds.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, if any of the ideas and principles for the young are to be fulfilled and come to fruition, then a base is needed. The base and foundation I suggest are the words—those who go to Church or study the scriptures may recognise them:
"Be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath".
By "slow to wrath", we mean not to be quick, unreasonable, narrow or prejudiced in opinion.
In those words, particularly,
"swift to hear, slow to speak",
1516
we have a bridge-building way for appreciation and understanding between all ages and between peers—those of the same age. That is necessary if we are to help one another. It is particularly necessary if parents, whether the traditional mother and father or a single parent, are to help their children.
If children have experience of their parents or a single parent right from the beginning, from when they are born, being "swift to hear" them, and "slow to speak", it is more likely that the children will grow up ready to hear their parents speak and listen to them. Also, if we are,
"swift to hear, slow to speak",
it is more likely that we will appreciate the feelings and hopes of the young as the young themselves will appreciate the feelings of their peers.
It is important that from the home base and foundation that lesson is learnt, so that when children go forth from the home to kindergarten, nursery school and school they have a foundation upon which to build their character and personality and also—this cannot be emphasised too much —to appreciate their elders, their elders having in turn given them the sense of appreciating them. I believe first and foremost that that should happen in the home and from there people will take it outside.
4.19 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I feel somewhat embarrassed that on the Speakers' List I, as a winder-up, am given 10 minutes when other speakers, with a great deal more of importance to say, have been allowed only three minutes. I would say to the Government: please do not inflict three-minute times on us. There has been so much to be said today that it is quite unreasonable that people should have only three minutes in which to speak. Inevitably, it has turned into an advertising campaign, which is absolutely fine, but the subject deserves a great deal more time and attention than very well-informed speakers have been able to give it.
It is particularly embarrassing that I get 10 minutes for I know less about this subject than anyone else who has spoken. As a superannuated, childless, spinster, I really would not claim to have anything to say of any importance on the subject of parenthood, which is perhaps why I do not intend to concentrate on the subject of parenthood. What I am going to say is that, very important though all the points which have been made about parenting are, we are asking an almost impossible task of parents—here I think I can speak with some knowledge—unless we attack the basic problems that lie behind crime in this country.
A parent can do a very good parenting job earlier on—I agree that that makes it less likely that children will get into trouble with the law later on—but we have to face the fact that there are parts of the country today, not only in the cities but certainly in many of the inner cities, where crime is accepted as a normal way of life. People are no longer concerned about it in the way that they would have been in the past. In a family I know very well one of the sons, who was serving his third, or perhaps it was his fourth, prison sentence for burglary, said to his mother, "I know most of the chaps in here".

1517
He was joining a group with which he was very familiar, both outside the gaol and inside the gaol. We must get it clear that we are breeding groups of people up and down the country to whom crime is acceptable. If one were thinking only about the careers of these young people, given the state of the labour market and given the lack of education and skills which so many of them have—I once said this when talking at a gathering organised by the Metropolitan Police—one would have to advise them to stick to burglary because the chances of a decent life outside are so very small.
Unlike everyone else who has spoken this afternoon I want to concentrate on some of these other issues. Here I must declare an interest—a totally unpaid interest but we all declare interests these days—in my connections with the APEX Trust. The position with regard to ex-offenders getting jobs is getting more and not less difficult. The probation service has made it clear over and over again—indeed, it is only a matter of common sense—that someone who has offended and then gets a job is three times less likely to reoffend. I do not know whether the statistical base for the figure is absolutely sound but it is approximately right. Surely people do not need a great deal of convincing that that is likely to be so.
If we want to get rid of these growing centres where crime is accepted, if we want to give a chance to families to keep their young people out of trouble, we must do much more than we are doing at present to help people who get into trouble to get out of it, to get into and stay in a job and therefore have a chance by having an income, by having something to do in order to give them some status, by having an opportunity to have their own home, and thereby not slip back into crime again, which is almost inevitable unless they can get a job.
The situation is becoming more and not less difficult. I wish to quote from a circular from the Association of Chief Officers of Probation. It states:
"Unemployment is common amongst offenders in contact with Probation Services: ACOP' s surveys consistently show a level of 70 per cent. or more unemployment amongst offenders commencing supervision. There is also evidence that the periods of unemployment are becoming longer, and that the skills, qualifications and experience of offenders under supervision are gradually becoming less and less appropriate to the requirements of employers, training providers and providers of employment services. The employment prospects of offenders and ex-offenders are worsening".
The report goes on to say that 90 per cent. of those coming out of prison have no jobs to go to. That is the central problem we need to tackle.
Other speakers have pointed out how important it is to get different government departments working together on these problems. The problem of getting jobs for ex-offenders and thereby cutting down the offending rate is a matter for consideration by and is the responsibility of the Department for Education, the Department of Employment and the Home Office. In addition, as even the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who is to reply to the debate cannot be expected to answer for all those departments, I would mention the
1518
Department of Health. From the point of getting jobs, it is the three departments that I have mentioned which must take the lead.
They need to get together to work on this problem and there are specific things which they need to do. The literacy level of offenders is very low. That means that their chances of learning and then training and getting jobs are proportionately low. The Department for Education needs to take seriously the problem of exclusions. Those who are excluded are precisely the people who are likely to turn to crime. They do not have much else to turn to. One understands why the number of exclusions is increasing, but the problem must be looked at from the point of view of what is happening to the people who are excluded. They are certainly going to build up this—I hate the word but I think we all understand it—underclass, this criminal culture, against which we are all trying to fight.
The Department of Employment also has a part to play. Those who are involved with the training and placing of offenders have relied very much on grants, first, from the Manpower Services Commission and then when that disappeared, from the TECs. The TECs are in an increasingly difficult position. We had news only this week that one important TEC in London has gone bankrupt. That does not help those of us who are working in London on these problems. A number of voluntary organisations have been seriously handicapped by what is happening. I hope that a way will be found to rescue the TECs.
The policy in relation to the TECs operates against the benefit of people who are trying to work with ex-offenders. The TECs, handicapped by a lack of money as they are, get their money on the basis of successful results. Successful results mean getting people into jobs or people getting qualifications. If a TEC's money depends on people getting jobs and getting qualifications it will want ex-offenders like a hole in the head. We need to have, but we do not have, premium payments for helping to get offenders the opportunity of training and the opportunity of getting work. Under the much-criticised YTS we used to get premium payments but that has all gone. I beg the Government to look at this again. It is another of these short-term, ridiculous economies. Why save a little money at that point when one will be paying the huge sums, to which other noble Lords have referred, in the whole field of crime? That brings me to the Home Office.
In the minute which is left to me I ask that the Home Office really takes proper training in prison seriously and relates that training to the kind of job the offender has a hope of getting. That would be of very great assistance. Above all, cannot those three departments and the leading voluntary organisations outside who are working in this field and who know about it, get together to promote a scheme with the quite precise purpose of seeing that offenders get jobs?
4.30 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not nice; is it not very nice, to hear a debate which has been critical, but collaborative and creative as well. The

1519
whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and it falls to me to do little more than to present the Labour Party's policy on co-ordinated education and support for young parents, and to point to a few outstanding examples of good practice as we see them, and to applaud them, and to urge the Government (for they alone hold the strings of the public purse) to support them in every way.
One of the five key principles guiding the Labour Party's education policy is partnership. We believe that,
"a civilised society cannot operate when its education system is undermined by confrontation. Policies should be determined after consultation and decision making should be shared. Central government should create the framework for education whilst the local delivery of services must be the responsibility of those who are democratically and professionally accountable. Professionals must be recognised as such. Parents must be actively involved in their children's educational lives".
My Lords, the first priority of a Labour Secretary of State for Education will be a dramatic extension of nursery education. Labour's key objective is to ensure that all three and four year-olds whose parents want it have access to high quality nursery education. I quote again:
"Labour will give particular encouragement to promoting parental involvement in early years education".
That comes from Opening Doors to a Learning Society: a Policy Statement on Education.
So recently as yesterday, my honourable friend Mr. David Blunkett announced the formation of an inquiry team into the integration of early years provision. In their Statement of Intent that inquiry team said this:
"We also wish to develop our services for young children and their families, building on the best of the diverse range of existing provision and on existing innovative models of good practice. We aim to develop the supportive help needed in good parenting, to ensure that parents, where feasible, can participate in the development of their children's education and in the wider goals of increasing literacy, numeracy and educational achievement".
The diverse range of existing provision is indeed considerable, and your Lordships have given many illustrations of excellent practice currently available.
I wonder, for example, how many of your Lordships would have felt confident before today that they could successfully answer some difficult examination questions on the history and achievements of a charity called Parent Network; one of the 140-odd to which the right reverend Prelate referred. Parent Network (just one of many) was set up in 1986 to help parents improve their relationship with their children, thus breaking the cycle of inadequate parenting often passed on from one generation to another. They set up an innovative parent support and education programme called Parent-Link, run by specially trained parents in local areas, offering parents the chance to improve their communication skills, and their abilities to negotiate and to set acceptable boundaries in family life. So far, over 9,000 parents have attended Parent-Link, and over 1,500 continue to meet in support groups. About 200 parent co-ordinators are running groups across the country, from Aberdeen to Cornwall.
Another charity, now called Relate, but perhaps more familiar to some of your Lordships as the old Marriage Guidance Council under another name, is also doing
1520
vital work in this field. Relate points out that there is a wealth of evidence which links the quality of the relationships between the parents with the ability to be a "good" parent to the child. It is where conflict exists between the parents that children experience confusion and stress. Relate suggests that there are a number of major obstacles to developing a successful relationship education programme in schools, one of which is,
"The demands of the National Curriculum often lead to a 'squeeze out' of elements such as relationship education"—
it is not sexy and it has not got a high image—
"or to attempts being made to cover this subject in an inadequate setting with [far] too little time".
Relate makes four very practical, sensible and cheap recommendations:

"1) that an extension of time be allocated in initial teacher training to
include the subject of relationship education

2) that a programme of training for newly qualified teachers be established

3) that relationship education be offered as a component of in-service training

4) that a resource pack be developed to complement this teacher training".

I feel that these proposals are so clear, so simple and so obviously necessary, and that they emanate from such a responsible and experienced charity, that the Government should consider them with great seriousness and do all they can to implement them as soon as possible. They would cost remarkably little.
May I further commend to the Government's attention the work being done to bring children and parents together in schools by Registered Charity No. 803007—it is a pity about those last three figures! I refer to the City Literary Institute universally known as "the City Lit". Through the work of its parent and family education unit which has already been referred to, it has done an enormous amount to break down the barriers between the home and the school classroom, and we have to acknowledge the fact that these barriers do still exist in many places. There are still schoolteachers who believe that they are the experts, the trained and experienced professionals and that they and they alone should be in command and control of the education of the children committed to their charge: and there are still parents who are content to dump their offspring at the school gates, and then forget about their physical, spiritual, emotional, intellectual and social development until half-past three. The City Lit is advocating a better way through the principle of partnership in schools. It makes the central educational point that,
"The successful raising of children in our modern society depends upon an equal partnership between parents and school"
and that,
"In order to achieve this most cost effectively [we must] … appoint professional adult educators to facilitate partnership projects on the ground between schoolteachers and parents".
Their report, one year on, upon their 1993 national conference is an absolute eye-opener. There were 150 participants, 63 parents and 87 professionals, and through exhibitions, drama, discussions and the like, they addressed vital questions like accrediting parents in the classroom—giving them a right by qualification to be there—parent-school partnerships, which is vitally important as an idea and as a practice, and the problem

1521
of the school gate. Just reading about the conference itself, it must have been absolutely marvellous fun. The "School Gate" was one of their topics, done as a dramatic presentation with music. One of the parents, in the course of this presentation, actually sings. I shall not inflict on your Lordships the tune, but the words went like this:
"I'm standing here and thinking Outside the old school gate.
I'm standing here and thinking While I watch and wait.
I'm standing here and thinking, 'What's happening in there?'
How can I get to find out?
How can I get to share?"
My only reservation about that otherwise splendid conference is that, if the pictures in the report are an accurate representation, there were hardly any men among the participants. There are many of us who believe that parenting, wherever possible, should be a partnership of a father and a mother. It takes two to tango.
But this is the way forward; this is the positive picture of partnership; this is what we owe to our children. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, let us build on success like that lovely occasion which happened this morning at BAFTA when the Playgroup Association became the Preschool Learning Alliance. For those of us who were there I can only say that your Lordships would envy us when we saw 26 tiny tots under five standing on a stage and singing, "Twinkle, twinkle, little star". I think that had your Lordships been there you would agree with me, albeit ungrammatically, that, "Where there's kids, there's hope".
4.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I very much welcome this debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Judging by its popularity, he has touched a chord among your Lordships, and I am not surprised, because I think the debate is tailor-made—if I may say so—for your Lordships' House, and I think that has been evident today. I share the disappointment of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that noble Lords had only three minutes to speak, but that was not a government decision, it was a Cross-Bench decision. There could not be a more fitting person than the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to initiate the debate, with his knowledge and insight, his work in the International Year of the Family, his vice-chairmanship of the all party group on parenting, and his setting up of the parenting forum.
The noble Lord stressed the importance of supporting inexperienced parents, and the Government heartily agree that we should. The problem with being a parent is that experience is only gained when you see the results 20 or 30 years later when it is too late, at least for women, to have another attempt at the job. I think that it was Ogden Nash who wrote:
"Children aren't happy with nothing to ignore, and that's what parents were created for".
1522
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, suggested that what children need is not a parent but "good enough" parenting. I am encouraged by that, because I could not define a perfect parent or indeed a perfect child, and the enormous social changes that have taken place make being a parent, let alone a perfect parent, even more difficult, especially as many live away from their families and feel isolated. I agree with the noble Lord, and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, that it is the first few years of life that are the most important. A year ago the Government introduced their new policy entitled Changing Childbirth. At the very beginning of new life, it encourages parents to make choices as to how and where their baby will be born. It gives them greater control over the care they receive, and urges professionals not to take over the event, but to enable, support and encourage parents rather than assume all responsibility.
It is said that every mother remembers her midwife, but many also remember their health visitor. The Government are unstinting in their support for young parents, and through the NHS employs nearly 12,000 health visitors who give a valuable and valued service to young families. No other country has specially trained nurses committed to health promotion and family support. They are the largest professional group working with parents of young children, and can achieve remarkable results, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, I think, knows, for his daughter is one.
My noble friend Lord Brentford mentioned the need to educate parents very early on, and the child development project, devised by Dr. Walter Barker in Bristol, is doing just that. Using a cartoon format, health visitors give advice on parenting to the least advantaged young families, some of whom have a history of deprivation and abuse stretching back through generations. There is no doubt that abused children are more likely to inflict abuse on their children. Breaking that cycle is some of the most challenging work undertaken by health visitors. But of course they visit not just young parents in deprived areas, but parents generally.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, stressed the importance of pre-school or nursery education, and I was delighted to hear the noble Viscount's views about the event you attended this morning. I am just jealous that I was not there. Your Lordships will be aware that the Prime Minister has announced the Government's commitment to provide nursery education for all four year-olds. That is not just a government edict, but part of a determined effort to enable parents, by their own involvement, to give their children the best education.
The Government share the views of many of your Lordships today that good education is not prescribed by governments or teachers. It is a partnership which involves parents, teachers, local authorities, the Government, and, as my noble friend Lord Caldecote reminded us, voluntary outreach schemes, employers and, above all, the children. It fosters that through PTAs, parent governors, strengthening parent choice, publishing league tables, encouraging grant-maintained schools, and giving information, choice and responsibility, as codified in the Parent's Charter. I very

1523
much agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester that all that change cannot be brought about in 10 or 15 years. It will take 25 years or more as people see the benefits.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Northesk for his considered contribution to the debate. As he emphasised, there is now greater flexibility for schools beyond the core curriculum. While parenting classes are not themselves part of the national curriculum, as my noble friend Lord Elton, I think, would wish, secondary schools must provide sex education which encourages values, and an appreciation of the responsibilities of family life and what it means to become a parent.
My noble friend Baroness Faithfull is right that the exclusion of a pupil is a very serious step for any school to take. It should always be a last resort. Guidance issued by the Department for Education in May 1994 made that very clear. Information on levels of permanent exclusion from schools is being collected through a study of provision for pupils out of school, commissioned by the Department for Education. The study is being carried out by the research centre of Christchurch College, Canterbury.
As sponsor Minister for Plymouth, I have recently visited Highfield School in one of the least well-off parts of the city where the dockyards are closed, unemployment is high and truancy is rampant. In three years, the head teacher, Mrs. Farrington, has transformed the school. When she first arrived there were more children standing in the corridor than sitting in the classroom. That has gone, and she and her team have reduced the absence rate by 20 per cent. in three years. It can be done, as my noble friend Lord Caldecote, said. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will be encouraged that the Government are currently supporting £14 million of expenditure for local schemes to reduce truancy. Those include Truancy Watch where community involvement is a vital part of the scheme. In Stoke-on-Trent juvenile arrests in school hours were halved over the first four months of the scheme being introduced.
As my noble friend Lord Elton is so well aware, with all the work that he has undertaken on school discipline—I should like to pay a tribute to him for that report—tackling truancy is important as it can lead to criminal behaviour. My noble friend Lord Gisborough gave us a very thoughtful speech concerning juvenile crime. The Government's policy is rightly to divert young people away from crime and, as far as possible, to deal with those who do offend by cautioning and community sentencing. For the majority of youngsters, those measures have been successful. But what about, for example, the 13 and 14 year-old boys who commit numerous burglaries and car thefts and for whom the full range of community penalties has failed? It is for that small group of persistent young offenders that the Government have introduced the new secure training order.
Perhaps I may assure the noble Lord, Lord Acton, that the Government have carried out research to estimate the number of places which would be required for persistent juvenile offenders targeted by the secure training order. Those juvenile offenders will be those for
1524
whom community supervision has failed, but the order is not a substitute for other approaches. It will merely fill a gap in court powers.
The Government also initiate research. Through the Health of the Nation they set targets to reduce unwanted pregnancies. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, that diet is also part of that strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, may be interested to know that funding is also available through the Department for Education's GEST programme to support the in-service training of teachers in relationship education. We are supporting a Relate project to develop a training programme for teachers in relationship education.
A constant theme of the International Year of the Family was the need for better education, information and advice on parenting issues. My noble friend Lord Elton will be pleased to hear that the parenting initiative announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health is designed to examine and evaluate the support available to a wide range of families and parents who feel that they need help with bringing up their children. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that we are investing in success; £300,000 has been made immediately available to support the best ideas arising from the international year. In the longer-term, a research theme is being developed with grants of £2.5 million over five years.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford referred to voluntary organisations, as did many of your Lordships. The Government support the work of voluntary organisations such as Home-Start, which receives almost £400,000 per year through the family support initiative and other grants. Family organisations receive some £5 million directly from the Government but voluntary organisations need to convince local authorities of their effectiveness in order to secure further funding.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon highlighted some imaginative voluntary schemes. Indeed, we are funding small church groups and in the field of marriage guidance we have funded National Family Mediation, Relate and One Plus One. There are also projects for ethnic minority families under particular stress and we are investing in those.
The Family Forum, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will draw together all those involved in the provision of support and education for parents in order to ensure that they collaborate as effectively as possible to provide the best possible service to parents.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull and the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady Warnock, mentioned the co-ordination of government and said that it could be better done. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has been appointed Minister for the Family. No one could be more energetic or committed in her role. Recently, the Secretary of State announced that the Government are strengthening the co-ordination of policy by holding discussions on family issues at Cabinet level on a regular basis. She is also working closely with voluntary organisations and including them in her debates.

1525
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that life for parents is more difficult. That was mentioned by many noble Lords today. We used to talk about "child rearing" but now we call it "parenting", and it is much harder. Children are better educated, more aware, more street-wise, less compliant and less respectful. While teaching them right from wrong, we have to make the case and not just lay down our law. That is challenging. The Government would delude themselves if they believed that they had an overriding impact on society. Society evolves, changed by events and attitudes.
The vast majority of young people grow out of behaving badly and become honest, law-abiding, caring people. Governments, like parents, simply have to cope and it is futile to try to legislate for Utopia. We would never begin to agree on what is a good society. And if we ever did, society would have changed and our deliberations would have been fruitless.
But what young people give today is openness. They are less secretive and that makes everything much easier for children, parents, helpers, local authorities and governments. If we can listen to young people they will listen to us. Trust them and they will show responsibility; love them and they will love their neighbours. If we could live up to their ideals, we would be a better society and a finer country in a cared-for world.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for saying so many interesting things in such a short time and for being such good timekeepers. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, is equally grateful.
I regret that the Minister was not brave enough to tackle the issue which was raised by so many speakers; that of better co-ordination between the departments of state in whose hands the fate of children lie. That is a subject to which we must continually return until we find a solution, recognising that it is a difficult problem but one that must be solved in the interests of children.
It was encouraging to count 16 specific success stories referred to by your Lordships. They prove the point I made at the beginning; that there are success stories out there and that they ought to be backed. It is a good business principle to follow your successes. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

The Civil Service
4.55 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydalerose to call attention to the role of the Civil Service; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I cannot claim that the topic selected for this debate is the most glamourous that can be devised. However, it is important and I am most grateful for the impressive list of speakers. So impressive is it that I was tempted to speak very briefly and then to sit back and listen. It was a temptation that I decided to resist.
1526
From a plethora of documents I pick out the Government's White Paper of last July, the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee of another place and the White Paper which the Government slipped out last Thursday with all the fanfare of a reply to an arranged Question for Written Answer. I believe that some of the Government's conclusions may have to be looked at afresh when we have the Scott and possibly the Nolan reports. And so far we have had only the most sketchy outline of what is to happen to the Diplomatic Service, a matter on which the recent White Paper was totally silent. The White Papers, incidentally, have the slight disadvantage of being printed on glossy paper, which makes them quite difficult to read in certain lights.
I am not against change and I recognise that the service cannot be exempt from a share in the mistakes and failures of our post-war history. There are legitimate criticism which, no doubt, we shall hear as the debate proceeds. But when I sat on the Fulton Committee, for instance, I found that the Civil Service was one institution in this country which commanded respect elsewhere, even in France. My theme tonight is to ask whether, notwithstanding all the fine words in the White Papers, the changes already made and those in prospect may be going too far in risking the loss of some of the virtues of the service. I have in mind integrity, loyalty, political impartiality and objectivity, and an ability to respect confidences.
In the time available I shall concentrate on just two topics out of many. The first is the management and provision of services by the executive agencies set up under the Next Steps programme. The second is the support of Ministers on issues of policy.
Nearly two thirds of the Civil Service now work in the executive agencies, if one includes the executive structures of the two revenue departments. Each of them has its fashionable key performance targets and is run by a chief executive. The Government, for some reason, seem especially proud of the fact that a majority of those chief executives come from outside the Civil Service. Last December, we had a weighty report extolling the virtues of these new creations and reminding us that between them they had won no fewer than 30 charter marks. The concept found favour with the Commons Select Committee, so it is perhaps churlish to harbour any reservations.
I wonder whether the recent discussions about the Prison Service and, notwithstanding all the explanations, the doubts which many of us still have about the blurring of responsibilities at the top, may prove to be a foretaste of the need to revise our traditional notions of ministerial responsibility to Parliament.
I have time to touch on only a couple of other aspects. The first is the issue of financial probity. I believe that the Welsh Development Agency is not technically a Next Steps body and I shall not dwell on its lamentable record. But it strikes me that the recent White Paper is perhaps a shade over-complacent in ruling out any possible connection between the upheaval in the service and the report of the Public Accounts Committee that it had come across a number of serious failures in

1527
administrative and financial systems which represented a departure from the standards of public conduct established over the past 140 years.
If there is no conceivable cause for concern, I wonder why the White Paper announced that a new handbook would be issued to all agency chief executives setting out the rules on conduct and financial propriety. The Comptroller and Auditor General, in his evidence to the Select Committee, went further and urged that there should always be discussion with a new chief executive on those issues before he took up his post, and not just on what contribution his expertise would bring. I ask whether that is to be done.
My second point in that context is that one of the main aims of the Northcote-Trevelyan report was to mitigate the evils which resulted from a fragmented service. The theory of a uniform service was still alive at the time of Fulton but now it seems to have gone and instead we have the vision of a federal structure—ominous words, those—of autonomous units. Some of those brought in from outside have difficulty in recognising that they are civil servants. I wonder what will happen over the years to any concept of a public service ethos and just where loyalty will lie.
There may also be some rather strange practical consequences. With delegated powers of settling pay, two civil servants doing strictly comparable jobs may receive quite different rates of salary, something that has just been condemned roundly by the Audit Commission in respect of local government. I know that we cannot put the clock back but there are real dangers. When the Minister responds, I wonder whether he will be able to give us any words of comfort.
I turn to my second main theme—helping Ministers on the development and implementation of policy which I believe, unlike the Home Secretary, cannot be altogether separated. What is now in prospect is a senior Civil Service of some 3,500 individuals down to the present Grade 5, whatever that may be, including all agency chief executives. The inclusion of those executives prompts me to ask whether, when they complete their contracts, they will be subject to the normal restrictions on civil servants taking other jobs when leaving—the two-year moratorium and so on—and if so, whether they are warned about that at the outset.
As I understand it, before any single vacancy among those 3,500 is filled, the question of whether to advertise, either in the service or by full open competition, will have to be considered. It is perhaps not altogether surprising that the first advertisement for a permanent secretary post has appeared, and that in Mr. Portillo's department. Contracts are to be introduced for all 3,500, normally for an indefinite term but with specified periods of notice. There is to be a single pay scale for all permanent secretaries, the individual's position within that range being settled by a remuneration committee which will include outside members.
As I see it, the problem is that there is more to work of that kind than measurable management skills. We are talking of people who, on what has happened hitherto, have devoted a career to administration and to gaining
1528
experience of the unique relationship between the Executive and the legislature, with a strong service-wide ethic, and trained to tender independent advice, whether palatable or not, to governments of any political complexion. The July White Paper says that the contracts will put those people more on a par with their counterparts in other walks of live. But there are not any counterparts in other walks of live. There is a special art of government, so I believe, which cannot be acquired overnight, as the Clinton Administration found out. There is a need for a profession, as someone put it, which is able to translate the language of politics into the language of government. I believe that deeply, but I do not get much sense of it from the two White Papers. Behind all the words, they make one wonder whether any place is to be left for the public service ethic in a world of contracting-out and market testing.
I ask your Lordships to consider whether someone brought in from outside, with a business ethic and on a short-term contract, could be counted on to act, as the relevant Permanent Secretary acted, in setting down his objections to the Pergau Dam project, which was something by no means without precedent. I do just wonder.
On a practical point, the prospect that the number of posts at the top will be reduced as the service shrinks and that some of that reduced number of posts will be filled from outside serves only to diminish the attractiveness of the service for the prospective bright young entrant.
As regards pay, there is already a great deal of scepticism about performance-related pay for people of lesser ranks. I am baffled to know what are the criteria for a permanent secretary. Does he score a mark every time he prevents his Minister doing something foolish and lose one every time he fails to do so? Or possibly, is it the other way round? How on earth is the remuneration committee to know?
One feature of the latest White Paper is to be applauded; that is, the decision to introduce a code of ethics with a right of appeal. There may be arguments about the contents of the code and the appeal procedure but I have gradually come round to the view that the case for some sort of code is indeed made out.
I am not so sure about the need for legislation giving statutory backing to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, presumably including diplomats. In the recent White Paper the Government suggest that there is something to be said for legislation if it can be based on a cross-party consensus. It is interesting that they are talking of consulting the other parties on that fairly narrow issue when, as far as I know, no initiative was taken by way of cross-party consultation on the drastic changes already decided by the Government without even seeking a parliamentary debate.
My time is nearly up. I just wish to say that if things go on as now proposed and if, in a couple of years, a bright young man were to ask me whether I should recommend his joining the service as a career, I fear that having first enjoined him to have a care about talking of anything so old-fashioned as a career, for the first time I should tell him to hesitate for a very long time indeed and to consider carefully other possibilities

1529
before joining the service which I was proud to serve for the whole of my working life. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for bringing this subject before it this afternoon. Indeed I believe that the House will be grateful to him in a longer-term sense for his most notable contributions to our deliberations. I am especially grateful to him for special services rendered nearly 30 years ago.
As the noble Lord said, there is a notable list of participants in the debate, although there are some notable categories of absence. For example, there is no noble Lord present, whose experience is primarily a business experience, to tell us about the virtues of business values and business practices in the Civil Service; nor is there a very strong what I would call "mainstream" Conservative representation among today's speakers. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, is to speak. But, sparkling a speaker though the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, may be, I do not believe that he exactly represents the mainstream governing Conservative tradition.
However, we are very rich in Permanent Secretaries. The debate is almost a reunion to me. I say that because, among the speakers today, there are no fewer than three Permanent Secretaries who—and I am not sure how to put this: if I say, "Who served me", I would regard that as being presumptuous; if I say, "Who I served with", that would not be exactly true because that would imply that I was a Permanent Secretary which, alas, I am not; but if I say, "Under whom I served", that would not be true either. However, in making a farewell speech once to a very powerful and authoritative Permanent Secretary—not, I should add, a Permanent Secretary in your Lordships' House—I said, as a joke, that I had assembled the four Home Secretaries who had served under Sir Charles.
It is the case that there are three speakers with whom, whatever the appropriate word is, I served as a Minister when they were Permanent Secretaries. There is a fourth from another branch of the service who I think once believed that I was due to come to him as Secretary of State—indeed, I would have done so had the electorate not decided otherwise—who braced himself for the experience. As a result of that, I have been left with an almost unalloyed admiration for the British higher Civil Service as it has evolved and developed. It has certainly not been static in the 140 years since the Northcote-Trevelyan report and the 120 years since it was implemented.
Perhaps some of the virtues of the higher Civil Service have been what are called "mandarin virtues". But the field of recruitment has been by no means exclusive. Of the three most outstanding Permanent Secretaries whom I had, two of them were without the benefit of Oxbridge. Indeed, one of them was a boy entrant into the Civil Service but, nonetheless, he became a distinguished Permanent Secretary. I also believe that they maintained genuine political
1530
impartiality. For example, when my experience with working in the Civil Service began in 1964, I believe that, on the whole, senior civil servants welcomed the change of government. That was not because of any ideological prejudice, but because they thought that 13 years was long enough—so, indeed, it was; and longer is more than enough—for the healthy working of the system. But, I should say that they maintained their impartiality by becoming fairly quickly disenchanted with the deficiencies of the new government, although certainly not to the extent of ceasing to do their best for us.
Similarly, I never found that civil servants wanted to dominate Ministers and do their job for them. If a Minister cannot make up his mind, then the civil servants will have to move in, fill the vacuum and provide him with some sort of makeshift policy. But, in my view, high quality officials always prefer a strong Minister to a weak one. They have a very shrewd conviction that someone who is putty in the hands of the department, will be putty in the hands of the Cabinet and will be pushed around by the House of Commons with the general result of low standing and low morale for the whole department.
I believe that what senior civil servants want—and rightly so—is a Minister who will treat them with respect and courtesy and give rational consideration to their arguments. But if the decision goes against them at the end of the day, they will nearly always accept it and carry out the contrary decision with loyalty and goodwill.
Just so that it will not be thought that I am painting too idealised a picture, I should stress that on about two occasions I received bad advice on major policy issues. However, it was my fault for taking that advice. When I set those two occasions against the innumerable ones on which I received good advice, it is as nothing in the balance.
I have been talking about 25 years ago. But is the position as rosy today? I am afraid that I do not think so. Civil Service morale is pretty poor. The prestige of being a high functionary has not fallen as much as that of being a Minister or an MP; but it is not what it was. As the quality of Ministers has gone down, so the dependence of officials upon them has become greater. In my view, they have become more dependent on Ministers for their promotions, for their honours and even, as may now be the case, for the renewal of their contracts. Yet it is essential that officials should speak fearlessly and forthrightly at times to Ministers. There is a danger of creating a web of caution and sycophancy.
Equally, the field of the operations of civil servants has been invaded by quangos, by businessmen brought in to do jobs that have hitherto been performed by officials—with precious little evidence that they do it better—and there are also too many junior Ministers who can often get in the way of the proper relationship between the Secretary of State and his senior officials. It is extraordinary that, as the functions of government departments and the number of their senior officials are cut down, so the number of junior Ministers is at a record level. I suppose that it is thought to be the only way of stopping their intriguing on the Back-Benches.

1531
All that, combined with a Government-encouraged climate which increasingly worships Mammon rather than respects public service, gives me serious worry about the ability of a battered Civil Service to retain its drawing power for high quality applicants. I earlier cited two exceptional people who did not need Oxbridge to get to the top of the Civil Service. Nonetheless, it is the case that those universities with their traditional encouragement of articulateness, both on paper and in speech, and emphasis upon critical methods of thought rather than purely specialised knowledge should remain important reservoirs of recruitment for the Civil Service.
However, to cite a by no means wholly irrelevant parallel, the percentage of Oxford graduates going into teaching has fallen from 30 per cent. before the war, to 8 per cent. 20 years ago to 2 per cent. today. That has not been good for teaching and I doubt whether that has been good for the University of Oxford. But the scissors effect of the lure of Mammon and a battering of the prestige of teaching has done the deadly work. The numbers involved in entry to the higher Civil Service have always been much smaller, but I could see the same process—certainly upon the highest quality of potential recruits—operating there.
Unless this Government, or a future government, take early action to restore the quality and the morale of the Civil Service, I see the dismal prospect of our weakening what has been one of Britain's most famous world assets, and in the name of what?—of introducing business values and business methods into the public service. At least since the end of the 19th century Britain, to be blunt, has not been particularly good at business. Such success as we have achieved has mostly come from refugees or other immigrants. But what Britain has been particularly good at has been maintaining a Civil Service which has been outstanding throughout the world. Cannot we have some sense of proportion and of historical perspective?
5.21 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, it is wholly appropriate that this important debate should be introduced by a distinguished, retired civil servant with an outstanding record of service to our country. I am glad that he started his speech by saying that we can be justly proud that we have a Civil Service which is able, loyal, impartial and wholly incorruptible. Would it not be nice if that could be said of all other countries in the world?
As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has just said, there is normally a strong bond of trust and confidence between the civil servant who advises on policy and the Minister who has to make decisions. The civil servant is the expert. He puts the pros and cons of a particular course of action before Ministers, and the effect that a particular course will have on other activities. The Minister is the amateur. He has to make up his mind what course to take having received the advice, and above all of course, if he is wise, he has to ask himself: can I get this policy accepted in Parliament and will it be regarded as fair and reasonable by the
1532
public? The relationship between Ministers and officials is the hallmark of our system of government. It serves us well. It provides for both innovation and continuity.
I remember very well, as a young, very green Minister, in 1970, being sent to the then Department of Health and Social Security. It was thought by the pundits that the Conservatives would lose that election. Therefore I was agreeably surprised when I reached that department to find the amount of work that civil servants had done on what Conservatives had been saying in Opposition. The papers were prepared for us on day one. That, I think, is a remarkable tribute to the way in which our Civil Service operates.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, mentioned executive agencies. I have also been asking myself the question: how do these fit in with the traditional Civil Service? I am glad that the Government have made clear in successive White Papers that the arrangements for policy formation will remain unaltered and that the executive agencies will deal with administration. They have performance targets. I believe their work has sharpened administration in our country. I believe that they are more responsive now to those they serve and that they provide better value for money. All this is of course in keeping with the Citizen's Charter.
Some doubts were expressed when agencies were first introduced whether there would be a dilution of parliamentary accountability. I think one only has to look at the recent troubles within the Child Support Agency to see that Parliament has adequate means of giving Ministers a rough ride if it feels that that is necessary, and of persuading Ministers that they should change course. In some of the other agencies, for example those which pay out social security benefits or those which collect taxes, there is little difference in practice as regards parliamentary accountability. It was always the case in the old days that a Member of Parliament who had a constituent with a grievance would take up that case with the local social security office or the local inspector of taxes, where he would normally receive satisfactory redress. That still obtains today. However, the Member of Parliament still of course has the all-important reserve power in that if he is dissatisfied with the answer he is given from the agency, he can reserve the right to take up the matter with the Minister concerned or to raise it on the Floor of the House of Commons.
There has been a good deal of criticism lately of the role of quangos as distinct from elected bodies, such as local authorities. I believe that local authorities have an important role in the government of our country. They are a link in the democratic process. They give local people opportunities to serve their community and to gain experience about the way government works. However, elected councillors do not guarantee good administration or a response to the needs and wishes of people. All your Lordships, I am sure, will recollect cases of oppressive regimes running council house estates. One of the many great advantages of the sale of council houses is that one can now paint one's own front door the colour that suits one and not the colour that suits the local council.

1533
Another example is the local management of schools. We now have a situation where governors, parents and teachers are able to make decisions based on their local knowledge. I suggest to your Lordships that this is a better arrangement than having to refer decisions to slow moving county council bureaucracy. I suggest that there is a case for quangos and for bodies that are appointed and not directly elected to assist in administration in an increasingly complex society. What really matters is whether these bodies are effectively accountable. Do they have clear terms of reference? Do they have performance targets? If they do, it seems to me that they have a valuable function to perform.
I now turn to the more controversial area of the National Health Service. There is criticism of National Health Service trusts and of GP fund-holding. I realise that these are controversial matters, but I do not believe that they would have developed to the extent that they have unless there was a popular demand for them. I believe that the Government deserve credit for the reforms in the Civil Service which have been introduced in recent years. I believe equally that the Civil Service has nothing to fear from these reforms. It enables it, in my view, to give more attention to helping Ministers to get policies right for the benefit of the community. This is the job that only our Civil Service can do, and on the whole it does it superbly well.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I, too, wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on introducing not an insignificant debate, as he seemed to imply at the outset, but a rather important one. Like him, in general I agree with paragraph 1.1 of what the Government say in the July White Paper. They state that our Civil Service has:
"a high reputation, nationally and internationally"—
as the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said, even in France—
"for its standards of integrity, impartiality and loyal service to the Government of the day".
However, the fact that there have been two White Papers in six months and a report of an important Select Committee in another place indicates that there are grounds for concern, which I share, that standards are in serious danger of deterioration. There is a danger of the erosion of the very ethos of the Civil Service, and the qualities of which we are rightly proud.
A survey of more than 4,000 civil servants, referred to in paragraph 84 of the Select Committee report, found exactly that; namely:
"a belief that the public service ethos is being eroded".
I have two major concerns. The first is the devolution to agencies or quangos. Today 20 per cent. of officials are based in those non-departmental agencies. Last April they numbered 110,200, according to a Written Answer which I received yesterday, and at the same date there were 533,000 civil servants in the Civil Service.
My second concern is the effect of 15 years of single party government on the Civil Service we care so much about.
1534
On the first point, I do not necessarily complain about the transfer to quangos. Indeed, I welcome the point made in paragraph 3.9 of the January White Paper about the improvement in value for money. That is very important. But my concern arises in relation to issues raised by probably the most important all-party Select Committee—which I had the honour to chair myself—the Public Accounts Committee. Robert Sheldon, my successor as Chairman, who has been chairman for 11 years and therefore has great experience, referred in evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee to the eighth report of the Public Accounts Committee issued last year. That was a devastating report. It covered various non-departmental bodies, including the Welsh National Development Agency and the Wessex Water Authority.
Much worse was what he said in replying to questions from the Select Committee. In reply to question 1576 on page 92 of the report he said that he found a common thread running through recent examples. That has to be worrying, coming from an all-party Select Committee. There was no disagreement in that committee about the point that Robert Sheldon made.
I am pleased that, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said, the Government have at last recognised that there is a serious problem. David Hunt, the Minister concerned, will announce new guidance on ethics for quango members. Indeed, there is a possibility of a new code for civil servants, possibly having statutory status. I do not know whether statutory status will be necessary, but Mr. Hunt spoke of the possibility of setting up the code of practice jointly with the Opposition. I hope that my noble friends will co-operate and work to find an appropriate code which can work effectively. If it is not agreed between the three major parties, it will not work effectively.
My next major anxiety concerns the effect of 15 years of single-party government. Sir Robin Butler himself conceded (in paragraph 81 of the Select Committee report) that the length of time one party has been in office might give rise to scepticism about continuing impartiality. There is the possibility of further evidence of falling standards when the results of the Nolan and Scott inquiries are published.
Jim Plowden, the former head of the Central Policy Review Staff, has said that a number of Ministers are reluctant to entertain unfavourable advice and, as a consequence, officials are reluctant to tender it. That is understandable. Apparently junior Ministers are asking civil servants to draft political speeches. Perhaps the civil servants can draft them better than the Ministers, but it cannot be right for civil servants to accept that approach.
We are told that civil servants can appeal to Sir Robin Butler. There has been only one appeal in nine years. That is hardly surprising. I regret to say—because I like Sir Robin—that I fear that he has compromised himself. He did so especially by agreeing to investigate charges against Ministers at the request of the Prime Minister. He should have refused. I am not sure to whom he could have appealed, but he should have refused to carry out such an investigation. That is one of the ways in which he compromised himself.

1535
Elizabeth Symons, General Secretary of the First Division Association, told the Select Committee that civil servants fear that if they appeal they will be singled out and pilloried by Ministers. That is not a matter that we can laugh away. It is very important. I therefore welcome paragraph 2.10 of the January White Paper which indicates that the Government now propose, as the Select Committee recommended, to establish an independent appeal procedure to Civil Service commissioners. I am sure that that is right and I am delighted that that is to happen.
Despite my welcome for the White Paper, it still does not deal with the major issue raised by Vernon Bogdanor, a very respected Reader in government at Oxford, published in the Independent last Wednesday and raised by many others in recent times. That question is, where does ministerial responsibility lie? For example, following the escapes from Parkhurst the present Home Secretary said that he is responsible to Parliament for policy but not for operational matters.
I agree that it would be a nonsense if every time a prisoner escaped the Home Secretary had to resign. That would not be sensible. However, Vernon Bogdanor quoted Sir John Woodcock's report on Whitemoor prison:
"'There exists at all levels within the service some confusion as to the respective roles of ministers, the agency headquarters and individual prison governors'. Nor is it surprising that he said there was difficulty in determining what was an operational matter and what was policy".
The White Paper does not dispel that confusion between policy and operational matters. I hope that the Minister will look at that question, and consider doing so this evening. I see him smiling. He obviously has it in his speech already. Therefore, I hope he will do so because it is not unimportant.
I conclude by repeating that I have great respect for our civil servants—as every other speaker has said in the debate so far—and their standards, which are high in comparison with most other civil services throughout the world. However, it is vital that we should be vigilant to prevent slippage of the kind to which I have referred. With those reservations, I welcome the White Papers as a move in the right direction.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I should like to join with those who have congratulated the noble Lord—and my former master—Lord Allen of Abbeydale, on initiating this debate on the role of the Civil Service.
In a memorandum of guidance issued in December 1987 by the then head of the Home Civil Service (and wild horses would not drag his name from my lips) it was stated that:
"The Civil Service is there to provide the Government of the day with advice on the formulation of policies, to assist in carrying out decisions, and to manage and deliver the services for which the Government is responsible … Civil servants should conduct themselves in such a way as to deserve and retain the confidence of Minister … it is the duty of a civil servant to make available to the Minister all the [relevant] information and experience at his disposal … and to give to the Minister honest and impartial advice, without fear or favour, and whether the advice accords with the Minister's view or not …"
1536
Finally, as my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead (who is also a former mas said:
"When the Minister has taken ecision, it is the duty of civil servants loyally to carry out tha ecision with precisely the same energy and good will whether they agree with it or not".
Nothing has happened since December 1987 to invalidate those words. Indeed, I was encouraged to see that those principles inform the draft code of conduct recently formulated by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in another place and by the Government in their response to that Select Committee.
I am not absolutely convinced that there is a need for a new code. However, I have no objection to producing a code which encapsulates what is already implicitly, if not explicitly, in existing guidance of one kind or another. I do not believe that it is necessary to give the proposed code of conduct the force of legislation. Indeed, given the difficulty of changing a statute once it is on the book, that might make it more difficult to adjust the code to meet changing conditions. Perhaps such a code could be scheduled to an Act, rather like the Highway Code is scheduled to the Road Traffic Act.
I wish to comment on only one aspect of the report's provisions. It is an issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, referred. It relates to the provision for appeals to the First Civil Service Commissioner. The grounds of appeal now proposed, covering as they do not only issues of conscience but any requirement to act in a manner inconsistent with the code, are too wide and are likely to make the recourse to appeal more customary and more frequent than it need be.
I am also doubtful about the need for making the First Civil Service Commissioner the appellate authority. Such matters are best dealt with within the internal framework of the system, including recourse in the final analysis to the head of the Home Civil Service. If the objection to that procedure is that a civil servant might hesitate to resort to it for fear of possible damage to his prospects for future advancement, I am not persuaded that appeal to the First Civil Service Commissioner would be any less intimidating or less likely to affect departmental views on the appellant's fitness for promotion. I fear that appeal to an external authority could undermine the confidence between Ministers and civil servants on which the relationship depends.
I welcome the reaffirmation by the Government of their commitment to the maintenance of a permanent Civil Service based on the values of integrity, political impartiality, objectiveness, selection and promotion on merit, and accountability through Ministers to Parliament. Those values have stood the country in good stead for many years and are as relevant and important to public life and good government today as they have ever been.
I do not see any sign that the commitment of civil servants to these values has been compromised by the fact that one party has been in government for 15 years. I have no doubt whatever that if there were to be a change of party in government at the next general election, incoming Ministers would find a Civil Service which would serve them as faithfully, impartially and loyally as it has served the present Government and their predecessors.

1537
However, if the values which I have referred are to be maintained it is not ugh just to reaffirm them, or even to entrench them in vodes of conduct. They have to be defended and protected in deed as well as in words. And I begin to share the apprehensions of those who fear that some of the management changes which the Government have been making, and indeed the sheer volume and pace of change in recent years may, perhaps unintentionally, put the maintenance of those values at risk.
I have supported the principle of executive agencies under the Next Steps proposals; indeed, when working in government I worked hard to bring about their adoption. But the arrangement works most satisfactorily in areas of activity where there is little political content and therefore little risk of political controversy and damage to the relationships between Ministers and civil servants. In my view, it would be unwise to extend the agency principle to areas of activity where the process itself is a matter of high political interest and potential controversy. Murphy's law (I believe it is called) is relevant here: if something can go wrong, one day it will; and, as we have seen in the case of the Child Support Agency, when something goes badly wrong it brings the agency principle itself into disrepute and is liable to undermine confidence between Ministers and civil servants.
I could go into detail on various aspects of the changes which have been made, and their possibly difficult effect. But time is too short to allow me to do that. I shall simply say that the pace of management change—often major change—in the public service during the past 15 years has been intense and seemingly relentless. One change follows another almost before the first has been wholly carried through. I have no doubt that there is room—perhaps there will always be room—to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the public service. But the uncertainties and the disruption resulting from constant and unremitting change can have, over time, a deeply unsettling effect on morale in the public service.
As my noble friend Lord Allen pointed out, the decentralisation of responsibility for pay and grading carries the risk of fragmentation and of undermining the cohesiveness of the Civil Service and the sense of public service as an honourable vocation and a reputable profession.
Civil servants take pride in doing their jobs as well as they can as a matter of individual self-esteem and of pride in public service in the best sense. But against a background of restless change and disruption there is a danger that civil servants may come to feel like the man in A.E. Housman's poem:
"Oh, let me lie abed and rest.
What's to show for all my pain?
Ten thousand times I've done my best,
And all's to do again".
That feeling, exacerbated most recently by the sharp reductions in numbers at senior levels in the Treasury and elsewhere, is liable, I fear, to create a sense almost of despair which could drive increasing numbers of existing civil servants—I am sorry to say that they are
1538
usually the better ones—to seek employment elsewhere, and discourage the recruitment of the more able people upon whom the future of the public service depends.
In this situation the virtues and values of the public service as we have known it come under great strain. Like the dikes at Nijmegen, they might not be able wholly to withstand the pressures put upon them by the process of unremitting change, however strongly the Government believe in and reaffirm the importance of maintaining them. Once impaired, they become difficult to restore.
I share the hope that the Government will be sensitive to this danger. I believe that the public interest in the maintenance of a permanent Civil Service staffed by people of high quality and based on the values of integrity, impartiality and objectivity, would now be best served by a deliberate slowing down of the process of management change. No piece of machinery can give of its best if it is being radically overhauled all the time—particularly if it has to stay on the road while it is being overhauled.
The time has now come for a let up in the process of change: for a period of assimilation of the changes that have been introduced; for reaffirming and, what is more, re-establishing by deed as well as by word the virtues and values which have made the British Civil Service one of the best—perhaps the best—public service in the world; and for restoring the confidence between Ministers and civil servants—a two-way confidence—which is an indispensable foundation of the ability of civil servants to serve the Government of the day as they should do and as they wish to do, and of Ministers to get the best out of the civil servants who are responsible to them and who are keen to give the best service they can to the Government and to their country.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is many years since I had any direct responsibility for the Civil Service, and that arose because at that time the Civil Service was administered in the establishment division of the Treasury. I am afraid that my experience therefore antedates that of all the noble Lords who have so far addressed your Lordships. My diffidence is increased when I find my name among some of the most eminent public servants of our time, if not of any time. I join in the expression of thanks to my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
Since I shall be suggesting that there are some limitations which should be acknowledged to the role that the Civil Service can play, perhaps I may say at the outset that so far as my experience and knowledge goes our own Civil Service is by a considerable measure the best in the world.
The Northcote-Trevelyan reform brought in a middle class meritocracy; and that brought in, too, the middle-class virtues of probity and loyalty. As regards probity, at the most, the Pontings, the Pottingers and the Tisdalls are rare figures. The recent directive by Sir Robin Butler as to airfares, air vouchers and free travel shows that the austere standard of financial probity is being rigidly adhered to.

1539
As for loyalty, my only demur is on the question of leaks, of which there have been far too many recently. When the noble Viscount replies, I should like him to tell us, if he can, how many identified leaks there have been; how many of those have been investigated; what the investigation has shown—in other words whether the leaker has been identified—and, finally, what disciplinary action has been taken, where it has applied. That seems to me to be a matter of great importance. We have had two extremely damaging and worrying leaks in the past two days, but they are merely the last of a long series.
The next question which I believe your Lordships would wish to consider is whether we are suffering from over-government in Whitehall. The Brussels bureaucracy provides a dangerous and menacing warning. I say that, presuming myself to be a convinced European. There are several reasons why we have over-government from Whitehall. The first is the proliferation of numbers which is endemic in any bureaucracy, not only government. When I was a law officer, the department was scarcely, if at all, larger than when it was instituted at the end of the last century. Since then, it has increased a hundredfold. Part of that is due to taking over Northern Ireland, but it is a small part and is by no means an unusual feature of any department.
The second reason we have over-government is the doctrine that the gentleman in Whitehall really knows best. To a great extent he does know best. He can take a broader and longer vision than the individual who is affected by the decision. But there are limits to his knowledge. However skilfully the shoe is cobbled, it is only the wearer who can tell where it pinches. That is why we should apply the principle of subsidiarity, moving the decision as near as possible to the person affected by it. Perhaps I may draw attention to the Swiss constitution which embodies the principle of subsidiarity as part of its ethos.
The third reason I think we suffer from over-government is simply that the Civil Service is a necessary repository of power. As Acton tells us, all power tends to corrupt and the first sign of corruption is generally an itch for greater power. So we have some extraordinarily worrying developments. There were the repeated efforts by the Department for Education—four efforts consecutively—to intrude upon academic freedom. That was finally repelled by your Lordships.
The most striking example was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dean: the Child Support Act 1991. That is a major invasion of the magistrature by the bureaucracy. I think it is generally acknowledged that it has worked out disastrously for the citizen and disastrously for the Government.
What is the answer? I have no doubt that one answer is that we should restore the former function of the legislation committee of the Cabinet. I am certain that if that committee had, as part of its remit, to consider the drafting and constitution aspects of any measure, the Child Support Act would never have survived. It would have been referred back to the department. There must be other ways by which, through constant vigilance, we may repel the advance of bureaucracy at the expense,
1540
say, of the lay magistrature whose decision-making is close to the citizen. I commend to your Lordships the thought that the legislation committee could well be revived in its previous form.
I have come to the end of my time, but I want to raise the question of the regional dispersion of the Civil Service. I gave the noble Viscount notice of that; perhaps he can reply without my saying anything. I draw attention also to London weighting. I have made several suggestions which indicate some limitation on the role which the Civil Service can play. I do so without derogating in any way from my admiration for the way the Civil Service has functioned, particularly since the Northcote-Trevelyan reform.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, told us that he had thought of cutting his speech. He was right not to; his wisdom shone through, as it did to me as a junior Minister in the department of which he was the Permanent Under-Secretary 30 years ago. I was glad to take his advice, as I was that of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, on security. In view of what has been said, I trusted him implicitly to do the right thing in the defence of this country. A temporary civil servant would have been no use to me in those circumstances. Also reminiscing, two current PUSs were formerly my private secretaries. I am sure that their behaviour will be in the same tradition as that of PUSs in the past.
The happy conjunction of the publication of the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and this debate enables me to say, fitting in with what has been said, that the recommendation of the Select Committee that agency chief executives should be directly and personally accountable to Select Committees would be wrong. I am glad that the Government have rejected it. I am also happy to see the acceptance by the Government of the principles of an independent line of appeal to the Civil Service, despite the changes that have been made in the past. I think that that is right.
Some people may have been surprised when I appeared in court as an expert witness on the Ponting affair. I shall explain why. I would not want the man in my office, but on the Franks Committee we had recommended that it should not be a criminal offence to do what he did. It was on that precise point. If the matter had been better handled, I do not believe that the trouble would have arisen.
As to the Civil Service Code, there is sense in that, although I am by no means an expert and I should need to read it again. On the whole matter of the report and the changes that will take place, I hope that all junior Ministers—and there are far too many of them—read it when they come to office, together with the procedure for Ministers.
For three or four years I was a member of the committee of privy counsellors which vets (if that is the right word) civil servants, generals, admirals and air marshals who take jobs when they leave government service. It does a good job and there is no force of law behind it. There is no time to develop the point, but I believe that if senior civil servants have to go through

1541
that procedure their political lords and masters should go through the same sort of procedure if they take jobs too soon, in the same vein as those they had as civil servants. It would be difficult, but it is hard for civil servants to go one way and their lords and masters another.
On the relationships of civil servants to Ministers, I look forward to the Scott report. In the same respect, I read the book by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. His account of the Westland affair makes very interesting reading. It arose, it seems, because of the too personal attachment of civil servants to Ministers. The account is well worth reading. Regretfully, I missed the debate last week on prisons and the discussion on the division between policy and operational matters.
The White Paper states:
"The Government's view remains that Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the policy, administration and resources of their departments, including operational action, successes and mishaps, whatever the extent of delegation and whether they were personally involved or not".
I raise the point because over the weekend I was in the company of prison officers. The subject arose of the difference between policy and operational matters. One of the officers said that in his view the trouble at Everthorpe—there was, I suppose, an insurrection—was caused because home leave had been stopped as had going out to work. Both had been stopped so suddenly that the trouble that arose was not an operational matter. It arose because of policy changes emanating from the Home Office. I was also told that prisoners who are now unable to go on home leave from a Category D prison or out to work have to undergo risk assessments by the police but that the police do not have the necessary manpower for the task and that the Home Office had not dealt carefully with the issue. It had not dealt with the matter at all; it had not made sure that enough police were on hand.
I turn to the question of junior Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, is not in his place at the moment. When the noble Lord was Minister of State and I was Home Secretary, the matter arose of a chief constable whom I was to sack. I should have remembered that there are other noble Lords present who will remember the incident. Fortunately the man resigned, so the action was unnecessary. But we were girding our loins to do it and going through all the correct legal procedures. Somebody suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, should handle the matter and that I should not, because at the end of the day the man would have the right of appeal to me. I would have sacked him and would also have had to act in appellate fashion. I was firmly advised that there is only one god, and that is the Secretary of State. Ministers of State and junior Ministers have no authority at all.
I read in the paper from time to time that so-and-so is the Minister for prisons and so-and-so is the Minister for this, that and the other. It is a pure creation of the Secretary of State and the department. It has no legal force. Ministers, whether Secretaries of State or not, are very unwise when they stand at the Dispatch Box and
1542
say "My department this" and "My department the other". They will soon find out whose department it is. It shows an attitude of mind which is mistaken.
I want to raise one other matter. The report deals with the executive agencies. I am very interested in devolution of some government matters to the regions. Indeed in Northern Ireland there is a very efficient Civil Service. Education is very near the ground. Those who deal with it know the schools and universities. They are not distant things because government concerns 1½ million people. The Government have decided to beef up regional offices in Leeds and other places. The Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Employment, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Transport and the Home Office will be locating a senior member of staff in regional offices. I am glad to see that. In Leeds, where I am chairman of the South Leeds Groundwork Trust and temporarily national chairman of the foundation, I deal with the local officers who are absolutely first class. But to whom are they responsible? There is a Cabinet committee, I presume, which somehow co-ordinates activities. We have to be clear. I have here a list of all the responsibilities. I am glad that certain matters are being dealt with in the regions, but if questions are asked about the agencies, I hope that the responsibilities of the new regional offices will be included. I am told that they work quite well. There is a lot of sense in what they do.
Looking back, it is very easy to congratulate ourselves. When I first came back from the war, I taught at a grammar school. We were great ones for clapping each other in the morning, or clapping what the school had done. The French assistante leant over to me one morning and said, "This place will clap itself to death if it is not careful". So far as the Civil Service is concerned, we ought to be proud of it. In the period of 11 years during which I was a Minister civil servants served me well. They will continue to serve well in the future; of that I am sure. But the powers-that-be should listen to the advice offered in today's debate. Too much change is taking place, and if care is not taken a great deal will be lost in the doing.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hate to rise, but I remind your Lordships very gently that when the clock indicates nine minutes, we are actually in the tenth minute. We are running slightly behind schedule at the moment.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, the time limits and the excellent earlier speeches confine me to two propositions. My first is that, so long as we have our parliamentary democracy, the essential role of the Civil Service—though not how that role is discharged—should be unchanging; namely, to act both as a ballast and, if need be, an engine in a constitution which includes a volatile and increasingly powerful Executive, and a volatile and, until very recently, increasingly regimented legislature; a ballast and engine of permanent officers, duly subordinate to Ministers yet possessing sufficient independence, character, ability and experience to be able to advise, assist and to some extent influence those who are from time to time set

1543
above them. I quote, of course, the timeless verities of the Northcote-Trevelyan Report. Those verities extend from the Permanent Secretary advising the Minister to the youngest clerk in a local office caring for clients beyond the call of duty. On a personal note I relished all the many Ministers I served except one.
In order to perform its role effectively, the service must be self-confident. Something has gone far wrong when too many civil servants are furtive or apologetic about their occupation. Partly as a result of the service's loss of self-confidence, some of our fellow citizens have lost confidence in it.
I simply cannot fathom the Government's refusal to commission an independent attitude survey of its employees. As a result, we all have to rely on anecdotal evidence. Mine is uniformly depressing at all levels. Heaven knows, I am no supporter of navel gazing but anecdotes show deep anxieties. I beg the noble Viscount to come back to us with a more satisfactory response on this point.
As others have remarked, the service is also handicapped by being mucked about too much, too rapidly and too incestuously. We needed a weighty Royal Commission at work some years ago. I am in no way overlooking the Select Committee in another place, which has been admirably persistent. I find myself welcoming most of the words but only some of the proposed actions in the latest White Paper. There is a gap between the words and the actions—the almost total break-up of a unified service into hundreds of semi-autonomous agencies, each under its own chief executive. Some arm's length agencies and indeed quangos-yes; but not hundreds. It makes for a cat's cradle of lines of accountability, rather like the work of a clever idiot trying to map Tom Tiddler's ground. Will the noble Viscount draw that last point to the attention of one or two of his ministerial colleagues?
Will he also be kind enough to mention to the same colleagues that it is distressingly simple minded to seek to separate policy and operational matters? Does he agree that while the acts of conception and birth are separate, they are also intimately linked—at least to the extent that one informs the other. Does he further agree that there is an intimate link between concept (that is, policy) and implementation (that is, operational matters)? Will he confide in us the Government's definitions of "responsibility", "answerability" and "accountability"? The partial attempt in the White Paper, although not unfamiliar to me, falls below the level of acceptability in the new circumstances.
My second proposition is that it is the natural condition of any public service to be corrupt. If that is much less true in this country than in others, it is because for a long time now, but by no means time out of mind, our Civil Service has maintained high standards of probity. That has not come about by accident. High standards have persisted because they became deeply ingrained in the ethos of the service. That ethos was rapidly absorbed by new arrivals, whose very method of recruitment to the service—by open competition—set the tone. They soon learned from their elders what was expected of them. Indeed, until I left Whitehall, I continued to ask myself, "What would
1544
Bridges (my noble friend's father), Brook or Serpell have done in like circumstances?" The ethos was further safeguarded by the tradition that the service offered a lifetime's career. That is now largely disappearing. It had the merit of building a deep commitment to the service and to its reputation. To become set in one's ways is not an unmitigated evil, if the ways have virtue. Standards are now at risk.
For years I opposed a code of ethics as I saw no need for it. But I now see the need with piercing clarity, given the fragmentation of the service. As a result of this, staff will remain largely unexposed to the ethos, which in the past was taken for granted. So, as a fellow repentant, I welcome the Government's conversion to the need for a code. I welcome too the introduction of independent redress for those who find themselves pressed to depart from those established standards. That is particularly necessary with the disappearance for many of a right of appeal to a long-serving permanent secretary, who is in no doubt about what is properly required of civil servants.
Many of the new agencies will be headed by people who themselves have had little or no previous experience of public service. I surmise that there will be a muddling number of differing categories of civil or public servants in the future. Will the noble Viscount confirm that, despite the apparent muddle, it will be crystal clear to which categories the Civil Service code and Civil Service status will apply in terms of recruitment, conditions of service, pensionability and acceptable post-retirement work —a point touched on by my noble friend Lord Allen?
The Government's proposed code is too general. I believe that after further consultation it should be embodied in legislation. I am glad that the Government have an open mind on that.
Finally, the appointment of the new part-time first commissioner on an initial short contract will be vitally important, given his enlarged responsibilities. Will the noble Viscount be kind enough to provide assurances on two points? First, while of course being subject to ministerial approval, will the selection process be free from any ministerial influence? Secondly, does he agree that it is essential for the new guardian of the Civil Service ethic to have been long marinaded in the public service? The advertisement which I have refers only to experience with company boards or with the public sector. Nowhere in the advertisement is the term "public service" used. That is crucial. It is not a matter of semantics.
Muddle makes for complexity, which in turns breeds mistrust, for what cannot be readily understood is not readily trusted. Simplicity should be the aim. The Government have still to convince us that the latest White Paper will bring the service to the frontier of achieving it; ripe also for reunification, with ethos intact, when the present ministerial fever abates.
What we have witnessed so far is partly a bold leap into the future and partly a disorderly retreat into the unreformed past. Meanwhile, I salute with sympathetic

1545
admiration those at all levels of the service who continue to serve their country with such devotion and probity.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Croham: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for initiating this debate, and especially for the powerful way in which he opened it. I entirely agree with his remarks. I also welcome the proposals in the White Paper about a code of conduct, for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, has just given.
In particular, I like the proposal for a final avenue of appeal when doubts about conduct, legality and propriety occur. However, I would not expect that final avenue to be utilised any more frequently than the other avenue of appeal which already exists when improper decisions about spending have been made; namely, the exposure of the impropriety to the Comptroller and Auditor-General and thence to Parliament. That possibility is powerful enough to make it virtually unnecessary to invoke it. I believe that it is a much stronger safeguard in its relevant area than what is now proposed for the rest. It is vital that the new arrangements involving the role of the First Civil Service Commissioner should not be allowed to affect that longstanding safeguard. As regards that role, I myself would have thought it better to have given it to the Parliamentary Commissioner and not to a Civil Service commissioner.
The enhanced role and strengthening of the Civil Service Commission is one of the main features of the White Paper which came out last week. Provided that the person appointed as First Civil Service Commissioner is fully acceptable to all parties in Parliament his inclusion on the Senior Appointments Selection Committee should help to remove the suspicion that there could be party political bias in top appointments.
However, in my experience in the rare cases when Ministers have expressed strong views about candidates for posts, it has been more a question of personalities than about suspected party affiliations or sympathies. It would be a much cleverer Minister than most whom I have known who could detect whether their senior civil servants have any party affiliations.
As regards the commissioner's contribution to senior appointments, if it is to be anything more than a negative one it would be necessary for the commission as a whole to have much more contact with the ongoing work at senior levels in departments than it has had in the past. I do not believe that that would be desirable.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, pointed out, if the First Civil Service Commissioner is not to be an existing serving senior civil servant, it raises the question of what he will know. It also raises the question, if he is not to be a civil servant, of what the role of the commission itself is to be. Is it to be a special government department or a quango and to what extent will Ministers be able to give it directions? Indeed, what is its range to be if the service is fragmented? We must await more details.
1546
The main concerns which I have, and which the White Paper does nothing to diminish, are that many recent developments run the danger of fragmenting the service and that its whole ethos will be destroyed. This is a possible consequence of the proposals that central grades should be abolished; that there should be a new pay system for senior civil servants, with a number of overlapping pay ranges, and that organisational structures should be flat though different from department to department. These may be ideas in line with private sector practices and some modern management theories, but such ideas tend to be short-lived.
Just before I retired from the Civil Service I was taken to task by a committee of the other place because the proposals for unified grading which the Fulton Committee had recommended had not been fully implemented. Unified grading was seen as essential to the ease of movement of staff about the service and to the bringing of the professional classes into senior management posts. Shortly after the war a number of posts in intermediate grades were created in order to improve the co-ordination of new tasks. Now unified grading and hierarchies are frowned on.
With good will, most forms of organisation can be made to work but too much variation in pay in a public service usually causes endless problems for assessment and negotiation, and arbitration if that is permitted. It should not be forgotten that the pay of individuals in the public service has always been ascertainable through either the Imperial Calendar or its successor the Civil Service Yearbook and that when differentials are detected they are followed by claims. In those private sector posts where remuneration is public knowledge, as for company chairmen and chief executives, strenuous efforts are made not to have less remuneration than the peer group.
The White Paper also discusses appointments to senior Civil Service posts from outside the service. Such appointments are not new. They have been essential for some professional posts and have at times been very fruitful in general administration. But the proportion of outside appointments and the nature of their contracts has to be watched if key qualities of the Civil Service are to be maintained. I have observed that where in the private sector there is a strong sense of loyalty to the firm there is always an expectation of long-term employment and promotion from within, unless the appropriate talents cannot be found inside. Where firms rely on recruiting staff on strictly short-term contracts there is rarely any sense of belonging to the firm and the idea of loyalty to the firm is laughable. Nor do talented senior people in the private sector accept jobs on genuinely short-term contracts. They demand rolling contracts so that if their services are no longer required they can obtain a payment of two or three years' salary, part of which is tax free. Someone on a short-term contract can be expected to be loyal to the terms of the contract, but that is all.
What I find lacking in the White Paper is any understanding of what it has meant to be a member of the Civil Service or of the factors which have influenced people to remain in public service out of a sense of

1547
loyalty. A department of state is an institution with a history; it has been developed into a working team and its members are concerned about its standing, its performance and its long-term objectives. Morale is not just a word in a list of worthy qualities; it is a vital element if a department or a service are to be any good. And it has to be supported by leadership. Senior members of departments are not just there to do the job of the moment under contract but believe that their duty is to ensure that the department functions efficiently, effectively and lastingly. That involves the duty of training, developing and encouraging their potential successors. Concern for such things is what distinguishes a service from a mere employment. Excessive fragmentation of the service will result in it being just a collection of employments. Many years ago one of my colleagues asked in an interview about his responsibility, and he said that he considered himself responsible to his concept of what made an ideal civil servant. That is an attitude that strikes a chord with those of us who have served in the British Civil Service, and in your Lordships' House. I do not find that degree of understanding in the drafting of the White Paper.
6.25 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have been neither a Minister nor a Permanent Secretary; I almost hesitate to speak. But what I wish to say is atmospheric, reflecting a general but widely-shared fear that we risk destroying a great national asset.
Within the service morale is low and the Civil Service is no longer perceived by young graduates as the natural goal for high flyers. Even in my time undergraduates would say to me, when I asked why they were not sitting the CSSB examinations, that the service had become like Marks & Spencer; it is not a public service anymore so it is more sensible to go into Marks & Spencer and be better paid.
Fortunately, I gather from inquiries in Oxford that, though there remains scepticism about the value of Next Steps, undergraduates are slowly beginning to think that it might be worthwhile to enter in the hope that something may be done to salvage the public service for which they care.
The White Paper says:
"The Civil Service needs … to make better use of its most important resource … by providing the prospect of a career with a good employer, offering challenge and reward".
But what does it do in practice? It takes people whose whole ethos is public service; disinterested, objective, committed to helping to shape national policies—as they did in the crucial years after 1945 about which Peter Hennessey writes so brilliantly in Never Again—and to working together, and it introduces a totally different set of values. Suddenly, in order to succeed civil servants are required to be competitive; to be market tested; to give value for money measured not by quality but by statistics: how many pieces of paper are handled; how many ticks are placed in boxes; how many successful sound bites are produced for citizens charters?
I am not arguing that there is not merit for some, and for some satisfying challenges in the various agencies. But I do oppose the application of this demi-business
1548
culture to all the operations of the public service and to the judgment and assessment of quality and performance and hence the prospect for advancement by inappropriate and even suspect criteria. It is repeating the mistake made in academic assessment today where someone who publishes six relatively trivial though perfectly respectable articles will be judged to have done better than the serious scholar who takes some years to write a book and produces nothing in the interval.
Throughout the Civil Service, the agencies and the non-departmental public bodies, people are writing endless business plans, market plans, financial audits, budget reviews and strategic plans. There are endless rehearsals of what has been done and what will be done but with no time left to do the central work or to think cohesively and broadly. There are too many buzz-words; too many charters; too much time spent projecting images. As one official put it to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, they have all been "scrutinised to death".
The Government will say that that is all a necessary radical process from which a slimmer, meaner and altogether more satisfactory Civil Service will emerge. Statistically, that may be so. But what will the qualities of the staff be? Who will want to enter a service where there is deep insecurity? The young today are accustomed to being mobile in the City. They understand that to reach the top in the public service and secure really good jobs requires experience and commitment. What are they to make of a system under which, if an outsider wins an agency chief's job, he or she can expect whatever the market dictates, but a career civil servant can expect only his or her existing salary?
Civil Service pay has never been high and is now well behind the market. Civil servants must perceive themselves not to be valued. If the best leave, where will the successors to the present senior civil servants come from? The Government are devaluing their best asset—a highly motivated and dedicated body of people in a long and honourable tradition. To some extent that springs from a mistaken perception of Oxbridge elitism among the so-called mandarins. But as the then Secretary of State rightly pointed out to the committee, Oxbridge today is very broadly based and the perception of social bias in the Oxbridge intake is wholly unfounded. Incidentally, those who regard it as ridiculous to take someone with a degree in philosophy overlook, as the Treasury does not, that they have the best possible training for the higher reaches of information technology and artificial intelligence.
Far from pushing their reorganisation further, I hope very much that the Government will pause and consider urgently how best to motivate existing members of the service to stay. Unilever and ICI promote from within to managerial and boardroom status. Why not the Civil Service? I have always wished that we had the equivalent of ENA—the École Nationale d'Administration—in this country. It gives the valuable exposure to other experience but it also reinforces pride in being one of the elite—a civil servant. The Government should be thinking how to restore the public perception of the Civil Service, which it has

1549
become the fashion to denigrate, as a splendid career and civil servants as people who are valued, trusted and needed.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Tanworth: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Allen on arranging this debate and also those concerned for the impeccable timing of it in relation to the White Paper. I almost began to smell inside information, which would, of course, have been in breach of paragraph 10 of the new Civil Service code.
I agree with much that former colleagues of mine have said today but in the time available to me I propose to concentrate on the proposed new Civil Service code and the right of appeal for those who feel aggrieved under it. I can understand why government witnesses to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of another place argued against a code of ethics or conduct and indeed I do not find all the arguments put forward for it at all convincing. There is, however, one argument which seems to me to have been growing in importance and which has now in my view become decisive. This is the fact—other noble Lords have referred to it—that the Civil Service is becoming less of a unified and homogeneous body with a shared tradition and culture which does not need to be written down and which is absorbed by the new entrant almost by a process of osmosis.
The Civil Service used to be a very centralised body in so far as establishment and personnel matters were concerned. But the whole object and intention of executive agencies is precisely so that everything does not have to be laid down and overseen by the centre. I do not quarrel with that. However, as different agencies start to develop their own cultures and traditions, we cannot rely on homogeneity and osmosis to reinforce the ethic of a non-political, fair-dealing Civil Service, particularly when executive agencies are under pressure to achieve their performance indicators and targets and possibly have temptation at times to cut a few corners to do so. Similarly, the greater degree of recruitment, particularly at senior level, from outside the service, however desirable it may be for other reasons, means, as has already been said, that not all senior officers have grown up in the service; and to me it calls for a more formal definition of what the public service means.
This question of homogeneity seems far more meaningful than any question of so-called politicisation, which has been argued by some people and which I simply do not believe. There are arguments against any party—whichever party it is—remaining in power for too long. It introduces a kind of sloppiness in administration and so on. But that is nothing to do with partisanship. I am absolutely certain that the Civil Service today, just like the Civil Service which I grew up in, would treat a change of party in government as a kind of challenge to be met.
The draft code in the White Paper, based as it is largely on the text prepared by the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, deals with both duties and rights and has much to commend it. In the time available I
1550
would make only one detailed point about it and one more general and important one. In the White Paper the Government provided a very helpful crib to the changes which they had made to the original Select Committee draft. I was fascinated to note in paragraph 5 that the Government had struck out "fairness" and substituted "impartiality" in a sentence saying how civil servants should conduct themselves, vis-à-vis Ministers, Parliament and the public; along, of course, with integrity and honesty. That is fair enough. But I wonder whether "fairness" should not appear in the following paragraph which concerns how the public expect to be dealt with: sympathetically, efficiently, promptly and without bias or bad administration.
This may sound a detail but no one is value-neutral or completely objective and, in handling the affairs of the public, civil servants must observe due process or neutrality of process in order to ensure that individual cases throughout the country are treated on a similar basis. That is the reason for much of the red tape associated with Civil Service procedures. I hope that the need for neutrality of process, which is not quite the same as an absence of bias, will be reflected in the final draft of the code.
My more important point concerns the right of appeal to the Civil Service Commissioners for civil servants who feel that they are required to act in a way inconsistent with the code and have not had satisfaction through the normal departmental channels. I accept the need for an outside point of appeal and I cannot think of a better one than the Civil Service Commissioners. But how wide should this right of appeal be given? This point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong.
Paragraph 11 of the Government's draft code offers it not only on matters of legality and ethics but also where a civil servant believes he or she is being required to act in a way,
"which is otherwise inconsistent with this Code or raises a fundamental issue of conscience".
The words used are "or raises a fundamental issue of conscience", not "and raises a fundamental issue of conscience". Is this really the intention? The code covers a very wide range of activities, not all of which involve issues of legality or conscience. I hope that careful thought will be given to how this right is defined to make it clear that it relates to genuinely improper requirements placed on civil servants and is not an avenue for civil servants whose real grumble is about a Minister's policy or his behaviour. Misuse of this procedure or extending it too widely would not help the Civil Service and could become the shortest cut to politicisation of the Civil Service.
I have an open mind on the desirability of introducing the new code under the prerogative or by legislation. I would have tended to prefer the use of the prerogative so far as the role of the Civil Service Commissioners is concerned, for the reasons given in paragraph 2.15 of the White Paper, and to mark the fact that they stand apart from the normal Whitehall departments. However, the wording of the following paragraph in the White Paper would now seem to imply that the Government will legislate if there is inter-party agreement. That

1551
wording worries me quite a lot because it implies that if the Government then proceed under the prerogative there has been inter-party disagreement and that would be the worst thing of all for the Civil Service. I very much hope that the consultations which will take place are successful and that there is inter-party agreement on the code.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allen, on his opening speech. When he invited me first to call on him in his office in 1969 I knew at once that he was not an ordinary civil servant. He had copies of Private Eye open on his desk.
I hope your Lordships will not think it unreasonable for an elderly retired Diplomatic Service officer to seek some assurance that the proposed reform of the Home Civil Service will not lead to the weakening of the strength of the Diplomatic Service. Some of the projected reforms will doubtless be applicable to both services. But it is important that they do not damage the Diplomatic Service and prejudice the United Kingdom's ability to pursue the objectives of a global foreign policy.
My suspicions were somewhat aroused by the glossy White Paper which has some of the characteristics of a commercial catalogue. The first White Paper issued some months ago made a brief reference to the Diplomatic Service and further details were promised. Such details do not appear in the present document. I hope that a further document is not intended. I know that some significant reforms of the Diplomatic Service are already being considered in the same way as for the Home Civil Service. One example is the consideration of "contracted" senior officers. I question the wisdom of that. Can noble Lords imagine the head of state of a foreign country being impressed by a British ambassador whose contract he knows is coming to an end and who has made only a temporary financial commitment to the service.
As your Lordships know, the form of the present Diplomatic Service is based on an Order in Council which establishes the procedure for recruitment and the terms and conditions of the service. In my opinion that is most important. There is some suggestion that it should be superseded in future by legislation. Would not that legislation destroy inter alia the sense of service which is a very valuable feature at present?
The Home Civil Service, so long admired, is in the process of shedding functions to agencies and is increasingly subordinated to consultants. I had experience of seeing this in action in the Select Committee on the King's Cross Bill. In contrast, the Diplomatic Service faces the problems of additional responsibility as the new pattern of the world requires us to participate in new problems affecting our safety and our economy. We may be helped by the European Union. But the Secretary of State, Douglas Hurd, says rightly that we must control our own national defence. I agree with that and I believe that we should also control our own diplomatic machine.
1552
Our Diplomatic Service, I know, is under modernisation and internal reform. It is sharing experience with the Home Civil Service. It is greatly helped by its own inspectors who travel worldwide and see for themselves the problems on the spot. The last nine years of my own 30 years' experience were in Whitehall under different governments and contrasting political parties. The new White Paper includes a proposed Civil Service code on pages 43-44. I see little in it which has not been accepted practice in the Diplomatic Service over many, many years.
The working relationship between members of the Diplomatic Service and Ministers has been, in my experience, frank, cordial and loyal. Members have not been self-seeking, deceitful or exercising their own private political views. I can see here several Members on all sides of the House who can give testimony to that. Successive governments were able to rely on their staffs despite the changes. I hope that that state of affairs will continue.
I was myself once considerably nonplussed by a Foreign Secretary's remark and I shall repeat it. It was the late Michael Stewart—Lord Stewart of Fulham. He asked me to explain a complicated disarmament question, which I did. When I had finished he said: "You explained very well the interests of Her Majesty's Government, but tell me", he said, "what are the interests of mankind?" I was completely nonplussed by that.
There is one possible cloud on the horizon to which I was going to refer, but I shall not, in regard to the Scott Report. I hope that it is responsibly dealt with and does not lead to a determined attempt to move the settling of diplomatic affairs to the television screen.
Another point I wish to make concerns the qualifications and abilities of the members of the future Diplomatic Service. It has become fashionable to accuse both the Home Civil Service and the Diplomatic Service of not knowing what goes on in the so-called "real world". My guess is that, as regards the Diplomatic Service, sometimes its members know more than most of what goes on in several real worlds.
For many years the service has seconded individuals to industry and finance, and vice versa, and recruited outside staff with special abilities. But from time to time politicians from both parties have held high diplomatic appointments. Most have been highly successful and welcomed by their staffs. I had personal experience of working with Lords Franks, Harlech, Cromer, and Caradon and the journalist, Mr. Freeman. No doubt such appointments will again be appropriate in certain circumstances and will no doubt include Ladies this time. However, I hope that we shall not follow the methods of the United States in that respect.
No doubt some of the proposed reforms to the Home Civil Service can be followed in the Diplomatic Service. But the Government will be taking a risk if all the present White Paper is fully implemented. In my view, the Diplomatic Service must act in parallel with the

1553
Home Civil Service but must continue to be independent and separate in order to adapt to future global developments.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it is recorded that Abraham Lincoln was approached by a delegation who informed him that General Grant was addicted to whisky. His reply was, "If you will be good enough to tell me the brand of whisky, I will send a cask to each of my other generals". In other words, Abraham Lincoln, like great men, was concerned with the outcome. He wanted to know that there would be victories and he credited the general who brought him victories.
The public in general is very remote from the interesting problems that we have been discussing this afternoon about the internal morale of the Civil Service and about the possibilities of appeals if there are matters of conscience. Things of that kind are important and interesting, but the public are concerned about whether Britain is being well governed—that is, has the Civil Service any responsibility, which can be pinpointed, for various things which have happened and which are, to a greater or lesser degree, unwelcome?
In our debate on Monday afternoon it was pointed out how between them the Department for Education and the Treasury managed, from a perfectly sensible idea that people whose education benefited from the public purse might pay back some of it when they achieved larger incomes, to create chaos. In our debate this afternoon it was pointed out how many good intentions by different government departments towards dealing with the problems of children are vitiated by the apparent inability of Whitehall departments to act together satisfactorily. I do not believe that I need rehearse other examples which will be apparent to many noble Lords.
In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for introducing this debate, I only regret that he did not emphasise even more strongly the absurdity of the notion that administration or management can usefully be separated from policy. It is like the general who says, "My strategy was splendid, but it was the wretched people on the ground who messed it up with their tactics".
Whether or not we get it right must largely depend on the quality of the civil servants employed. Therefore, my own interest has been—and I echo some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park—in the recruitment process which, like everything else, has undergone many changes. We now have the Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency which has taken over the role which the Civil Service Commission once enjoyed. I have been looking at its constitution and what attitudes can be derived from the kind of tests which it imposes on would-be applicants. It seems to me that this is an agency which is excessively weak. It is manned, for short periods, by persons from other departments, and we know that that means persons whom other departments believe they can spare. The documents it produces are written in a jargon which betrays all the influence of modern
1554
managerial newspeak and little of the discipline, intellectual and linguistic, which is presumably to be expected of the people it is trying to recruit.
The agency works, as many noble Lords will know, through panels of three. One is the chair. It was a chairman in the published document about the new system, but it is a chair in its internal documents—a very vigorous piece of furniture which writes, interviews and looks after things in general. The other two are a psychologist and a departmental assessor. It is pointed out that the two, as it were, lay members of the board, although they all have to agree on the report, are not expected to understand the psychologist's contribution, because that is very technical. It is also suggested that the psychologist must try to demystify his or her contribution by explaining to the candidate what it is that he or she is trying to find out.
The agency tries to meet what it claims are demands from the departments that its reports should be better formatted. I do not know exactly what "formatted" means. I suppose that if you can have matted hair you can have formatted reports.
Members of the panels are told that they must not use what is called "familiar language"—clubby terms such as "Wykehamist". I never thought of Wykehamists as very clubby, but no doubt in the recesses of that body Wykehamists are thought to be clubby. It goes on in that way, and I shall not bore your Lordships with further quotations from its grammar or syntax. But the impression that it leaves, combined with other information one has, is of a serious denigration of intellectual qualities in the people being sought, and that is of some importance to noble Lords. It applies of course to the Diplomatic Service, which it also handles, and noble Lords will realise that it is also how our Clerks are being recruited or will be recruited; that is to say, the business of being able to work in a team; to get through a test involving an in-tray and an out-tray; circular discussions among teams—all that modern newspeak—is given preference.
It is said that the intellectual qualities are guaranteed by the fact that everyone who is allowed to proceed to these tests must have a first or second-class degree. If they are so remote from the world that they believe that a 2:2 from the University of Loamshire is a guarantee of high intellectual performance, then those civil servants at any rate are as remote from the real world as it is often thought civil servants in general are.
It is important that we should look, as the Treasury Select Committee did not look, at the general method of recruitment and of what is being looked for. The general public does not mind. They would not mind if all civil servants were Oxbridge, provided they felt that they were getting good government. The accent on being politically correct (gender conscious) and all the types of things which fill these documents and their conversations is something which threatens our future.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale for selecting this subject for debate and for his excellent introduction. The Civil Service is not exactly a popular topic, and that

1555
comes as no surprise to former members of the public service who have been taking part in today's discussion. We are well aware that we continue to be grouped in the public mind with mothers-in-law and Wigan Pier as objects of ridicule. I borrow that phrase, which is not mine, from a speech made by a former head of the Civil Service (my father) in his Rede Lecture of 1950 on this very subject.
I should at the beginning declare an interest. I am a member of this breed: for four generations my family has contributed a number of members to the public service. I have some pride in being the great grandson of one of the architects of the Victorian Civil Service who was, for no fewer than 18 years, the Permanent Secretary at the Board of Trade. His name was Thomas Henry Farrer, and he came to this House in his retirement. As a former member of the Diplomatic Service, I do not forget the life of my great uncle, Cecil Spring-Rice, ambassador in Washington in the difficult years of American neutrality between 1914 and 1917 and removed from his post by Lloyd George when he became Prime Minister to make way for a political appointment. With that personal background, your Lordships will understand why I take a particular interest in the Government's policies towards the Civil Service. I suggest that they need to be looked at in a long perspective as well as with close attention to detail.
The creation of a unified public service in this country was one of the notable achievements of the last century. It stands with the other great Victorian reforms such as the creation of a universal education system, the improvements to our system of criminal justice, the Great Reform Bill of 1832, the extension of the franchise, and so on. We should not forget that it was a deliberate move away from the atmosphere of political corruption and jobbery in the 18th century, which was a source of much public disgust. Northcote and Trevelyan have been mentioned, but the person who led the foundation for those reforms was none other than Edmund Burke in a series of important Bills which he steered through the other place from 1780 onwards.
The underlying principles of the Victorian Civil Service—the great reform—are worth reciting. Some of them have been mentioned already. They are important: selection of entrants by a competitive system; the supervision of that system by an independent body; promotion on merit; and political neutrality. In their White Paper, the Government specifically confirm their endorsement of those principles. I am glad. My concern is that some of the individual reforms in the White Paper, and some already introduced, do not fit very well with those principles. I shall explain in a moment my grounds for concern.
Before going into those matters, I should like to mention a few other general considerations; first, the quality of the administrative machine we have inherited from the past. By international standards, that machine is outstanding. It gave us the civil apparatus which enabled us to win two world wars and to manage the great transfer of power which took place in 1945. More recently, in travelling around, I have heard in most European capitals—not just in France, which has been mentioned—admiration of the manner in which the
1556
Cabinet Office secretariat and the Civil Service generally in London handles the co-ordination of our European policies. The policies are a different matter; it is the way in which they are carefully co-ordinated and prepared that commands admiration. All the other countries wish that they had such a system.
Then there is the issue of political neutrality. I had a ringside seat for two changes of administration. The first was in 1964 as a Private Secretary in the Foreign Office and the second was 10 years later as a Private Secretary at 10 Downing Street. Those are always difficult times. I doubt whether members of incoming administrations appreciate to the full the determination of the Civil Service to work for the incoming government and to give them their wholehearted support. I heard with gratitude and strongly support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. The desire to support a new government is held regardless of the respect or personal liking that civil servants may have had for those leaving office. Political neutrality too, is an asset that we should not lightly throw away. As has been pointed out, it is easy to maintain if there are fairly frequent changes of government and if there is broad national consensus on at least the main policies.
Then there is the issue of cost. Of course there is need for strict financial discipline in Civil Service pay as in other matters. The White Paper states an important assumption on page 9. It says that,
"pay and price increases should be offset, or more than offset, by efficiencies and other economies with adjustments as necessary for workload".
The last six words are crucial. One may prune any extravagances that one may find and curtail marginal matters. However, beyond that one will have to cut into the main stem if one is to make economies year on year. I am not sure that the present Government understand how difficult it is to do that without reducing workload and function. The creation of Next Steps agencies may have masked the problem temporarily in statistical terms but the problem is still there. Nor can all policies be readily measured by cost benefit analysis, important though that is. There are a number of areas in which that analysis does not help. Foreign policy and defence are two such areas and the principles of Civil Service reform may be another.
Returning to the text of the White Paper, I have two main anxieties. They relate to the process of selection and recruitment and the issue of political neutrality. As regards selection, the crucial point is the way in which candidates for the most senior posts are chosen. It is clearly the intention that most of these posts will be filled by a new procedure after public advertisement. It is not clear exactly how that will be carried out. We are told that the Civil Service Commission will audit the procedure and approve all outside appointments. We are also told that the first commissioner will sit on the senior appointments selection committee.
But some further explanation seems to be required. Who exactly will make these appointments? Will Ministers have a role? What will be the chosen criteria? To whom will the selectors be responsible? Furthermore, who will determine the salary levels? Will they be within published scales or applicable ad hoc to

1557
attract particular candidates? That appears to have been the procedure used to select the director of the prison service. In order to clarify uncertainty, it would be helpful if the Government could tell us more. Personally, I shall reserve judgment on the reforms until they have done so.
Finally, there is the matter of political neutrality. I can briefly illustrate my worries by the following comments. I read in the press that the Government intend to reduce the senior staff in the Treasury from 24 to eight and that the eight people will be chosen by the new procedure. Let us suppose that that happens. If subsequently there should be a change of government—and I assume that that will eventually occur—what will be the attitude of the incoming administration towards the senior officials? Of course, much will depend on the answers to the questions that I have just posed, but it is extremely important to avoid the situation in which neither group has confidence in the other. Very often, these government changes take place when rapid decisions need to be taken on financial matters. An incoming Chancellor of the Exchequer who lacked confidence in the senior team at the Treasury would surely put into effect policies worked out outside the Treasury. We should do well to recall what happened in the great row about import surcharges in 1964.
I am not a natural ally of Colonel Blimp and I believe in the steady need for reform and innovation. However, I also believe in principles. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to convince me that the Government will not damage the essential principles of our Civil Service.
7.5 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, this has been an impressive debate, not least the last speech by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. He raised some extremely important questions which I hope the Minister will answer today or in the near future. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, derives pleasure from the fact that on the Benches today are some of his most distinguished colleagues from the public service, and a slew of young Ministers who were once under his guidance are now older Peers and who learnt a great deal from him about the public service. It can be fairly said that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, is the very model of the finest type of public servant. I say that as one who had the great honour of serving with him—not under or over but with—as Minister of State at the Home Office when he was Permanent Under-Secretary in that department.
One of the features of the debate has been an almost elegiac sense of the passing of one of the finest assets that this country has ever had. It is the British Civil Service and the concept of public service that has for so long been associated with it. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to his ancestor, Cecil Spring-Rice, and I could not help recalling the words of the famous hymn that he wrote:
"I vow to thee, my country all earthly things above
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love".
1558
That is perhaps a Victorian way of putting the sentiment of devotion and loyalty by which so many civil servants in this country have been marked; but all of us recognise that something fundamental has changed. I must ask the question that was echoed in many speeches today: why is it that we in this country seem to destroy the very things that we do best and seem to be so reluctant to recognise that they have added greatly to our reputation?
It is difficult to deny that not only we in this country but others live in a time of great disillusionment and cynicism as regards the processes of government and the personalities of those engaged in it. Much of that cynicism is directed at Ministers and politicians, and not primarily at civil servants. We should be living in a world of astonishing complacency if we failed to recognise that several events during the past few years—from the Spycatcher case, which appeared to make the Government look obsessive, through the Matrix Churchill case, which appeared to make Ministers deceptive, to the Pergau Dam case, in which fortunately the beacon behaviour of a particular Permanent Secretary upheld the highest traditions of the civil service—have raised profound questions in the minds of our fellow citizens about the probity, efficiency and honour with which in the broadest sense governance is conducted today.
I wish to comment on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in a most significant and impressive speech. It is the anxiety felt by many about the use of patronage to appoint people to quangos and executive agencies, and the great uncertainty about the lines of accountability from those quangos and executive agencies to Parliament and the wider public. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, referred reasonably tc the idea that quangos might have a useful role to perform provided that the highest standards of public conduct are maintained. I could not help asking myself why the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency, so heavily criticised by the Public Accounts Committee, was almost immediately after leaving that position appointed to be a governor of the BBC. It seems a strange way of recognising outstanding public service.
Perhaps I may raise three issues which have been mentioned extensively in the debate, each of which raises some very troubling questions. The first of those is the issue of ministerial accountability. Ministerial accountability to Parliament is the very linchpin of the unwritten British democratic system. Once ministerial accountability ceases to be clear, the whole of our structure begins to become shaky.
I echo the contribution of three other noble Lords in the debate who said that it was extremely troubling that in another place, the Home Secretary, on 10th January, in his reply to the right honourable Member for Berwick, attempted to distinguish between his responsibility for policy matters and his responsibility for operational matters in relation to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees—prison escapes.
That is a very dangerous fudge. Ministers are responsible for what goes on in their departments. That has been made clear repeatedly. It is not only troubling

1559
but it is a slippery slope away from the sense of responsibility which is so crucial to try to make that false distinction between operational and policy areas.
But it is possible to do that just because the creation of executive agencies has raised major ambiguities which remain unresolved. When we discuss, as we do, the issue of a code of conduct for civil servants, it is very important indeed that that code of conduct should reflect the responsibility of heads of executive agencies and deal with some of the particular issues in regard to their relationships with the public and who is responsible for them.
The second area of concern that has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords including the noble Lords, Lord Bridges and Lord Bancroft, affects the issue of appointment by merit—open promotion—which was referred to in the case of the director of the Prison Service. It is troubling when Ministers intervene in appointments, as seems to have occurred on that occasion. That would go a long way towards destroying the trust which is essential between the Civil Service and Ministers and potential Ministers which has been one of the great achievements of our Civil Service.
I have no objection to the idea of open advertisement for certain posts. Indeed, I believe that I was the first Secretary of State ever to appoint a senior official as a result of open advertisement—the appointment of the Director-General of Fair Trading. I see nothing wrong in that reform. But I believe that it must be quite clear who makes the appointments and that many of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, are crucial questions which deserve a full response.
The third area of concern affects the issue of objectivity and neutrality. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, will allow me to question that fundamental statement about the role of the Civil Service—what is sometimes called the Armstrong Memorandum, which was the work of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. The Armstrong Memorandum has become the basis of much that has been quoted in the White Paper and also in the accompanying paper from the First Division Association and the IPMS. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for not warning him that I should be raising this point but as I am winding up the debate, I did not know that I should be referring to it until a few moments ago.
The Armstrong Memorandum states:
"The Civil Service as such has no constitutional personality or responsibility separate from the duly constituted Government of the day".
I recognise fully the outstanding intellectual abilities of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, but I am troubled as to whether it is the case that there is no responsibility other than that to the duly constituted government of the day, whatever they do. I am not referring to the present Government or any other particular government. But at present, we are entering into commitments to international treaties where our signature lies on them; for example, the European Convention on Human Rights. We are committed to upholding the rule of law. I wonder whether that statement deals with the possibility—and heaven knows, we live in a world
1560
where we have seen it happen!—that the government of the day might go beyond that for which it would be proper to have responsibility.
That is an issue which is raised particularly by the question of misleading Parliament, deceptive statements and any steps which Ministers may take which breach the rules of proper behaviour. We must address those matters, although we may not wish to do so, because we do not live in quite the world of homogeneous values in which we once lived.
I conclude by raising a few questions which I shall address to the noble Viscount. The first of those questions concerns the proposed code of conduct. How will that code of conduct deal with the period between leaving the Civil Service and taking up a job in an area which may be related to one's previous post in the case of those who are on fixed-term, renewable contracts? For example, if the Director-General of the Prison Service were to take up a post as a director of a private security agency, what is the period of time that would be required to elapse between those two positions? That is an extremely important question if we are to retain respect and belief in the probity of our public service.
The second question that I wish to raise is more minor but is not unimportant. Perhaps the noble Viscount will tell the House whether there is any common statistical base among the executive agencies of the Civil Service which will enable the monitoring of discrimination on both gender and racial grounds to be conducted properly because I understand that that is becoming increasingly difficult.
Finally and thirdly, I ask the Minister to give us a fuller statement about the proposal that there should be a right of appeal for civil servants to a body outside their direct senior officer. What is the Government's view about that at present? I apologise by speaking for one minute longer than I should do but I had been told that there was a minute in hand so that I trust that the government Chief Whip will not be too angry with me.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I start by joining in the congratulations offered to the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for raising an issue which the House has clearly found important. Not only that, it has given rise to what has proved to be an extraordinary debate. There have been 17 speakers in the debate: six former permanent secretaries, three former Cabinet Ministers, two former very senior civil servants and one or two people like myself who, at one stage, was an incorporated civil servant, if that is the right way to put it.
It is interesting that consistent themes have run throughout the debate. With the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, nobody has spoken favourably about the Government's attitude. If I had to sum up the whole flavour of the debate in a sentence, it seems to me that there was intense pride in what we had in the form of the Civil Service, great unease as to what is now taking place, and considerable uncertainty as to what the future may bring.

1561
I believe that that is fair summary of the speeches that we have listened to during the past three hours. If that is right, the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, deserves more than the usual formal congratulations of the House for giving this subject an airing at this particular time. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House who is to reply to the debate has a formidable task before him in answering the queries which have been raised and in reassuring those noble Lords who have spoken.
One point of agreement that has emerged is the crucial importance of the British Civil Service to the proper working of our governance. Since the 1870s, that great national asset has been the permanent and impartial instrument of all administrations, guaranteeing constitutional and financial propriety. I know of no other Civil Service in a comparably-sized country in the world about which one could make such a proud claim with so much historical basis in fact and in accuracy. We must remember that the Civil Service numbers not only those who advise Ministers in Whitehall, but also the remainder—the overwhelming majority of the service of over half-a-million people—from departmental messengers to prison staff, from those who calculate social security benefits to official receivers, and indeed many others.
Our Civil Service has exemplified public administration founded upon principles of public service, impartiality, integrity, accountability and selection and promotion on merit. On behalf of the Labour Party, I am very happy to pay our tribute to the way in which those qualities in public service and public administration have been exemplified in the Civil Service.
When the Minister responds he will, no doubt, say much the same thing and promise that the Government will continue to stand by their principles in their dealings with those who administer the policies that they make. He may do so, but the whole tenor of the debate seemed to have been in the opposite direction. Recently, a group of senior civil servants expressed the following view:
"Civil servants have felt undervalued and beleaguered; cost-cutting and short-termism has often appeared to displace a rational approach to the improvement of the efficiency and effectiveness of the service".
They concluded with the words, "Current morale is low". Once again, the Government's claims and the real experience of those affected by them do not precisely and entirely coincide.
After 15 years of a single party in government, there are some in the Civil Service who fear that the Civil Service may be perceived as the property of one party by those in charge. I believe that all the other issues only serve to reinforce that threat of loss of independence—the redundancies consequent upon efficiency drives, performance-related pay, the apparent greater politicisation of the higher grades, agency status and contracting out, and the lines now being drawn between the accountability of Ministers and of those under them. It is those matters which have led to what many believe to be an unprecedented loss of morale.
1562
No one quarrels with the need for increased efficiency—certainly, I do not—but that is an issue where good management skills must be applied. Low morale is in itself a major threat to increased efficiency; there is little point in cutting jobs and thereby saving money if the people who remain feel so threatened and under such pressure that they cannot work as well as they used to. Redundancies, or, perhaps, the threat of them, may make civil servants less willing to give unwelcome advice to their managers or to Ministers. Do we really want a Civil Service where it is those who keep their heads down who are the ones most likely to make progress? I think not.
Nearly 150 years ago, the Northcote-Trevelyan Report produced a blueprint for the modern unified politically impartial Civil Service which we now regard as the norm. The unity of the service was to be fostered by uniform methods of recruitment and systems of promotion across all departments. In 1968, the Fulton Report sought to reinforce that unity through shared methods of recruitment and shared structures for pay and grading. In 1987, the Government set out the advantages of service-wide pay and personnel management arrangements. They said that,
"staff can move easily between Departments and do any work for which their qualifications and experience suit them; machinery of government changes can be effected quickly and easily; Departments do not compete against each other for the same scarce skills."
Government policy now seems to me to have abandoned that approach and with it many Civil Service pay agreements, some concluded as recently as 1992. Gone, apparently, is the idea of a single employer paying individuals on the same grade and doing the same job—albeit in different departments—the same amount of money. The new thinking seems to be that departments and agencies can pay the "market rate" which may apparently differ now from department to department. The Government's 1987 objections seem to have vanished. Perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House can tell us why there has been such a change over the past six or seven years.
The fragmentation of unified pay structures has been accompanied by the introduction of performance-related pay. The practical experience of performance-related pay—at least, so far as concerns the Civil Service—is that it is both demoralising and ineffective. Many of the functions carried out by civil servants are in their nature difficult if not impossible to measure. Quite apart from that, the pay budgets of departments remain cash limited, so that they cannot afford staff who are performing well above the expected level. Indeed, one hears the rumour of a marked decrease in box markings for the year before performance-related pay was introduced to the year of introduction. It seems that staff are being given the message that their performance has suddenly declined, when in fact it has done nothing of the sort. But, of course, it is much cheaper to do it that way. There is no objective research to show that performance-related pay improves performance. I believe that it is time for the Government to commission an independent study themselves to find out what difference, if any, it has made.

1563
Finally, the role of the Civil Service is threatened by the drive to contract out as many services as possible—even those which verge on the judicial, such as the traffic commissioner, or those where most would agree it is for the state to take responsibility, such as the administration of justice or the incarceration of offenders. It seems as if almost nothing has been ruled out; not even the Serious Fraud Office, with the extensive powers of search, seizure and interview that that body possesses.
Clear issues of public service, confidentiality and impartiality are raised by contracting out. There are also very serious questions as to whether contracting out really does save any money. Indeed, actual payments often exceed the agreed operating costs. One should not ignore the fact that many companies to which matters are contracted are in business in order to make profits.
I should like to say a few words about agency status. I believe that the dangers involved have been exemplified recently by the numerous problems that we have had in the prison service. We are now told that the Minister with responsibility for prisons is responsible only for policy; the Prison Service Agency is responsible for operation. First, I should add that that is not a distinction that I entirely appreciate. I do not quite see how one can draw such clear lines between that which is a matter of policy and that which is a matter of operation. We are told that all the recent problems have been operational and that, therefore, the Minister does not have to accept criticism. But he can pass it on to the paid officials. That must be wrong.
Ministers cannot hide behind their civil servants; indeed, it would be very wrong if they were to try to do so. That is especially so when those officials are part of an agency. Lines cannot be conveniently drawn between policy and operation. For example, we await the report of Mr. Justice Scott into the arms to Iraq affair and the use of public interest immunity certificates. Ministers must not be allowed to carry out the same exercise in taking refuge behind their advisers. It must be clear: civil servants may advise, but Ministers take ultimate responsibility for what is done and for how it is done. It is a reflection of what has been happening recently that this now has to be said.
We cannot manage in this country without a Civil Service which is trusted by everyone and which feels itself to be valued and trusted by Ministers. We still believe that our Civil Service is among the best in the world. But, I close with the following question. Unless government attitudes change, how much longer will we be able to say that?
7.28 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I can certainly agree with almost everyone who has spoken this afternoon in saying that we have had a most interesting and important debate. I must say that I intervene now with some diffidence for many reasons,
1564
but mainly because I feel rather as I imagine a novice Freemason must feel when stumbling into the reunion dinner of the inner ring—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I would not know!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, nor would I.
We have had a short debate and I am sure that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not manage to answer every point that has been raised. However, I undertake to write to noble Lords if any points remain unanswered. Nevertheless I will do my best tonight.
On 13th July last the Government published a White Paper on the Civil Service entitled Continuity and Change and my noble friend Lord Wakeham repeated a Statement in your Lordships' House on that White Paper. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Richard, during his remarks on that occasion said, among other things,
"our existing Civil Service … has an enviable reputation for certain qualities: its impartiality; its independence of advice, irrespective of who is in government and the nature of that government; its continuity; and, finally, its sheer professionalism".—0[Official Report, 13/7/94; col. 1833.]
I was of course delighted to read those words, although I was not fortunate enough to hear them. They are a tribute to the enduring achievement of the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms, so often mentioned with approval this afternoon. If the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will allow me the impertinence, they encapsulate with his usual happy phraseology the Government's views of what are the essential qualities we should expect of the Civil Service. As he himself said during these exchanges, on that all sides of the House can agree.
However, certain allegations have been made by the inner ring this evening. I think they can be encapsulated in the use of the word "morale". I shall come back to that in a minute. I would say to my noble friend Lady Park in particular that it is interesting, during a time of change when morale will inevitably be at risk, that the number of people applying to the Civil Service has been consistently high. There has been an annual average in recent years of 10,000. I would underline that by saying that the figures for 1993 show that for the first time for a number of years the numbers successful in the fast stream entry exceeded the numbers the Civil Service was seeking.
I return to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and in particular to his remarks today. It cannot have escaped the noble Lord's notice that the world has changed a little since 1853. I hope it has not escaped the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Allen. Although I was a little more doubtful about this—if he will allow me to say so—I hope it has not escaped the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. The pace of change, stimulated by an unprecedented technological revolution, has accelerated at a vertiginous rate over the past 20 years. Indeed it would perhaps be churlish not to recognise that the Labour Party, when it was in Government —that is now an awful long time ago as a number of your Lordships have observed—understood that change of this nature demanded a re-examination of the way the Government was administered.

1565
As long ago as 1968 the Fulton Report—on which commission the noble Lord, Lord Allen, was. such an ornament—recognised that we needed to introduce a more professional approach to management and more modern methods of recruitment and training. Your Lordships will remember that the Fulton recommendations led to the establishment of what is now the senior open structure, and the foundation of the Civil Service College which, I think your Lordships will agree, is one of the outstanding successes of recent reforms.
The technological revolution I referred to a moment ago has led to a revolution in management techniques. It tends to do so. It did so, after all, at the time of the first Industrial Revolution. In our case information technology in particular has given great power to the individual. It has enabled management to introduce, in the jargon, much flatter structures. It has made financial control a much more exact science. It has made administration more flexible and less hierarchical. Above all, perhaps, it has become essential for large organisations to institutionalise change while at the same time maintaining stability—an apparently paradoxical double objective which demands new attitudes of mind which I suspect both Northcote and Trevelyan would have found alien and at least as difficult as we do.
Having said that, I wholly accept the strictures of the noble Lords, Lord Bancroft and Lord Armstrong, and my noble friend Lady Park when they pointed out the dangers of permanent revolution. After all, I think it was Chairman Mao who advocated a state of permanent revolution—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Trotsky!
Viscount Cranborne: in the wake—as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also points out—of one of his intellectual predecessors, the late unlamented Leon Trotsky. Of course we are well aware that such a state of affairs failed. I think a state of permanent revolution is a profoundly un-Tory attitude, and certainly I would be the last to disagree with the idea that consolidation is as important as change and should certainly follow periods of radical change.
The world outside Whitehall is, nevertheless, being forced rapidly down this road that I have described. That is the world with which the Civil Service has to deal. I may risk —I am aware of this—the charge of impertinence when I say to the various distinguished former permanent under-secretaries who have spoken this evening, that the Civil Service would not with ease be able to deal with that outside world unless its organisation to some degree reflected the change that was happening on the outside. Indeed the outside could not respect and understand our public administration unless it functioned along something of the same lines.
I am told that the great Sir Humphrey Appleby—a man who I am sure really existed, although we are told by the BBC that he was merely a figment of its imagination—was keen on maintaining the art of public administration as a high priestly mystery. I have to suggest that this will not do in an age which puts a
1566
premium on openness and accountability. Therefore it is only sensible that the Government should have given such a high priority to the reform of public administration since 1979. I will not weary your Lordships—particularly in view of the relatively limited time available to me—with a full account of what has happened in the past 15 years, even if I had time to do so. However, it is perhaps worth highlighting some of the principal changes to illustrate why I believe that the reforms have a coherence which is entirely consistent with our aim of satisfying the demands of the age in which we live and at the same time living up to the aspirations of the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms.
The Financial Management Initiative that was launched in 1982 set out to introduce a system which clarified management's responsibility for expenditure. That is a theme of management responsibility which has run through your Lordships' debate like a thread. I think it is important to realise that there are practical results to this initiative. Managers begin to see their objectives clearly. They have acquired a responsibility for making the best use of their resources and of course were given access to the training, information and expert advice which continuous change dictates must be constantly available. I am sure your Lordships will accept that it is no longer possible to rely solely on the training available at the beginning of a career if we are to be able to deliver the sort of quality of service we should rightly demand.
I would remind your Lordships that if the Financial Management Initiative was to work, it was equally important that the structures that provided government services should also be reorganised. The Government therefore commissioned an efficiency scrutiny which examined management across the spectrum of government undertakings. That scrutiny resulted in a report entitled Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps. Again that is a subject that has been much alluded to this evening. However, I must say that, listening to your Lordships this evening, I rather failed to recognise the series of reforms which were described by the Select Committee in another place as,
"the single most successful Civil Service reform programme of recent decades".
I equally have to say that I find it difficult to disagree with that assessment. There are now 102 agencies in existence and 62 per cent. of all civil servants now work in agencies or other organisations working along Next Steps lines. They range in size from the Benefits Agency with 65,000 employees to Wilton Park—formerly, I believe, the responsibility of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill—with 32. Their occupations and activities are at least as diverse.
As my noble friend Lord Dean so rightly pointed out, the result has been greater clarity, devolved responsibility, better control of resources and proper and regular review, all of which is consistent with the objectives which the Government have set themselves.
I say to both my noble friend Lord Beloff, whose speech I listened to with my customary enjoyment, and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the reforms are now beginning to produce results. I shall not weary your Lordships with endless examples, but to take just two,

1567
the Driving Standards Agency has reduced the waiting time for driving tests from 13 weeks in 1988 to less than six weeks today. Her Majesty's Stationery Office's new business supplies service can supply 4,000 items in a 48-hour service.
Of course reorganisation is a mechanical and important process, but it is not that alone which delivers results. The Citizen's Charter has by implication been dismissed with faint praise this afternoon. I remind your Lordships that it too demands openness. The second element of the revolution is competition. Openness and competition are the engines that drive the search for accountability to the consumer and for improved services. We forget that before the code of practice on access to government information and individual charters were issued it was much more difficult for the Queen's subjects to obtain information on which to base complaints, or indeed where to address them. One does not want to place too much weight on this argument, but to that extent an increase in the incidence of complaints may paradoxically be a sign of improvement rather than the reverse.
Equally, Competing for Quality—which covers the competitive element of the process I have just described—with its introduction of the private sector into the provision of public services, has also begun to yield dividends in terms of performance. I am sorry that none of your Lordships sought to acknowledge that this evening.
During the past two and a half years the annual cost savings that have been identified amount to well over £400 million, on average a saving of 20 per cent. on the £2,000 million of activities that have been reviewed so far. Incidentally, it is a tribute to the quality of the staff in the Civil Service that in the market testing part of the programme in-house teams have won 73 per cent. of the work by value.
All that has been important. However, the Government believe that there remains scope for further improvement in both efficiency and quality of service. We said so in last year's White Paper. We believe that further delegation was and is the key to achieving both objectives. It is for that reason that the White Paper proposed that departments should take greater responsibility for deciding their organisational structures, the pay of their staff and the best mix of efficiency measures to meet the never-ending pressure to raise standards and to control costs.
Departments and agencies are already beginning to implement the White Paper. Your Lordships have described some of the effects that that will have on the senior Civil Service. We hope and believe that these changes will develop a smaller, better paid and better motivated Civil Service and that as a result it will be equipped to maintain the standards and values which, it has been made plain this evening, are the very minimum that the country expects from its public administrators.
In that context it is worth my saying to the noble Lords, Lord Allen and Lord Bridges, that not only was the British Civil Service formerly respected throughout the world for its professionalism and integrity, but it is still respected. I also suggest to the noble Lords that it has acquired a further feather in its cap in its
1568
international reputation. It is clear that our Civil Service has gained a worldwide reputation as a leader in public service reform. We are helping many governments in that field, notably the South African Government, in the huge task which they face. Curiously enough, the United States is pursuing reforms which bear many similarities to our own, and we are also in close contact with the administration of that country.
Of course your Lordships are right to stress the implications of our reforms for the staff in the many departments which are affected. Noble Lords are right to say that we are witnessing dramatic changes. Of course change and uncertainty are very unsettling for people in the course of their careers. It is essential that we make every effort at our disposal to keep staff informed, to maintain morale and to enable them to adapt to the new demands upon them. I believe strongly that consistency is one of the most important elements. If what we say will happen does happen, then the credibility of the Government among those who serve them is less likely to suffer in a time of inevitable change.
The government White Paper of last summer invited comments from interested parties. Comments were received from 50 individuals and organisations, and the Government have considered those comments. However, the most important response was the very thorough report of the Select Committee published last November entitled The Role of the Civil Service. It was notable that the report's conclusion enjoyed the unanimous support of the committee.
I shall not go through those conclusions. However, the Government have now responded to the Select Committee report and to the other responses to the White Paper. The document, again rather catchily entitled Taking Forward Continuity and Change, accepts most of the Select Committee's conclusions. Underpinning the approach we intend to take is the importance we attach to maintaining values and standards.
We therefore acknowledge that the committee's proposed Civil Service code should apply across the Civil Service. Although the Government have amended the committee's draft code slightly, they admire the original draft and intend to use its amended version as a basis for further consultation.
A number of noble Lords asked me detailed questions about the code. I have very much a weather eye on the clock. I hope that your Lordships will allow me merely to observe that the debate has been listened to and will be read with the keenest of interest and I am sure will form an important part of the consultation process. I am delighted that so many noble Lords, notably the noble Lords, Lord Barnett, Lord Croham, Lord Merlyn-Rees and Lord Bancroft, among others, welcomed the part of the report which recommends a Civil Service code.
We have also accepted the Committee's other recommendations. For example, there will be a new line of appeal to the Civil Service Commissioners for alleged breaches of the code or on issues of conscience. To emphasise and reinforce the well-established independence of the Commissioners, as your Lordships have observed, the first Civil Service Commissioner will in future be a Crown appointee. I have noted the

1569
reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, about that decision and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, and others on the subject. I hope that noble Lords will allow me to write to them in view of the pressure on time.
The same applies in relation to the important matter of accountability. On the issue of accountability I shall merely say that it is important to draw a distinction when responsibilities are discussed. However, I emphasise that in the end Ministers are responsible. If my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had devolved responsibility for events in the prison service, I doubt whether he would have been given such a grilling as he was in another place. He was rightly willing and able to answer.
This has been a short debate on an important subject, and I believe that the House should be extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allen, for introducing it. I hope that we shall return to the question at regular intervals, particularly as I know that those who are responsible for these matters, both Ministers and civil servants, will pay close attention to the views that your Lordships have expressed. I hope that noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Croham, will accept that the Government cling firmly to the Northcote-Trevelyan principles. As the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, observed, they are indeed eternal verities. Nevertheless we shall seek to maintain them in a way which reflects the opportunities with which today's social and technological change has presented us.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said that we should look at the subject in the long term. If all the mainstream political parties can achieve a degree of consensus on the way in which the Government's administrative machinery should work, between us we should have made an immeasurable contribution to the future stability of the country and, indeed, towards increasing the British people's respect for our national institutions.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I have a few minutes available to me, but I do not propose to prolong what has been a fascinating debate. I should like to thank all those who have taken part. I still believe that the debate ought to have taken place in government time. The noble Viscount referred to the Statement which the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, made last July. He will have noted that the noble Lord went pretty far in agreeing that the Government might provide time for a debate; but there it is. We have had to take up three hours of our Cross-Bench allocation.
I made it quite clear at the beginning—and I think all who have spoken made it clear—that there is no objection to change and that we all recognise that time marches on. For my part, I shall read carefully what the noble Viscount says. But I note with pleasure his undertaking that he and his colleagues, and those who advise them, will also read carefully what has been said. The thoughts which have been expressed from all sides of the House require careful consideration.
1570
I shall not pick out more than a few points for special mention, and I shall do that briefly. The first is the fear which some of us have about the long term impact on recruitment, notwithstanding the figures which the noble Viscount quoted, at a time of high unemployment. Secondly, there is continued uneasiness about the distinction between policy and operations. I am not sure that the remarks of the noble Viscount are entirely satisfying. Thirdly, although it is comforting to note that one does not wait so long now for a driving test, there is a much more important issue underlying the debate: the question of ministerial responsibility for matters which are being dealt with more and more remotely from the centre.
I note what the noble Viscount said about writing to cover the points with which he has not dealt in his speech. I was surprised at two omissions. First, he made no comment on the point that I raised—the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, pursued it with much greater eloquence—on the restrictions on the short-term agency chiefs taking up employment when they leave. Can the head of the Prison Service take up a role with Group 4 when his contract expires? I believe that that is an important point. Secondly, we have still been left with no word whatsoever about the Diplomatic Service. No doubt we shall be told the answers in the letters that we shall receive. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, for Papers, by leave withdrawn.

War Crimes (Supplementary Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
7.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: 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 Campbell of Alloway.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD SKELMERSDALE IN THE CHAIR.]
Clause 1 [Limitation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Harrowby: I was one of the people who voted in your Lordships' House against the Bill proceeding. Since then I have had an experience which I should like to explain briefly to the Committee.
Throughout most of the war I was in the Stoke City Field Regiment. However, I was too busy after the war ever to attend its reunions. When I retired three years ago, I attended a reunion for the first time. Despite an attendance of perhaps 150 ex-members of the regiment, I recognised not one of them after that 50 year gap. I believe that that exemplifies why noble Lords were so unhappy with the concept of the original Bill.

1571
It is interesting to speculate on why noble Lords' opinion was not accepted in another place. I believe that the reasons were two-fold. First, noble Lords have a greater spread of age; and that is an advantage. The spread is less concentrated in middle age than in another place. Secondly, noble Lords can exercise a more objective view without having to look over their shoulders. I trust that my noble friend's initiative regarding the Bill will receive a happier reception from another place than it received on the last occasion.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I, too, voted against the Second Reading of the Bill and spoke previously when the matter was debated on the Hetherington-Chalmers report. The question now is: what shall we do with the Bill? It seems to me that the desirable course is for the Attorney-General to follow the course that has been taken by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and simply drop the proceedings. Indeed, it would be anomalous if a different legal regime were instituted in this country from that in Scotland.
I had three reasons for opposing the Bill. First, in reality it was retrospective legislation, although not according to the rules which apply to statutory construction and which are not really relevant here. Secondly—it is a point which has been referred to by the noble Earl—I referred to the difficulties of identification and the consequence that it would be impossible to vouchsafe a fair trial to whoever was brought to trial.
However, I believe that there is a third reason. I refer to the danger of a backlash if the prosecutions proceed. We had warning of that as early as the Hetherington-Chalmers report. When those two public servants were holding a press conference and discussion the other side of Parliament Square, the British National Party, full of anti-semitism and xenophobia, was demonstrating against what was proposed. It seems to me that if the prosecutions go ahead there is a real danger of extremist parties cashing in in that way.
The question is: what is the easiest way to facilitate the Attorney-General taking the course which I suggested? It is rather like the rustic who was asked the way to Little Kirkhampton. He said: "If I were going to Little Kirkhampton, I would not start from here." If we want to arrive at the consummation which appeals overwhelmingly to the Committee, we would not start from where we are now. In my view, the best thing is to give the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, his Bill here. I venture to suggest that it should then be dropped before it gets to the other place. If there were a challenge between the two Chambers, it would be difficult for the Attorney-General to take the course I have ventured to propose.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harrowby and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. In my mind, there is no question or intention of there being any confrontation with another place. I am grateful to both speakers for what they said about the War Crimes Act and for their
1572
support for the Bill. I would be grateful if Mr. Attorney were to say, "There will be no prosecutions". If there are to be no prosecutions, there is no need for the Bill. I am the last person in the world to seek to bring pressure in that direction. At the moment, however, for the reasons I gave at Second Reading and shall not repeat, I have no option but to proceed. I commend the clause.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Bridge of Harwichmoved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Jurisdiction of Crown Court
. For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that on any prosecution for an offence under the War Crimes Act 1991 the Crown Court has jurisdiction to quash the indictment on the ground that, in the circumstances of the case, the lapse of time from the date when the offence was alleged to have been committed to the date when the prosecution was instituted—

(a) is likely to cause substantial prejudice to the defendant in the conduct of his defence; or

(b) is likely to make a fair trial impossible.").

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to make clear at the outset something that is self-evident anyway. The proposed new clause and Clause 2 as I propose to amend it are wholly independent of Clause 1. They have utility of necessity only so long as the jurisdiction to prosecute offenders for alleged offences, by virtue of the jurisdiction conferred by the War Crimes Act 1991, remains in existence and so long as there is still a prospect that that jurisdiction will be invoked.
I commend the amendment on the premise—and for present purposes I accept it—that it is at least theoretically possible in some cases to have a fair trial of a person who is charged with an offence, notwithstanding that more than 50 years have elapsed since the date when the offence is alleged to have been committed. However, if that is possible in some cases—and I venture to hope that no one will dispute the proposition—it will be manifestly impossible in others. Perhaps that will be so in the great majority of cases.
If a distinction is to be made between those cases which can fairly be tried and those which cannot, it will have to be made by the judiciary. If this House had done as I urged it to do when the War Crimes Bill came before it for the second time and had given the Bill a Second Reading, I should have thought it appropriate then to move an amendment to the same effect as that which I now propose. This is the most important amendment that I hoped to have the opportunity to propose then. Now the Bill proposed by my noble friend Lord Campbell presents at least the theoretical opportunity—I do not know that it is any more than that—for the omission to be remedied.
The amendment makes clear the scope of the court's jurisdiction, on a prosecution under the War Crimes Act 1991, to stay the proceedings on the ground of prejudice by delay. As the 1991 Act stands, there seems real doubt as to the scope of the jurisdiction. In the absence of any statutory period of limitation applying to prosecutions on indictment, the

1573
citizen's safeguard against stay of prosecutions rests in the discretion of the court to stay a prosecution on indictment, to quash the indictment, halt the proceedings—whatever phrase one uses does not matter—on the ground that the accused has been so prejudiced by delay that the matter should not proceed. The other side of the coin is that it is not possible to have a fair trial.
The normal ground on which such an application of common law proceeds is that of prejudice by delay. But, as I understand the law, it is also necessary to show to some extent that the prosecution bears responsibility for that delay. To take an obvious illustration, if a murder victim has been so successfully buried in a hidden place that the crime does not come to light until more than 20 years later, the court would give short shrift to an application on behalf of the defence for a stay of proceedings on the ground that he had been prejudiced by the delay in bringing the prosecution.
My real concern about the operation of the 1991 Act as it stands is that the court may be invited to say—and it is an arguable proposition—that since there was no jurisdiction to bring a prosecution for any of the crimes before the 1991 Act reached the statute book, the prosecution is in no way at fault in having failed to bring the prosecution earlier. Therefore, the delay prior to the date when the Act came into force should be disregarded. The sole purpose of the amendment—and it is purely a declaratory amendment—is to remove that doubt, to make it clear that such an argument is not acceptable. It is to make it clear that the whole period of delay from the date when the offence is alleged to have been committed is to be taken into account by the court in deciding whether it has substantially prejudiced the defence and rendered a fair trial impossible. That was the view of the effect of the statute which was commended to the House on behalf of the Government when the Bill was first introduced. In moving the Second Reading of the War Crimes Bill on 4th June 1990, in reply to a point that was made by my noble friend Lord Campbell, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said:
"I would only remind him of this: under the law as it stands, it is possible for the defence to apply to have a charge dismissed on the ground that the length of time which has elapsed since the offence occurred has made it impossible for the accused to be able to gather together the evidence which he needs for his defence and thereby be sure of obtaining a fair trial. There is nothing in the Bill which alters that position in any way. It will remain open to the judge to prevent a case from proceeding if he believes that a fair trial will be impossible".—[Official Report, 4/6/90; col. 1085.]
I know that as the law stands now—it was not so when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, pronounced those words—by virtue of the decision of this place in the case of Pepper v. Hart (a decision in which, as I recall, there was only one dissenting voice) the court may now resort to Hansard as a means of resolving any uncertainty as to Parliament's intention in enacting a particular statute. My submission to the Committee is that it clearly cannot be right in principle to rely
1574
on reference to Hansard, even if it is possible, to clarify an uncertainty. The proper course is that the statute should declare clearly and unambiguously on its face the intention of Parliament as to the scope of the jurisdiction that it confers upon the court. That is precisely what this amendment sets out to do. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like very briefly to support the amendment and thank the noble and learned Lord for the manner in which he explained it. It would be retrogressive if at this stage, after Pepper v. Hart, we were, for example, in a case like this to rely on ministerial utterances in place of the plain words of the statute. It would be a wrong sort of precedent to set. And in particular, as Members of the Committee know, there is a whole mass of new practice directions which have to be followed before you can rely in court upon the words of a Minister to interpret the words of a statute. That is quite right. It is quite unnecessary.
I suggest that this is a matter that was made plain at Second Reading of the Bill by my noble friend Lord Ferrers in answer to a question from me, and which was made plain again by my noble friend Lady Blatch at Second Reading. Even so, that is not the right way for the statute to be prepared. The amendment is a declaratory provision, and I hope that it will commend itself to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
8.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My noble friend Lady Blatch made clear at Second Reading the Government's position in relation to this Bill. So far as the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge is concerned, on the substance of the matter there is no dispute between my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge of Harwich and the Government. We believe that it is right that the court should have power to stay proceedings for abuse of process where there is a probability that a fair trial will not be possible having regard to the delay. In the light of the decision in the Attorney-General's Reference No. 1 of 1990, it is not necessary to show that the prosecution was in any way at fault. What has to be shown is that in all the circumstances having regard to the delay no fair trial will be possible. I believe that that is the result that my noble and learned friend would like to achieve.
It is plain, as my noble and learned friend said, that the view of the Government is that the War Crimes Act which is presently on the statute book does nothing to damage that law in relation to this class of case, and that there is therefore no impediment at present in the law to the success of an application to stay proceedings for an abuse of process on these grounds in relation to war crimes.
I will not take up the invitation that my noble and learned friend seemed to tempt me with to reopen any questions about Pepper v. Hart. I entirely agree with him that it is not a wise principle to rely on that decision, however many of my noble and learned

1575
friends supported it and however unique was the dissenting voice. I am sure it would be agreed on all sides that it would be better to make the matter clear. For that reason, my noble and learned friend will remember that I was of the same view as he in relation to an amendment that might have been put forward if this House had granted a Second Reading to the original Bill when it came here for the second time. However, that particular opportunity did not open to my noble and learned friend. The result is that he has taken it up now.
Our view of the matter is that this amendment is not necessary. Our view is that the substance of the amendment, leaving that point aside, is in accordance with the present law. I think I am right in saying that it is normally put on the basis that the correct procedure is to apply to stay proceedings for abuse of process. I believe that is the phrase that is usually used, although, as my noble and learned friend said, the precise phrase used is not really important; it is the substance of the matter that counts. With that point I agree.
The government position, as I said, has been explained so far as the Bill as a whole is concerned. It is a matter for the Committee what it does with this amendment. I have sought to explain the substance of the matter from the point of view of the Government.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I am delighted to discover that we are ad idem to the extent that we are. He may be right that the doubt as to the effect of the Act as it stands is limited or, as he would say, that there is no doubt. It seems to me that at least it is arguable the other way, and so long as it is arguable the other way a declaratory amendment of this kind to resolve any possible doubt is, in my submission, an appropriate amendment to be made.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal]
Lord Bridge of Harwichmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("on") to the end of line 12 and insert ("any ground referred to in section (Jurisdiction of Crown Court) above an appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) from the decision of the Crown Court granting or refusing the application.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I make clear, as is apparent on the face of the amendment, that its effect is to render a decision by the trial judge in a Crown Court either to grant or to refuse an application to stay—I use that phrase because I cordially agree with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that it is the commonly used phrase, although it has the same effect as an order to quash—a prosecution on the ground of delay amounting to an abuse of process. The effect of the amendment is that such a decision would be open to the Court of Appeal. It was thought—indeed it was believed to be the law at the time when the War Crimes Act was passed—that such a decision was open to judicial review.
1576
That proposition was advanced in the course of the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I ventured to question it and she was good enough subsequently to concede in correspondence that the view had become out of date. The judicial review of a decision by a Crown Court judge is subject to Section 29(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, which precludes any judicial review of a decision made by a Crown Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
"in matters relating to trial on indictment".
Unfortunately, over the years the courts have taken different views as to the effect of that provision. In the case decided in 1991 by the Queen's Bench Divisional Court —surprisingly, the Committee may think—the conclusion was reached that an order staying proceedings on indictment on the ground that they amounted to an abuse of process was subject to judicial review on the basis that such a decision was not in the matter relating to trial on indictment.
I shall not take up the Committee's time in attempting to expound the reasoning which led to that decision. At all events, two years later, in 1993, the matter came before your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity. In a decision to which I was party, in a case called Ashton, we felt obliged to decide, because the language was so clear, that a decision whether or not a trial on indictment should be permitted to proceed was manifestly a decision in a matter relating to trial on indictment. So the decision in Randle was reversed and an order of a Crown Court is no longer subject to judicial review. Although we felt constrained by the statutory language to reach that conclusion, the result has always seemed to me to be a very unhappy one.
A decision whether or not the prosecution should proceed when it is very stale and when an application for stay on the grounds of abuse of process has been made is a difficult one. As I understand it, it is a decision partly of law and partly of discretion. It is a decision in which a judge may clearly err, and some judges have erred in the past. Not only, in my view, is it desirable—as a matter of general law, quite independently of war crimes trials—that the law should be amended so as to render such a decision subject either to review or appeal in a case where an application to stay has been refused, to avoid what may turn out to be a long, expensive and quite unnecessary trial, it is perhaps even more desirable that the prosecution should be able to appeal against the wrongful grant of stay when, if the stay has been wrongfully granted, the defendant will wrongly and unjustly escape the prosecution altogether. But if that amendment to the law is desirable in general, which is the view that I would commend, it is still more particularly desirable—indeed, I would say essential—in war crimes cases.
If a prosecution under the Act of 1991 is ever brought, it will be because the Attorney-General has authorised it and has taken the view that a fair trial is possible. The defence is almost bound to apply to have it stayed and to contend that a fair trial is not possible. The decision is likely to attract great public

1577
interest and to be a highly controversial and sensitive one. In my submission, it would not be right that the burden and responsibility of pronouncing the last word in such circumstances on the question of whether or not the prosecution should go ahead should rest with a single judge. It would be right that it should be subject to an appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). As I said, that is what this amendment would effect. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Again, I shall be extremely brief. This amendment is the only provision in this Bill or in the master Act which does anything to mitigate the backlash factor, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans, whom I see in his place, has referred. It is a matter of which I have no personal knowledge. But it is a matter to which the right reverend Prelate is able to speak from his own personal experience. What it will mean to have an expensive, costly, lengthy trial with the inevitably emotive overtones, all to no good—but one could not say that; rather, all to the bad, the bad of the trouble and tensions that it arouses for no good purpose. That is the main reason why I support the amendment.
As I am addressing the Committee, perhaps I may deal with a serious misunderstanding that arose—I have given notice that I would raise this matter—between the Home Office and myself on Clause 2. After Clause 2 was considered at Second Reading, the Home Office wrote (the letters are in the Library):
"Alan Campbell argued that it was needed because, in his view, such prosecutions should never be brought in the first place".
I did not so argue. I have never argued that prosecutions should never be brought in the first place. The letter goes on:
"My response to Alan's point is simply that I do not accept his general proposition that war crimes prosecutions should never be brought".
I have never on this Bill or any other Bill in any other circumstances ever made such a proposition or so argued. I asked for an unqualified retraction and apology, which has been given. I am content to accept that it was not intended to state in this letter what was so plainly stated. I am obliged to the Chamber for allowing me to correct the record.
The Lord Chancellor: I am sure that if my noble friend Lady Blatch had been here, she would have wanted to add her oral apology to the very full apology that she gave to my noble friend in writing. It was not intended to misrepresent the situation. It was a misdescription of the situation as it appeared. I accept entirely that my noble friend did not make such a statement.
It has to be said in relation to this amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge of Harwich that it can only apply, if this Bill is passed and becomes law, to prosecutions which have been started before the Bill becomes law. There will not be any after the Bill becomes law in view of the provisions of Clause 1. So it would be an innovation introduced as a result of that position.
1578
With regard to the history of judicial review in relation to decisions to stay proceedings, my noble and learned friend Lord Bridge said that the Committee might think that the decisions taken in 1990 were surprising. I know one or two people at least who were surprised, and therefore not very surprised when this Chamber, including my noble and learned friends Lord Bridge and Lord Ackner, found that the words of the section in question prevented a review by the Divisional Court of decisions of this kind by a trial judge. We are therefore agreed that at present, under the law, no intervention is possible by any higher court in a decision of this kind unless it goes in favour of the prosecution and the review will only take place after the matter has proceeded. It may therefore be subject to appeal if there is a conviction.
I can understand the argument that there should be some form of possible appeal at that stage generally. The argument that there should be a right of appeal by the defence is usually met with the answer that, if the whole matter goes against the defence, they will have the right of appeal at the end of proceedings under the present law. But as my noble and learned friend forcefully pointed out, there is no such provision for the prosecution. Therefore one can find that the decision of a judge at first instance in relation to a prosecution generally, not just in relation to war crimes, may defeat the prosecution with no effective appeal in a situation where some may feel that the judge's decision was at least open to question.
That is a question of general importance and there is much to be said for it being considered. I should perhaps say that when the Criminal Justice Act 1987 was passed, an avenue of appeal by either side against a decision on a point of law by the trial judge in a preparatory hearing in a serious fraud case was instituted. There is therefore already a precedent of that type of appeal in a specific case.
The Committee heard the arguments of my noble and learned friend in favour of including such an appeal in the proceedings with which the Bill deals. It would be unusual to institute a new appeal to the prosecution in such a case after the case has started. However, that would be a consequence of the amendment and the general structure of the Bill.
The general matter is one on which different views may be expressed. I can see that in the future your Lordships' House may be asked to consider the matter as a general question. With regard to including it at this time, I have put the points to the Committee that occurred to us and it is for the Committee to decide what should happen to the amendments.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Bridge of Harwich: Again I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, particularly for what occurred to me was at least a qualified welcome to my general proposition that the law needed amending in this respect, independently of what happens in war crimes trials.
In reply to the point that the amendment could only operate in relation to proceedings already instituted before the Bill became an Act of Parliament, I make two

1579
comments. First, I envisaged at least the possibility that, if the Bill reached the statute book, it would reach it shorn of Clause 1, which I apprehended ,was the provision which would be least acceptable to the other place. Secondly, there is nothing unacceptable in law to the introduction of an amendment of the law which is purely procedural and which operates retrospectively to the extent that it affects the procedure in relation to litigation which is already on foot. The fact therefore that the amendment may operate only in relation to prosecutions already instituted, is not a significant objection.
There was a point not specifically addressed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It was the most powerful point concerning the desirability of introducing a right of appeal in war crimes cases; that is, if it is not introduced then the position of the single
1580
judge, the trial judge, in having to make such a sensitive and controversial decision—whichever way he may make it—will be invidious. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended agreed to.
Clause 3 [Short title and extent]:
Lord Bridge of Harwichmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 15, leave out from ("(2)") to ("only") and insert ("Sections (Jurisdiction of Crown Court) and 2 of this Act apply").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 3 is a minor and purely consequential drafting amendment which follows from the two amendments already accepted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments. House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before nine o'clock.

  BENEFITS: FRAUDULENT APPLICATIONS
  BENEFITS: FRAUDULENT APPLICATIONS
  BRITISH FISHING FLEET: DECOMMISSIONING SCHEMES
  BRITISH FISHING FLEET: DECOMMISSIONING SCHEMES
  TURKEY ANKARA METRO PROJECT
  TURKEY ANKARA METRO PROJECT
  BAHRAIN DEMONSTRATIONS, DECEMBER 1994
  BAHRAIN DEMONSTRATIONS, DECEMBER 1994
  INDONESIA, EXECUTIONS: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR'S RECOMMENDATIONS
  INDONESIA, EXECUTIONS: SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR'S RECOMMENDATIONS
  CAR-FREE ZONES: DISABLED PEOPLE
  CAR-FREE ZONES: DISABLED PEOPLE
  BUDGET REPORT: REVISED TABLES
  BUDGET REPORT: REVISED TABLES
  ARMY PERSONNEL CENTRE RELOCATION
  ARMY PERSONNEL CENTRE RELOCATION
  OTTERBURN TRAINING AREA: AS90 FIRING PLAN
  OTTERBURN TRAINING AREA: AS90 FIRING PLAN
  OTTERBURN TRAINING AREA: NOISE
  OTTERBURN TRAINING AREA: NOISE
  NATO: COMBINED JOINT TASK FORCE CONCEPT
  NATO: COMBINED JOINT TASK FORCE CONCEPT
  CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE UK DEFENCE CONTRACTS
  CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE UK DEFENCE CONTRACTS
  UN RWANDA APPEAL: UK RESPONSE
  UN RWANDA APPEAL: UK RESPONSE
  PRISON BOARDS OF VISITORS: REVIEW
  PRISON BOARDS OF VISITORS: REVIEW