Sitting of 1 April 1996

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

  CONTINTENCIES FUND 1994–95
  Ordered,
  That there be laid before this House a Return of Accounts of the Contingencies Fund, 1994–95, showing:
  (1) The Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1995.
  (2) The Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Wood.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL HERITAGE

    Professional Football
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many professional football clubs she or Ministers in her Department have visited over the past 12 months to discuss the viability of professional football. [21892]
    The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with the governing bodies, and with
    2
    many other groups and individuals involved in football, to discuss matters of concern to football and have visited both professional and amateur football grounds.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the remarkable success story of Southend United football club which, in co-operation with local authorities, has provided remarkable services to Southend's young people, but which, like other clubs, has a problem finding an alternative site for a massive redevelopment? I appreciate the enormous burdens on the Minister's time, but might it be possible for him to visit the successful Southend United football club and, in establishing priorities, to bear it in mind that, when I became the Member of Parliament, Southend United was at the foot of the fourth division and is now, happily, near the top of the first division and likely to go higher?
    Mr. Sproat: I am aware that Southend United is seventh in the first division and that it has a splendid record in liaising with schools, as the document "Raising the Game" hoped would happen. Southend's liaison with schools is a model for many clubs. On Southend United's moving or relocating, I read in a newspaper about possible relocation to Fossets farm. I would be happy to learn more about that from my hon. Friend, either here or in Southend.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister consider the effect on professional football's finances of the huge disparity between the money available to the premier league, because of its television contracts, and the money available to the Endsleigh league's first, second and third divisions? The effect is that, generally speaking, it is much more profitable for a player to play, for example, for the second team of a premier league club than for the first team of an Endsleigh league first division club. It also means that, when clubs are promoted from the Endsleigh league first division, they always run the risk of being

    3
    rapidly relegated because they simply do not have the finances of premier league clubs. Is not that distorting the whole game? Is it not time that that was examined?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman raises an important problem, but the tremendous increase in income to football clubs through television sports rights has affected matters dramatically in both the premier league and other leagues. The Football League has recently negotiated a contract worth about £125 million over the next four or five years. I hope that that will make a difference to the problems that the hon. Gentleman describes.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that we ensure that school fields are available for school children who, in future, become interested in sports, including football? Does he further agree that it is important to condemn left-wing local authorities that have continued to seek to ban or to discourage competitive sports, and that we will see splendid successes, such as that being shown by Blackpool football club, currently top of division two after a splendid 1-0 win over Brentford on Saturday, only if plenty of school children have the opportunity to participate in football and other sports at school?
    Mr. Sproat: On football and schools, I congratulate the football authorities on what they have done. Since we produced "Raising the Game" on 14 July, no other sport has done more to encourage sport in schools. For example, the Football League, Sportsmatch and Auto Windscreens have a new six-a-side competition in secondary schools and Coca-Cola has sponsored the schoolboy European championships. We have consulted on the fact that the Sports Council should be consulted before any school playing fields are sold. I agree with my hon. Friend, therefore, that much has to be done and that much has been done.
    Mr. Pendry: Had the Minister visited more football clubs, he would know of the many concerns facing professional football. As one who has visited more clubs, may I assist him by asking him to take on board some of those concerns as addressed in our charter for football—which, as he knows, has been universally well received by the football world? One such concern is about a lack of co-operation between his Department and the Department of the Environment. The Minister really must get tougher with that Department and insist that planning policy must work in favour of relocation rather than against it.
    Will the Minister also deal with the real problem of losses to pools companies as a result of the national lottery's impact, which is a major factor in the inability of some league clubs to meet the demands of the Taylor report? As I have accepted today an invitation to visit Southend United to hear its problems, why does not he join me there?
    Mr. Sproat: On the hon. Gentleman's point about co-operation with the Department of the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State co-operates fully with it in all planning matters of that sort. On his point about a reduction in pools income, that is a serious problem that the Government met in the most recent Budget by increasing the money available to the Football
    4
    Trust by 0.5 per cent. As for Southend, I shall make my own arrangements to learn everything that needs to be learnt there.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many good causes in London have been awarded funds from the national lottery. [21893]
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Awards totalling £315 million have been made to 444 projects in London.
    Mr. Congdon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that announcement, and in particular for the major flagship projects in London that have benefited. Will she pay tribute to the many small organisations that have benefited from the national lottery, in particular the Croydon victim support scheme and the Croydon refugee project? Do not those projects show the lottery's value to a variety of good causes, not only in London but throughout the country?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I pay a special tribute to the National Lottery Charities Board, which has done a magnificent job in a very short space of time in providing grants to organisations involved in care in the community. In London, the board has provided around 225 grants, concerned with old people's welfare, volunteer bureaux, Mencap, toy libraries, under-fives projects and all manner of schemes to help support others in the community.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State is aware of the apparent regional competition for the allocation of lottery money. Will she consider doing two things to ensure that the situation is understood? First, will she allow the provision of formalised regional figures that would compare a region's allocations with its population? Secondly, and more important, will she allow the identification of grants that are clearly for local projects—such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon)—and those which are clearly for national projects, such as money for the Tate or the Earth centre in Doncaster, which are located in one region, but are for national and general benefit?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is aware that there are some myths and misunderstandings about distribution of lottery money. Nine out of 10 awards have been outside London and four out of five awards have been for amounts less than £100,000. Frequently, large flagship projects draw attention and give a somewhat misleading impression but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, some flagship projects in London are leading to major opportunities in regeneration. Certainly the projects in his constituency—the £50 million Bankside project, the Globe theatre and others—mean that we can hope for a cultural quarter in London such as they have in Paris.

    Arts, Sport and Heritage Funding
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made of overall funding provision for (a) the arts, (b) sport and (c) heritage. [21894]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The areas for which I am responsible benefit hugely from a rich tapestry of funding.

    5
    The partnership between public money—in the form of central and local government support—the lottery and private money, through sponsorship, provides well over £3 billion for arts, sport and our heritage. That partnership supports all our sectors on a scale never enjoyed before.
    Mr. Arnold: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement this morning on the establishment of talent funds financed by the national lottery? It is extremely important that we provide good funding for youngsters talented in the arts and, in particular, in sports, because that funding will further strengthen Britain's performance in the great international competitions.
    Mrs. Bottomley: The announcement made this morning to the effect that we are now able to extend the remit of the Arts Council and the Sports Council using national lottery money to invest in talent is, I think, widely welcomed. We want to promote participation to encourage youngsters to get involved in the arts and in sport and we want to go for gold by training our excellent athletes of the future.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that we have always accepted that, for Britain to advance, it is important to help those who need assistance yet, every day in Parliament, a Tory Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says, "Leave it to market forces and the talent will come up from the bottom—don't give them any money," but now that the Government have their sticky fingers on the lottery, they are saying, "Subsidise and intervene because market forces do not work for sport"?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Anyone who had any doubt about new Labour need only listen to the hon. Gentleman's comments. In the past year, the national lottery has made 5,500 awards, which are leading to regeneration, promoting opportunity and developing social cohesion whether in the arts, sports, heritage or the environment. They are very much a force for good. They are a success, and I well understand that the Labour party cannot abide success.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend realise how much my constituent, Mr. Spencer Duval of Lichfield, the national steeplechase champion, will welcome the news about talent funds? Will she confirm that he is just the sort of person to receive money from the talent fund? Will she wish him luck as he hopes to represent this country in the Olympic games? Will she also wish his father, Mr. Derrick Duval, luck—he is my election agent for the next general election?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I cannot say that lottery money will be available for the father but, as part of the next stage, I shall certainly pass on the concern that steeplechasers should be able to benefit from lottery money. The Sports Council has done a remarkable job. It has put money into around 40 sports and made 1,492 awards in just over a year. The move towards supporting talent, coaching and promoting international participants in sporting activity is one which the Sports Council sought and is proceeding with. I shall pass on my hon. Friend's comments about his constituent.
    Dr. John Cunningham: I welcome today's statement by the Secretary of State that she intends to introduce
    6
    talent funds. She is right to say that her announcement will be widely welcomed. We certainly welcome it because she is implementing Labour policy—[Interruption.] I put the idea to her in the Chamber in a debate on 25 October last year, and I am pleased that she has taken it up. May I also welcome the associated announcement on the arts and historic buildings, which will also be welcomed? As it is now the case that individuals receive not only lottery cash but revenue funding, is not it important, from the point of view of access, fairness and probity, that any decisions are properly monitored and checked? What arrangements is the Secretary of State putting in place to ensure that the money is effectively and properly spent?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I shall not spend too long on ownership of the concept of talent funds, which will result in great benefits to many youngsters and others. In addition, the support announced for touring means that all parts of the country can benefit from some of the artistic excellence which is otherwise confined to the great city centres.
    The right hon. Gentleman is right to ask about monitoring. My Department has in hand a rigorous programme for monitoring the various distributing bodies, which have to lay annual reports before Parliament. The sums involved are substantial and the money must be used for their proper purpose.

    Millennium
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to highlight the attractions of the River Thames for the millennium. [21896]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: A range of initiatives has been put forward to highlight the attractions of the River Thames for the millennium. We are working closely with the London tourist board, the Government office for London and private sector partners to ensure that full advantage is taken of the excellent opportunities offered by the river for the millennium and beyond.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My right hon. Friend will recognise that the River Thames is arguably the least well-used river of the world's major capitals. Will she assure the House that she will seize the opportunity presented by the millennium celebrations to sweep aside all problems—financial or tidal—to ensure that the River Thames takes its rightful place as the pride of London and the country?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I strongly endorse my hon. Friend's comments. I welcome the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. His Thames advisory group has done some very important work. Last week's news about the royal naval college is further encouragement. Up and down the Thames, projects are receiving investment on an unprecedented scale. My objective is precisely that of my hon. Friend: that the River Thames should retain a vital role in London.
    Mr. Spearing: The remarks of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) will be echoed by all hon. Members who represent London constituencies and, I know, by the Secretary of State herself. Does she agree

    7
    that there needs to be proper co-ordination of the new river services to the two millennium sites at Greenwich—perhaps north of Greenwich, too—possibly under the aegis of the Port of London Authority? Does she also agree that Londoners would not appreciate development of a service oriented primarily to create a marine equivalent of the tourist hop-on hop-off buses, and would prefer it to be properly integrated with London's public passenger transport services?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I know of his keen interest in the subject. Discussions are under way on proposals for the millennium festival at Greenwich. As the year progresses, I think that more public and private authorities will co-operate on taking the opportunity to invest in the capital. I shall certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman's thoughts about river transport are passed on.

    National Lottery
    Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the powers available to the operator of the national lottery to change the rules governing the amount and distribution of winnings. [21897]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Rules for payment of prizes from any game that forms part of the national lottery can be changed only with the prior consent of the Director General of the National Lottery.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she confirm that the recent rule adjustment relating to the £10 payout for forecasting three correct numbers was made at the behest of the Director General of the National Lottery only to cover what would be an extremely unlikely eventuality? Will she also confirm that, of all the bidders to run the national lottery, Camelot came forward with the lowest operating costs, and will in fact take in profit less than 1 per cent. of all the money staked?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend precisely describes the situation. As far as I have been able to establish, the lottery has the lowest operating costs of any national lottery anywhere in the world. It is extremely efficient and very well regulated. The recent announcement about the match-three rule resulted from the decision of the Director General of Oflot, who took a particularly scrupulous view of the matter, although, as he said, the chances of such an eventuality were about the same as meeting Elvis on the moon.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread anger that Oflot's announcement has caused? Can she name one other lottery that pays out less than the allotted prize money, which is what has been proposed?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I do not think that there has been widespread anger. People have continued to play the national lottery, and I expect that, once again, a very large number of people will play it for the roll-over on Easter Saturday. I accept that, at the time of the announcement, there was some misunderstanding, but people have since
    8
    seen it in its proper proportion. People have received their £10 on every occasion since the lottery started and I expect that they will continue to do so. When I am in Cambridge this week to open the Arts theatre, I shall discover whether there is great anger about the rule change. There is more likely to be great celebration that the Arts theatre is one of 147 theatres in the country that has benefited from the national lottery.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend tell the puritans of the left who want to interfere with the roll-over that, when there is a roll-over, many more people play and the beneficiaries are the good causes for which the lottery is designed?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is precisely right. There is an increase of about 20 per cent. in the number of players when there is a roll-over. More people play the national lottery than vote in a general election. When we manage to achieve the same participation rate as the national lottery, I shall think that we, as elected parliamentarians, are beginning to succeed.

    Football (European Championship)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to meet the English Football Association to discuss arrangements for the staging of the European championship. [21898]
    Mr. Sproat: My right hon. Friend and I have been meeting the football authorities on a regular basis to discuss the organisation of Euro 96. We will meet them and other interested parties again shortly.
    Mr. Banks: May I say en passant to the Minister that I was very disappointed that he did not present the Coca-Cola cup at Wembley and that the Secretary of State got the job? We all know how much she knows about football—the Cabinet's answer to Alan Hansen. Then again, I suppose that life is a bit of a bucket of cold spit; the Minister does get the topless dancer tossing the caber.
    When the Minister talks to the Football Association, will he ensure that it puts a good spin on the European championship and that there is not just talk about who has the best hooligans and hooliganism generally? We are talking about football and not about a rerun of the 30 years war. It is important to stress the positive side of football and not the negative side.
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman is right and I hope that there will be magnificent games of football. However, many people are worried about possible outbursts of hooliganism and so on. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has now reached agreement with all the European countries that we can do everything possible to spot foreign hooligans and our own resident hooligans at matches.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of hotel companies propose to increase their room prices substantially during the competition and that that may have a damaging effect on the tourism industry generally? Is he further aware that charter airline companies are now talking of visitors to Britain for the

    9
    football competition coming only for the day? Is there not, therefore, some sense in discussing the matter with the hotel companies to ensure that what they propose does not damage the tourism industry this summer?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is right to raise the point about opportunities for tourism generated by the European championship. We expect another 250,000 visitors as a result and another £100 million-worth of income to our tourism industry. The English tourist board sits on committees that are involved with the matter. I know that the board is worried that hotels may price themselves out of business and that it is taking all sensible measures to prevent that.
    Mr. Maxton: When the Minister meets the English Football Association, will he discuss with it the great anger and concern in Scotland about the very small allocation of tickets for Scottish fans for the game between England and Scotland at Wembley on 15 June? Will he try to ensure that the allocation is increased because, otherwise, Scottish fans will get tickets that mean that they will mix with English fans, which may cause some difficulty?
    Mr. Sproat: I shall do everything that it is proper for me to do.

    Digital Television Multiplexes
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what quality criteria will be used in judging applications to operate digital television multiplexes. [21899]
    Mr. Sproat: Applications for multiplex licences will be judged on their likely contribution to the successful development of digital terrestrial television in the United Kingdom. A key criterion will be the variety of programming that applicants intend to provide. Existing terrestrial broadcasters, who have been meeting programming quality thresholds, are being offered guaranteed capacity on digital multiplexes.
    Mr. Hain: Will the Minister accept the Independent Television Commission's desire to include quality among the criteria for judging applications by digital television multiplex operators? Surely quality has to be an essential part of the criteria because, otherwise, we are in for a diet of yet more American-type tat on television.
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There are quality thresholds for BBC1, BBC2, channels 3, 4 and 5, and S4C, and the criteria of taste, decency and impartiality will apply to everyone. The Government are currently satisfied that those are sufficient, but we shall no doubt return to the matter during our debates on the Broadcasting Bill.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that over-regulation is the enemy of good quality television and of employment opportunities? Would not it be better for Britain and for our great television industry to cut regulation and allow our companies to compete for, and win, markets around the world?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes the other side of the case very well. It is important that a proper balance is struck between the quality of television and encouraging the expansion of our new digital television industry—not only programmes, but the equipment that British companies can manufacture and sell at home and abroad.

    Departmental Accountability
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what new proposals she has to improve the accountability of her Department. [21901]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: My Department's aims and objectives, performance and future expenditure plans in the annual report were published on Monday 25 March. The content of that report is kept under review.
    Mr. Flynn: Would not the Department be made more accountable if the Secretary of State discovered why places such as Hampton court and the Tower of London—unoccupied royal areas—are so popular? Would not there be an enormous boost to jobs and tourism if more royal palaces were unoccupied and freely open throughout the year to tourists? Will she follow the campaign of my hon. and, I understand, royal Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who has said that he is willing to live in Caerphilly castle and—when he is monarch or president—that he will be happy to rule under the campaign title, "One monarch, one palace"?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the great popularity of royal palaces, and I commend Historic Royal Palaces for ensuring that they are more responsive, open and accessible.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Secretary of State now account to the House for one of the most damaging and self-destructive actions that she has taken—the Government's withdrawal last November from the Council of Europe's Eurimages scheme? Does she appreciate that the £2 million subscription leveraged between £45 million and £50 million a year of European co-production money to the advantage of our industry? In the absence of any Government policy for restarting and reinvigorating the feature film industry, will she now do a U-turn—one that we would welcome and support—and rejoin Eurimages?
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is clear that Labour approaches every issue as if it were on a wish list—it never says no and says yes only to any spending commitment. The responsibility of the Government is to make difficult choices and to set priorities. Film has benefitted from 70 awards and £20 million from the national lottery, and that is an important boost to the industry. I shall take due note of the recommendations of Sir Peter Middleton's committee on film finance. We have no intention of changing our position on Eurimages, but we have every intention of pursuing that committee's recommendations.

    D'Oyly Carte Theatre Company
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what discussions she has had on the future funding position of the D'Oyly Carte theatre company. [21902]
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she last had a meeting with the chairman of D'Oyly Carte to discuss future funding arrangements. [21906]
    Mr. Sproat: I regard the D'Oyly Carte company as one of our national cultural institutions. I recently met Sir Michael Bishop, the chairman of D'Oyly Carte, who set out the company's current position, and I very much hope that the negotiations, which are continuing, about the company's future can soon be brought to a satisfactory conclusion for all parties involved, so that D'Oyly Carte can continue to flourish and delight audiences for years to come.
    Mr. Brazier: Hear, hear. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Arts Council spent a little less than £56 million on the Royal Opera house and stopped subsidising chopped-up sheep, it would be able to help D'Oyly Carte? If he is having any trouble persuading the luvvies at the Arts Council, could he remind them of the words of W. S. Gilbert:
    "But the privilege and pleasure
    That we treasure beyond measure
    Is to run on little errands for the Ministers of State."?
    Mr. Sproat: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his knowledge of Gilbert and Sullivan. I shall make certain that the chairman of the Arts Council not only receives a copy of what my hon. Friend said but is told of the tone of voice in which he said it and the support that he received in the House.
    Mrs. Lait: Does my hon. Friend agree that D'Oyly Carte is in the great tradition of light opera that has delighted the British for many hundreds of years? D' Oyly Carte in particular has delighted my family for at least three generations. Will he ensure that the Arts Council spends less on dead sheep and sleeping models and a bit more on ensuring that this great, beloved tradition receives the funding that it deserves?
    Mr. Sproat: I certainly agree that the D'Oyly Carte company, which has been going for more than 100 years, and Gilbert and Sullivan are among our great musical and literary traditions. The Arts Council does much good work and it would be a great shame if one or two eccentric decisions took away from the appreciation of what it does.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is not the real test of the Minister's stewardship of the performing arts whether he can whet the appetite of young children at school? Is not the test for the Government not to favour one or two of the competing claims lobbied for here this afternoon but to ensure that young men and women and our kids at school have access to the finest performing arts—the operas and the ballets—
    12
    which they are currently denied? We are a philistine state when it comes to promoting arts culture among our school children.
    Mr. Sproat: One of the interesting things about Gilbert and Sullivan is that there is probably no better way of getting young people interested in music, opera and literature than this extremely accessible form of art. That is one of the reasons why we are so keen to see that D'Oyly Carte continues and flourishes.

    Works of Art
    Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has to retain in the United Kingdom those works of art which meet the Waverley criteria. [21903]
    Mr. Sproat: When an object is found to meet the Waverley criteria, a decision on the export licence application will be deferred for a period to allow time for funds to be raised to make a compensating offer to purchase. If there is such an offer, the object will be retained. It is for potential purchasers to determine whether to make a fund-raising attempt.
    Mr. Carrington: Does my hon. Friend agree that retaining the finest objects of this country's heritage is an appropriate use of national lottery funds? Will he make it clear to the national heritage memorial fund that one of its highest priorities should be to retain Waverley criteria items in this country?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I do agree with that. I agree that the lottery should be used, and indeed it can be used for that purpose. On 20 December the national heritage memorial fund contributed some £8 million to the purchase of a Seurat by the national gallery.
    Mr. Cohen: Do any of the pictures owned by the Government meet the Waverley criteria? Why have so many gone missing from Government Departments, but worst of all from the Ministry of Defence? Will he take some action to make sure that generals, admirals and top civil servants cannot just walk off with the Government's paintings?
    Mr. Sproat: I am sure that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question—whether some Government paintings fulfil the Waverley criteria—is yes. As for his second question, he will know that some of the paintings went missing when embassies such as that in Iran and elsewhere were subject to seige by the people of the country. It is true that we need to know why certain paintings which have been in the holding of the Foreign Office or Ministry of Defence are missing. I shall certainly be asking my right hon. Friends to account for them.

    Broadcasting Bill
    Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received from Border Television with regard to the Broadcasting Bill. [21904]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Since publication of the Bill, Ministers in my Department have discussed the Bill's

    13
    provisions with the chief executive of Border Television, both individually and as part of a delegation from the holders of the licences for the five least populous channel 3 regions.
    Mr. Martlew: I have expressed before my concern that the Broadcasting Bill will allow the takeover of Border Television and result in a loss of jobs in my constituency and the loss of quality programmes. Many of the small ITV companies carry programmes that are subsidised by the high-cost network schedule programming system. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that system will continue until at the very least the end of the licensing period or beyond?
    Mrs. Bottomley: It is, indeed, an important issue about which many hon. Members will be concerned. It is important to protect the position of the smaller ITV companies and the element of regional identity that they give channel 3's output. I pay tribute to companies like Border Television, which often exceeds its required regional programming output and sustains the loyalty of viewers throughout its varied licence area. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Broadcasting Bill already allows the Independent Television Commission to require any new owner of a channel 3 licence to maintain existing levels and standards of regional broadcasting. We intend also to amend the Bill to require the ITC to disallow any change to the ITV networking arrangements which would jeopardise any company's regional output.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: What view does my right hon. Friend take of Rupert Murdoch's decision to make Sky Sport's subscribers pay extra to watch the recent Bugner fight? [HON. MEMBERS: "Bruno!"] Does she regard that as the start of payment in the slot for television?
    Madam Speaker: Order. That question bears no relation to the Broadcasting Bill.
    Mrs. Bottomley: We are about to embark on an extremely complex Broadcasting Bill. By the time that we complete it, perhaps there will be greater clarity among all hon. Members about its provisions and the opportunities. There has been a massive amount of sport on television in recent years—it has developed rapidly. The extension, not only to subscription, but pay-per-view television is something that the new channels will make possible. What is important is to safeguard sufficient sport for the terrestrial television channels, which everyone watches. I think that their Lordships have safeguarded that in the amendment that they passed in another place.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the Secretary of State aware that Border Television, which covers parts of England and Scotland, does not give Scottish politics adequate coverage, particularly Scottish questions in the House? Is she aware that many Scots living in the Border Television area are deprived of seeing Scottish Members of Parliament in action at Scottish Question Time? May I refer in particular to my mother, who is most concerned, as she lives in Galashiels, that she does not have the opportunity to see me on Scottish questions? Will the right hon. Lady do something about that right away?
    Mrs. Bottomley: We are the party of the family and we would certainly want the hon. Gentleman's mother to
    14
    be happy on all possible occasions. I will pass on his comments to the ITC. When it comes to Opposition Members, I am not sure whether it is a question of impartiality or of taste and decency.

    National Lottery
    Sir Norman Fowler: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the total amount of money from the national lottery so far distributed in Birmingham; and if she will make a statement. [21905]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: To date, 54 awards totalling more than £14 million have been made to organisations in Birmingham.
    Sir Norman Fowler: In the Greenwich decision a great deal of emphasis was placed on local regeneration. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that a similar emphasis will be placed on regeneration projects in Birmingham, such as Millennium point.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I certainly can give a very strong assurance. My right hon. Friend has been a vigorous champion of the west midlands case. I understand the disappointment of those in the Birmingham area and look forward to meeting a delegation on Wednesday this week with other members of the Millennium Commission to discuss the various issues involved. The Millennium Commission is committed to the use of lottery money wherever possible to promote regeneration. There is much coastal path restoration, for example, although that is not so useful in the Birmingham area, but when the Millennium Commission considers the major Millennium point application I will undoubtedly pass on my right hon. Friend's strong endorsement.
    Mr. Olner: The Secretary of State knows that Birmingham's £14 million is very different from the £344 million that has been received by London. When will she consider the difference in funding between the regions as it affects Birmingham and my constituency of Nuneaton in Warwickshire? Grants to such areas are too small when compared with those given to London.
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. Although lottery money is not distributed on a quota basis, all distributing bodies intend that the distribution of lottery funds should be monitored over time. In some parts of the country, people have been quick off the mark in applying for grants; in others, there has been a shortfall. Over the year ahead, we will seek to stimulate applications in those parts of the country that have not received the benefits that others have.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Disclosure of Records
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what categories of records are not disclosed after 30 years. [21922]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans): The categories of records that are not disclosed after 30 years are set out in chapter 9 of the 1993 White Paper on open Government.
    Mr. Banks: Perhaps the Minister would like to explain why that is so? Why are some records not released for up

    15
    to 100 years? Why are we not allowed to know about such things as Edward VIII's Nazi past, Hess' flight to Britain in 1941 or Queen Victoria's sexual peccadilloes? How could we change the rules? Who decides that we are not to be given such information? Is it not a fact that this country does not need an Official Secrets Act but a Freedom of Information Act?
    Mr. Evans: There is an Advisory Council on Public Records, which is chaired by the Master of the Rolls. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who is sitting beside the hon. Gentleman, is a member of the council. It gives advice on the records in question. However, the hon. Gentleman has previously complained about the suppression of papers relating to the forcible feeding of suffragettes. I have examined the files in relation to that matter; I was able to because they have been in the public domain since 1988.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Are documents likely to be revealed in 1996 which will disclose the dirty, back-room deals done by the Labour Government, perhaps at the expense of the taxpayer and the national interest, to get the TUC to support their 1966 wage freeze?
    Mr. Evans: Records remain in Departments for 30 years. Ordinarily, they are disclosed after the 30-year period has expired. If there is a request by a Department, the matter is considered by the advisory council. Previously, there was a 50-year restriction but it was subsequently reduced to 30 years.
    Mr. Alan Williams: When I recently joined the council, I was surprised to find that, in addition to matters of considerable importance, many other matters remain state secrets because they are so unimportant. Is the Minister aware that the dark secrets of Government hospitality going back to 1906 are denied to the public on the ground that the Department regards them as being so unimportant that it cannot allocate staff to desensitise them?
    Mr. Evans: I am aware of that point because the hon. Gentleman has met me to raise it. His real point is that it is a question of staff resources rather than of the suppression of information, which would feed the conspiratorial suspicions of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

    Departmental Waste and Bureaucracy
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what new proposals he has to reduce (a) bureaucracy and (b) waste in his Department. [21923]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: A wide range of measures to improve efficiency has been introduced, including the implementation of the Department's senior management review and the introduction, over the next year, of a new management structure for the Court Service.
    Mr. Flynn: As £750,000 of public money has already been spent on the defence of the three soldiers who were found guilty of the foul and cowardly murder of Louise Jensen, does the Minister not think that it would be a
    16
    waste of legal aid funds if a similar sum were paid out for an appeal against their conviction? How would he explain the expenditure of our money to defend those three soldiers when constituents of mine on average or below average income have been refused legal aid?
    Mr. Evans: It is not the policy of the Lord Chancellor's Department to respond to particular questions in relation to certain cases where legal aid has been granted; that matter is in the hands of the respective legal aid authorities. The Government are very much aware of the necessity to ensure that the substantial sums of public money that are expended on legal aid are better targeted. That is why we are engaged in undertaking consultation on targeting need in terms of legal aid and why, in due course, the Government will announce their response to that consultation.
    Mr. Stephen: Is the Minister aware that if a Member of Parliament tries to find out whether and, if so, how, a decision by the Legal Aid Board to grant legal aid can be justified, he will be told that the facts of the case are confidential? If he then asks the ombudsman to inquire, the ombudsman will tell him that he cannot inquire unless he is asked to do so by a party to the case. I understand that even if our noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor were to ask, he would be told that the matter was confidential. Will my hon. Friend consider ways in which the Legal Aid Board can be made more accountable to Parliament and place a note of his conclusions in the Library?
    Mr. Evans: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is important that the Legal Aid Board should be accountable, but that it is also important that its decisions to grant legal aid in specific cases should not be influenced in any way by governmental or individual political decisions. That is why, as I said earlier, the policy of the Lord Chancellor's Department not to respond on individual cases is right. My hon. Friend is quite right, however, that the Legal Aid Board must be seen to be accountable for its actions.

    Court Buildings (Closure)
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review the procedure for closure of court buildings. [21924]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: The Lord Chancellor's Department has responsibility for the Crown and county court estate, and has no plans to change its procedure for considering court closure. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Department has no role in initiating the closure of magistrates courts, which falls to the local magistrates courts committee.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister will be aware that Wakefield Crown court was closed two years ago. As that building is still in the ownership of the Government and has not yet been sold, can he give me an assurance that the building will be properly maintained, because concern has been expressed about its fabric? It is one of the finest buildings in Wakefield. Bearing it in mind that, since its

    17
    closure, it has been used nearly 300 times for court purposes, will he review the formal closure programme agreed two years ago?
    Mr. Evans: It is important to distinguish the cases that are dealt with at Wakefield Crown court from the generality of cases dealt with at Wakefield county court. The county court deals with a range of civil business and will continue to do so, whereas the cases dealt with at Wakefield Crown court are those transferred to it from the Leeds area—some 262 cases according to my latest information. I am keen to ensure that the fabric of all buildings within the Government's estate are properly maintained. In view of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, I will look into the matter.
    Sir Donald Thompson: When my hon. Friend goes to Wakefield to look into the matter, perhaps he could pop on to Calder Valley to pay me a visit at the same time, because we in Calder Valley would like to thank him and the Lord Chancellor for their recent decision on the magistrates committee in Calderdale. Small market town courts are important; if we lose them, we lose a cadre of solicitors and associated people who have known a town and district for generations. That would also affect the speed of justice, but law's delay is less irksome if we keep as many courts as possible.
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks in relation to the recent meeting that the Lord Chancellor and I had with him to discuss the organisation of magistrates courts in his area. I draw the distinction, as I did in reply to the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), about the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department in considering the future of county court premises as against the magistrates courts, but I give an assurance to the House that the factors that influence the Lord Chancellor's Department are primarily geared towards improving the service to court users and that, in those circumstances, financial considerations do not overrule any other considerations in relation to court premises.
    Mr. Boateng: Is the Minister aware that the funding arrangements and the formula applied by the Lord Chancellor's Department in calculating grant to local magistrates courts committees is responsible for many of the closures of courthouses and courtrooms and the laying off of court staff, especially those responsible for security and the collection of awards made to victims of crime? Is he aware of the widespread anxiety on both sides of the House about the impact on the morale of the Court Service and on the interests of justice? Imposing Treasury-driven inflexible rules on the magistrates court system has led to incalculable harm and denial of justice.
    Mr. Evans: I am aware of the fact that the magistrates courts committees are funded on a formula basis, and that is a necessary and essential product of the fact that we decided, following the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, to retain the independence of those magistrates courts committees.
    When I had the opportunity of speaking to the council of the magistrates courts committees but a matter of days after my appointment to this post, I said that the Lord Chancellor's Department was happy to examine any
    18
    anomalies in relation to the formula basis. In my judgment, the current operation of the formula properly assesses the rate of grant that should be given to most magistrates courts, but clearly some courts are disadvantaged by the way in which the formula works out and, as I said to the council, if the hon. Gentleman can propose any change in the formula that properly tackles that, I shall be happy to examine it.

    Legal Aid Board
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many solicitors have been prosecuted for attempting to defraud the Legal Aid Board in each of the last three years. [21925]
    Mr. Evans: The number of concluded cases where solicitors have appeared at court charged with offences of fraud or attempted fraud against the Legal Aid Board in the past three years are as follows. In 1993–94, three cases; in 1994–95, no cases; in 1995–96, two cases. In addition, 19 cases are currently under investigation by the prosecuting authorities or are awaiting trial.
    Mr. Ainger: Does the Minister accept that that may well be the tip of an iceberg, especially in view of the number of complaints that pass through my constituency surgery about the quality of service provided by solicitors? Is it not about time for us to ensure that the Solicitors' Complaints Bureau starts acting more like the General Medical Council, for example, with clear powers and an independent role? My constituents perceive that the Solicitors' Complaints Bureau is merely a mechanism by which solicitors investigate themselves. We should have a far more independent element in order to retain people's confidence in the system.
    Mr. Evans: My response earlier that 19 cases are currently under investigation by the prosecuting authorities or awaiting trial tends to run against the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman said. Between 1990 and 1995, about 4,600 investigations have been undertaken of solicitors or of assisted persons, but decisions as to whether there should be prosecutions in individual cases must remain that of the individual prosecuting authorities.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that, increasingly, the Legal Aid Board is regarded as a soft touch by unscrupulous solicitors and unscrupulous litigants?
    Mr. Evans: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the legal profession, whose members, for the most part, behave with the utmost integrity, must take on board the message that those individual solicitors, small in number, who are engaged in improper activity must be rooted out and dealt with. I confirm to my hon. Friend that the Government are determined to do that.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister have the figures for disciplinary proceedings instigated against solicitors acting in legal aid cases? Is he aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction among senior officers of the Legal Aid Board? Some solicitors are not doing their job properly and wasting a large amount of public money, as well as giving a very bad service for that reason.
    Mr. Evans: As I said earlier, it is certainly the Government's view that we could be targeting legal aid expenditure very much better than we are doing at the moment. That is the philosophy that underpins the Government's approach to consultation about taking forward changes to the legal aid structure. At the same time it is important to draw a distinction between cases in which one is dealing with disciplinary proceedings against individual solicitors and allegations of fraud. Cases in which fraud may have taken place must clearly remain in the hands of the individual and independent prosecuting authorities.

    Magistrates Courts
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations he has had over the administration of magistrates courts in London. [21926]
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: My officials are in regular contact with the strategic management body which
    20
    represents the management interests of all the outer London courts and with the inner London magistrates courts committee on a wide variety of issues.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My hon. Friend will be aware that Merton magistrates court is working very well under the current arrangements for the 20 outer London courts. Will he assure the House that when the matter is reviewed the demands of cash limits will not mean that courts will be amalgamated, thus abolishing the undoubted benefits of local autonomy?
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend will be disappointed to hear me say that it is far too early for me to give a categorical assurance on that matter at this point. He is aware that it is the Government's policy to review the position five years after the establishment of the strategic management body, which was set up in September 1994. My Department has received reports of its operation in the past year and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and I are currently considering them.

European Council
3.31 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on the meeting of the European Council in Turin on 29 March which I attended with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
The purpose of the meeting was to launch the intergovernmental conference aimed at preparing the European Union for the next phase of enlargement. The Council conclusions, which I have placed in the Library, set out the main areas of the IGC' s agenda. We have ensured that the conclusions do not prejudice the actual negotiations in any way, nor do they contain an exhaustive list of the issues for negotiation. We shall pursue our objectives for the development of Europe as a partnership of nations, as set out in the Government's recent White Paper.
The negotiations themselves will now begin. They may well last for a year or perhaps longer. Foreign Ministers will meet every month. Their personal representatives will meet every week. I outlined to the European Council the Government's approach to the intergovernmental conference. I made it clear that our vision of Europe is built around the bedrock of the nation state. I also set out some of the areas where the United Kingdom will be putting forward proposals, and those where we have strong views.
For example, I underlined the need for the principle of subsidiarity to be enshrined in the treaty; the value of a greater role for national Parliaments; our desire to see Europe's common foreign and security policy work better while preserving its basis of unanimity; the need for further progress in co-operation in justice and home affairs without undermining its essential intergovernmental character; our opposition to any further extension of qualified majority voting; and our insistence on reforms for the working of the European Court of Justice.
I also made plain to the European Council my particular concern about the recent opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice on the working time directive and its implications for the intergovernmental conference. I said that I was not prepared to see the social chapter opt-out undermined as a result of an expansive and unreasonable interpretation of the health and safety article of the treaty. I made it clear that I would be looking in the intergovernmental conference for changes to that article to reflect our earlier understanding of its limited scope.
The European Council also held a brief discussion on employment and competitiveness. This subject will rightly be high on the agenda of its meeting in Florence in June and I set out the Government's views.
Europe has to be globally competitive. Jobs are not created by Governments—and still fewer are created by the European Union. Jobs come from the decisions of businesses in the marketplace. Job creation needs less regulation, not more; and there must be lower financial and other burdens on business, not extra impositions arising from ill-conceived European directives. There is increasing understanding of these realities among some of our European partners. I was encouraged by the
22
discussion, but I will continue to resist strongly any suggestion that the treaty be amended to cover employment issues. Action in those areas is overwhelmingly for individual countries, not for the European Union collectively.
All the Heads of State and Government in Turin were acutely conscious of the Europewide crisis in the beef market. This is, and was treated as, an entirely separate issue from the intergovernmental conference agenda. There was no question in anyone's mind of trading help in one area against co-operation in another. I told my colleagues of the impact in this country of the ban on British beef decided in Brussels last week—particularly as it was taken on the basis of considerations other than the scientific advice.
I suggested to my colleagues that three things were now needed. First, the conditions should be created as speedily as possible to allow the ban on British beef exports to be lifted. Secondly, the specific problems of the United Kingdom beef market had to be addressed. I looked to the Union for sympathetic and speedy support for the measures necessary to return confidence and stability to the market. Thirdly, it should be recognised that this was a European, not just a British, problem.
The response of my European colleagues was, without exception, one of support. There was universal agreement that this was a Europewide problem and that a European solution was required. All Heads of State and Government who spoke expressed readiness to see the European Union bear a share of the financial burden and recalled the European Union help in the swine fever epidemic a few years ago. This was a welcome response, in tone as well as in substance, but we still have some way to go.
Negotiations continue with the Commission on the measures needed to restore confidence. My right hon and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture is in Luxembourg today to take this forward and to attend a meeting of European Ministers of Agriculture, which is now under way.
I emphasised to my European colleagues that, with the measures we have taken, British beef is—on any normal definition of the term—safe. No one disputed this. Everyone recognised that the present crisis came not from a real health risk but from unnecessary hysteria across Europe.
At Turin the intergovernmental conference was launched with an agenda that enables us to pursue our objectives in a non-prejudicial climate. I was able to make clear to my European colleagues our strong views on certain key issues, including what is needed to tackle unemployment across Europe as well as in Britain. We achieved a notable measure of understanding and support over the beef crisis that we and our European partners face together. The need now is to turn this support into action, particularly the lifting of the export ban on British beef and beef products. That is our immediate objective. It is important and we are pursuing it urgently.
Mr. Tony Blair: I shall deal with the statement in two parts: the beef issue and the intergovernmental conference proper. In relation to beef, will the Prime Minister assure us that once the Government have alighted on a package of measures, they will widely consult the farmers, the food retailers, the consumers' organisations and others to ensure that they

23
can command the widest possible basis of consent? I refer to the measures already announced to improve the situation in abattoirs in particular. Is this at least already agreed among the members of the European Union?
In relation to the proposals that we have seen discussed for selective slaughter, am I right in saying that, in effect, should such a proposal be proceeded with, the choice will be between slaughtering cattle above a certain age and slaughtering cattle from particular herds? At this point, do the Government have a view on these options? Given that we agree at least on this—that whatever is done should have some basis in scientific evidence—is there a particular course that that evidence suggests?
May I ask the Prime Minister in particular what is the estimated cost of any of these options; what will be the contribution of the European Union to it; whether such a contribution will simply be a deduction from the British rebate; and when he expects a package to be agreed and the ban lifted?
May I also join the Prime Minister in endorsing the spirit of partnership shown in Turin towards Britain? He was quoted in The Daily Telegraph as saying to the summit:
"I wish the Eurosceptics back in Britain could be in this room now to see how European solidarity works in practice."
The Prime Minister indicated dissent.
Mr. Blair: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman denies it. I would endorse such comments, but would not it be better if he repeated those sentiments more often here in Britain to the faces of the sceptics?
On the IGC specifically, can the Prime Minister tell us what are the prospects now for reweighting the existing system of voting, which is discriminatory against the larger countries? Is he seriously saying, and will he maintain throughout, that there should be no extension of qualified majority voting in any area, not merely in areas such as defence, tax or immigration, with which we would agree, but in any area, such as industry or environment? Is it not manifestly in Britain's interests for there to be some extension of QMV in certain areas, otherwise—especially as the EU enlarges—small countries can block any progress?
The Prime Minister will note that his long statement after the summit contained no mention of the common fisheries policy. Is reform of that policy on the agenda, as he did say, I think, that he would put it on the agenda for Turin? Perhaps he will comment on that.
We welcome the Council's decision to make fighting unemployment a priority for the European Union, and believe that such action can be taken individually and collectively within Europe. Is not Britain's interest in this clear given the massive job insecurity here with 9 million people having suffered at least one spell of unemployment since the last election and with unemployment—particularly long-term and male unemployment rates—still higher than in many of our competitor countries? Does the Prime Minister not agree with President Chirac today that laissez-faire and more deregulation are not sufficient for job creation?
Will the Prime Minister tell us just what is the Government's position on a referendum for a single currency? First, the Cabinet meeting two weeks ago was
24
supposed to resolve it, then it was to be announced at Harrogate. What is happening apart from the daily combat in newspaper briefings between the respective combatants? If it is true—apparently it is—that, in any referendum, the Prime Minister will enforce Cabinet collective responsibility, will he tell us now, with a straight face, whether in any circumstances his Chancellor and Defence Secretary, to name but two, would ever agree? If Sir James Goldsmith demands more concessions, will they be forthcoming?
Is not the lesson of the weekend that Britain gains most from Europe by a spirit not of perpetual isolationism but constructive co-operation, and that that is the only way for Britain to lead in Europe and to be a source of strength to itself and to others?
The Prime Minister: I shall seek to deal with the matters covered by the IGC, although I notice that a number of the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman had nothing whatever to do with it. They were not discussed in the IGC and, from the broad smile on his face, it seems that the right hon. Gentleman knows that very well. I hope that he enjoyed his mischief.
I deal first with beef. When we have concluded, of course we shall wish to consult on a package. By that I do not mean a long period of formal consultation. We need to move speedily. Of course we shall consult speedily with the people who are predominantly interested in this, but it is in the interests of everybody in the beef industry to reach an agreement with our European partners which we and they think will restore confidence in the beef industry. Confidence is the point. It is not so much a question of public health but confidence that now needs to be addressed, and clearly we need to do that speedily in everyone's interests.
On the measures previously announced, of course they are agreed with our European partners.
Selective slaughter may prove necessary. Two elements are involved. First, there is the need to ensure that milking herds that have finished their milking lives—that are spent—do not then enter the food chain. That does, of course, involve slaughter. Secondly, there is the question of whether any further selective slaughter should take place. Clearly, we need to base that decision on science as far as is practicable. We are looking at some novel ways of ensuring that we find the right beasts if it is deemed necessary to proceed.
It is impossible to give an estimate of the resources until the determination of the right method is concluded. As soon as that is known, I shall be able to give the right hon. Gentleman an estimate.
We have made it clear that we need the ban to be lifted as speedily as possible, not only in the interests of the United Kingdom. Beyond Europe, many countries are interpreting the ban on British beef as an unwillingness to import any European beef at all. A number of our European competitors are also finding that their beef is not being exported. It is a European problem, and those countries, as well as us, will need to consider the question speedily.
The quotation that the right hon. Gentleman used was amusing, but not accurate.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Share it with us.
The Prime Minister: If I wasted my time responding to every inaccuracy that appears either in the House or

25
beyond, I would have the pleasure of a 24-hour-a-day sojourn at the Dispatch Box. [Interruption.] As for the intergovernmental conference—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would stop shouting from a sedentary position and listen to what the Prime Minister has to say.
The Prime Minister: As for the intergovernmental conference, we are pursuing the question of reweighting the voting, and I anticipate that we shall have the support of a number of other states in achieving that. Britain is not likely to be isolated in this regard. It will be a matter of some importance, especially as the Community enlarges. I anticipate success. I do not anticipate any significant extension of qualified majority voting, and it is possible that there will be no single extension at all. We are not seeking to accept any. What may turn up in negotiations lies ahead; at present, we do not intend to accept any extension of QMV whatever. I hope that that is clear enough for the right hon. Gentleman: no extension of qualified majority voting.
As for fisheries, I said earlier that the list of matters to be dealt with in the IGC—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would listen, he might know the answer.
I said in my statement that the list was not exhaustive. We will be looking for changes in the common fisheries policy, particularly to deal with quota hopping. I have set that out in the past. There may well be other matters, not yet identified either by us or by other nations, that will be dealt with at the conference. The list of matters set out at Turin is in no sense necessarily exhaustive either for us or for others.
Of course, by co-operation, there are things that the European countries can do collectively in regard to unemployment. We have no objection to that; what we strongly object to is the suggestion that this should become a European competence with legislation taken—perhaps by qualified majority vote—as part of the treaty. We are not prepared to have employment measures inserted in the treaty. Of course we will co-operate when it is reasonable and sensible to do so, but overwhelmingly we think that that is a matter for individual countries, not for the Community as a whole.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: You have not been very successful, have you?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says that we are not very successful. We are a good deal more successful than any other major European country in bringing down unemployment. No other major European country has had unemployment falling as steadily as we have over the past two and a half years; no other major European country has had unemployment as low as ours over the past two and a half years; and no other major European country has had a higher proportion of its population in work as ours over the past two and a half years. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to compare employment records, I am happy to do so, because ours is undoubtedly a good deal better than anyone else's—especially those of the socialist Governments across Europe that we have seen operating in the economic climate of the past few years.
26
As for matters related to a referendum, I will let the right hon. Gentleman know as soon as I am in a position to do so and I will not be diverted on that point now.
One point I missed—as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) reminded me from a sedentary position with his usual compulsive charm—was the question of the cost. The cost is a net position between the total that we pay in and the total that we get out. Where the European Union provides us with assistance, in the convoluted system that the European Union works, a portion of that finds itself deducted from our rebate, but there is a net significant advantage to the United Kingdom and any help from the European Union in that sense will of course be welcomed.
Sir Peter Hordern: In dealing with the employment aspect of the intergovernmental conference, has my right hon. Friend read the latest report from the Bundesbank review, which refers to the need for differentiation of wages in the German economy and to the high level of social costs and taxes in Germany being the reason for high unemployment levels? Will he give an undertaking that Britain will continue to have the lowest social costs in the European Union and that the future of the single market and of the European Union depends on having low social costs, which are necessary for it to be competitive both with the United States of America and with the far east? If that is not done, the single market will not succeed.
As for taking advice from the Opposition on matters of beef, does my right hon. Friend agree that they have been much more interested in playing party politics than in the livelihood of thousands of people throughout this country?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. On his last point, it is a matter not so much of my having noticed that, but of the 650,000 people who work in the beef industry having noticed it.
On my right hon. Friend's earlier point, clearly he is right about the relationship between employers' total costs and employment. He referred to differentiation of wages in Germany, but I should make the point that this is largely to do with other non-social costs. As the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development pointed out, in terms of net wage levels after tax, the UK compares favourably with all our European Union partners. The UK worker's net pay and what it will buy are good value compared with such pay in other European countries, which have become increasingly uncompetitive because of the amount of money over and above wages that every job costs employers. For every £100 in wages, an employer in this country faces extra on-costs of £18, but in some European countries, that figure goes up to as much as £44. On that basis, it is unsurprising that, in many European countries, there are fewer jobs than here.
As for the single market, my right hon. Friend is entirely right. The single market is immensely important for prosperity both here and throughout Europe. In many areas, it is not yet completed. We must ensure that it is completed. We shall continue to work for it to be so.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: When the Prime Minister told us that success always derived from less regulation, did he have in mind as an example the

27
origins of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis? He knows that we disagree with the Government's policy on Europe. We believe that Britain is paying—including in the BSE crisis—a high price for that policy.
If the Government have spent the past 17 years making enemies in Europe, it is not surprising that, when they are in difficulties, friends are initially difficult to find, but the Prime Minister will understand why, at this stage, the nation will be concentrating in particular on the impact of the BSE crisis. It is greatly to be welcomed that the European Community has now understood that this is a problem for all of Europe, not just Britain. This is one of those issues in which Europe is not the problem, as many of his Euro-sceptics would suggest, but the solution. The fact that there is now European support does not absolve the Government from taking action.
As the Government have, in my view, misjudged the extent of the action necessary last Monday, there is now grave danger in every single day's delay inflicted on those who are waiting for word from the Government about what to do next. Having spent the weekend listening to them, I am especially concerned about the position of the owners of small abattoirs and small cattle hauliers. Carcases are now backed up in cold storage, and there is nothing further that can be done unless the Government will act. Will the Prime Minister at least give us an undertaking that, whatever Europe may or may not do, the Government will announce what they are going to do before the House rises?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman tells us in one moment that Europe is the answer and then advises us not to discuss matters with Europe but perhaps to act unilaterally and make an agreement more difficult. He really needs to make up his mind which of his two European hats he is going to wear.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about deregulation, they are just plainly wrong. He is plain wrong on that point. That argument is based on a totally false premise. The right hon. Gentleman is flatly wrong—
Mr. Gordon Prentice: He is not wrong.
The Prime Minister: There is no point in the hon. Gentleman shouting like a parrot, "He is not wrong." The right hon. Gentleman happens to be wrong. That is the fact of the matter, and there is nothing whatever that one can do about it.
As for Europe, it is not a question of our having enemies in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman does not see this matter in the right light. People in Europe do not expect us to agree with them on every issue. They know that we are a Conservative, not Liberal, Government. They know that we will fight for the national interest and that we shall stick to that. Being in a kindly mode, I shall spare the right hon. Gentleman a list of quotes which shows that the European policy of the Liberal party has shifted from pillar to post almost on a daily basis, or almost between member and member. The right hon. Gentleman has the grace to blush, so I shall spare him on that account—[Laughter.] By popular acclaim, I shall spare the right hon. Gentleman.
28
We are well aware of the difficulties faced by abattoirs and others, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that, for reasons that are important for abattoirs too, it is necessary to reach these agreements with our European partners; otherwise the meat passed through the abattoirs would not be acceptable to our European partners. If we cannot reach agreement before the House rises, it is not possible for us sensibly and credibly to announce an agreement to the House. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend is doing in Luxembourg at the moment. There will be no delay—as soon as we can reach an agreement, we shall make an announcement, but it has to be reached with our partners and we all have to be satisfied with it.
Mr. John Redwood: Given the daily damage being done to the fishing industry, when will the Government table proposals, how will they go about winning support for them from our partners, and would they consider unilateral action in the absence of any support?
The Prime Minister: I said a few moments ago that we intend to raise the common fisheries policy at the intergovernmental conference. I do not share the view that opting out of the common fisheries policy would be in the interests of the fishing industry in this country. The great danger of that would be that, in a measurably short period of years, stocks would be so over-fished that there would be no fishing industry left. We need to address the grievances thrown up in the past few years—especially quota-hopping. I told the House that we shall most certainly raise those matters at the intergovernmental conference and seek to reach an agreement. It will be very difficult to reach such an agreement, but I believe that we shall be successful because unanimity is necessary for an outcome to this conference.
Mr. Peter Shore: The IGC is a revision conference for the Maastricht treaty. Is it not therefore extraordinary that the most controversial, unsatisfactory and job-destroying features of that treaty—I refer to economic and monetary union and the convergence criteria for a single currency—are not on the conference's agenda? Is not it even odder that the problem of unemployment, which is on the agenda and which the Prime Minister says is of the highest priority, should be considered although the direct relevance of the convergence criteria to the creation of unemployment in Europe is not being considered at the same time?
The Prime Minister: I noticed restrained enthusiasm among Opposition Front-Bench Members for what the right hon. Gentleman had to say. Let me deal with each of his points in turn. The IGC is primarily not a revision conference for Maastricht but a preparation for enlargement of the Community. That is the essential reason for having the IGC. Economic and monetary union is of course vital and the decision made on that will be very important for a whole range of economic matters, including, in my judgment, employment. The fact that that is not being addressed at the IGC is because of the conference's character. It is being discussed in parallel and will continually be discussed in parallel as the IGC proceeds. So there is no question of final decisions having

29
being made on it; there is no question of it not being revisited as events move forward. We have to make our decisions on whether it is appropriate to go ahead or not, but it is not appropriate to the fresh set of negotiations at the conference. The matter will be seen as being carried on in parallel.
Mr. Michael Colvin: On enlargement and the reweighting of qualified majority voting, will my right hon. Friend confirm that our Ministers will continue to work towards ensuring that those countries collectively that are net beneficiaries from the European budget will not be able to out-vote countries that are net contributors to the budget, such as Britain, because if they did there would be no way of controlling the growth of that budget?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend touches upon a most important point. I can confirm that that will be one of our objectives as we seek the reweighting of voting weights for decision making in the European Union. One of the problems in the early 1980s was that with so few net contributors, there was a very real risk—in weight of numbers, and often it seemed in weight of votes as well—that provided that one of the major countries abstained, a minority view was able to prevail. That is not a satisfactory way in which to run the European Union, and that is why we need reweighting.
Mr. David Trimble: I hope that tomorrow's agriculture statement will contain a series of measures that will result in the immediate lifting of the European ban on beef exports. Such a measure is absolutely essential for the meat industry in Northern Ireland, which is so heavily dependent on exports. Does the Prime Minister agree that such a measure, while necessary, is not sufficient, because there is no guarantee that when the ban is lifted the markets that we had in Europe and elsewhere will return immediately? Will not it therefore be necessary to follow matters up with a drive on marketing beef, and especially a scheme that will emphasise the undoubted quality of so much of the beef production in Ulster and Scotland? Will that not be absolutely essential after tomorrow?
The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the beef industry to Northern Ireland. It is clearly critical to Northern Ireland's economy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I are acutely aware of that fact and the possible need for assistance. We too are seeking the earliest possible lifting of the ban. I would not like to indicate to the House today that I think that it is likely to be achieved by tomorrow, because we first need a Commission proposal to the standing veterinary committee, then a positive decision by member states' representatives on that committee, and then endorsement of the decision by the full Commission. We need that as soon as possible and we shall be pressing for it as soon as possible. As the hon. Gentleman realises, we need that agreement across Europe or there will be very real difficulty. We are seeking it as speedily as possible. It is not something that we can obtain unilaterally. Any indication that the hon. Gentleman cares to give directly
30
to the European Commission and others of the importance of the matter will obviously be very welcome. We shall certainly press it very hard.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Is not it quite clear that there is a great desire among the British people that the Government should not hand over any further powers to the European Union and its institutions at the IGC? Will he confirm that that is indeed the Government's approach? Is not the reason why a number of continental Governments want the IGC to last for more than a year that they hope—it is a forlorn hope—that the Labour party will be elected? In those circumstances, a socialist Government would undoubtedly hand over more power to Brussels and the European institutions.
The Prime Minister: I saw written in one of our great newspapers this morning—it may or may not be accurate—that one of the federalist Prime Ministers indicated that he would like to be dealing with a Labour Government because they too would be federalist, in the sense that we do not wish to see, and centralist, and would not stand up for the interests of the United Kingdom. That was allegedly said by one of the Prime Ministers whom the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) or his nominee would meet on occasions when socialists across Europe meet to decide policy. If that is the case, one wonders what private promises may have been given about Labour's negotiating position. We know that the manifesto agreements signed by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) some time ago would be an absolute disaster if they became the policy of any British Government.
We seek to ensure that we remain a Europe of nation states, that we accommodate the enlargement of the European Union, which is the most important matter that lies in front of the European Union at the moment, and that we do so while maintaining the robust independence of parliamentary procedures that we have traditionally enjoyed.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not grotesquely unfair that some poor old cow, who has given a life of service to human beings in terms of delivering milk, ends up with a bolt through her head and is chucked into a fire? I know that one can think of a recent political equivalent, but the situation is no better for that.
Is there any chance during the IGC that we can change the definition of the word "animal" so that we can extend animal welfare provisions to farm animals and treat them as sentient beings, not just as any other agricultural product?
The Prime Minister: We are seeking some changes in animal welfare in the intergovernmental conference, as the hon. Gentleman may be, but not, perhaps, the change that he has in mind. I am prepared to consider his suggestion, but not for very long—and, having considered it, I reject his proposal. None the less, we are certainly seeking improvements in animal welfare generally.
Sir Michael Spicer: While warmly welcoming my right hon. Friend's commitment for further federalism in Europe, may I ask him what specific proposals—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] I should

31
have said "against". [HON. MEMBERS: "You didn't."] I apologise. It would be out of keeping with four years of speeches if I had not said "against".
What specific proposals has my right hon. Friend tabled against the repatriation of powers—[Interruption.] I seem to be getting it all wrong today. What proposals has he tabled in favour of the repatriation of powers to Parliament, bearing in mind the fact that the Turin communiqué—I will get this bit right—reaffirms the aquis communautaire?
The Prime Minister: We set out our negotiating position in the White Paper that the House saw a few days ago and my hon. Friend will know what it is. In the negotiations, we can take further measures if we choose to, but for the moment, the measures we have decided on are those set out in the White Paper.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Since the Prime Minister's return from Turin, has he, like me, had an opportunity to study the report compiled by the Trustee Savings bank of Scotland on the significance of agriculture and the impact that the BSE problem is having on about 21,500 jobs? Agriculture is a fundamental part of our economy. Obviously, the Prime Minister has not had an opportunity to study the report, but I will ensure that he has a copy of it.
Given the comments already made, will the Prime Minister recognise the importance of the quality assurance scheme that applies to BSE-free herds? In this context, will he expand on his comment to a reporter from The Herald at the weekend in Turin that there was a possibility of looking at a preferential scheme that would enable herds that were already BSE-free to make an early return into the competitive market?
The Prime Minister: That is not precisely what I said, but it is fairly close. The point I was making—a general point, and not specifically to anyone from The Herald—is that some herds across the United Kingdom have never had a case of BSE, and we will be examining whether there is a way in which we can take account of that in the decisions that may have to be reached in the next few days. Clearly that is important, and we believe that we should take account of that fact. We are discussing the matter with the Commission and with our partners at the moment. I have not seen the TSB report to which the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) refers, but I am aware of the importance of the beef industry to Scotland, as well as to Northern Ireland and elsewhere. That is why we are seeking a comprehensive outcome that will assist in a return of confidence as speedily as we can.
Sir Wyn Roberts: While complimenting my right hon. Friend on the progress made in Turin, may I ask whether he detected during his discussions on unemployment any sign of our European partners embracing the policies that have brought unemployment down in this country while it has risen in so many European countries? Did he detect any sign that they would stop handicapping competitiveness—as, I believe, the French were proposing?
The Prime Minister: There were mixed views on the issue among our European partners. There would have
32
been a single collective view a year or so ago in favour of more social expenditure of one sort or another, but that is no longer the case. There are those who still hold to that proposition, but a number of others who have seen what has happened to unemployment in the past two years here and elsewhere realise that they must hold down the levels of social expenditure over and above wages. That will be absolutely necessary if Europe is to reduce the 18 million adults currently unemployed within the EU.
Mr. Harry Barnes: In accountancy matters, proportions can be worked out exactly and precisely. Can we therefore be told what amount of our own money will be returned to us by the EU in connection with its assistance on BSE?
The Prime Minister: As soon as we know precisely the areas in which the aid will be and its quantum, the answer will be yes. But in the absence of that, it is difficult to be precise in what is a complex system. Although there will be a substantial contribution by the EU, there are areas—for example, if there were to be a selective culling programme—where some of the overall costs would be borne by the United Kingdom. Some of the EU contribution would be netted off against the rebate, but it is not possible to be precise until we know the scale and terms of the contribution, and I would not wish to mislead the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. John Wilkinson: In relation to qualified majority voting—against which the Government have resolutely set their face—will my right hon. Friend seek a modification of QMV as regards fisheries policy? When the EU is enlarged—as we hope it will be—will not the fishing fleets of, for example, Poland seek access to the common resource of the British fishing grounds to the potential detriment of British fishermen?
The Prime Minister: A lot may depend on precisely what negotiated changes we may be able to make in the common fisheries policy, but for the moment we have proposed not to withdraw QMV from where it presently exists, but to ensure that it is not extended to areas in which it has not yet been present.
Mr. Mike Gapes: If the Prime Minister is so opposed to moves towards a single European currency, why has he signed up to a statement that commits all members of the EU to the full implementation of the treaties, and states that all new member states that come in following enlargement will be subjected to the aquis communautaire, which will apply to all members equally—including a commitment to a single currency?
The Prime Minister: Very simply. If the hon. Gentleman had observed what had happened in the European Union in the past few years, he would have noticed that Britain is not committed to joining economic and monetary union. We have an opt-out, as indeed now does Denmark. Our position is different from that of the rest of the European Union. For that reason, we find ourselves in a wholly better position than anyone else. If the hon. Gentleman understands that, he will see that it precisely meets his point.
Mr. William Cash: My right hon. Friend referred in the IGC to questions of principle. Given that

33
the presidency conclusions, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) said, refer to economic and monetary union, and given that in our own White Paper it is stated that we will not press ideas that will not gain general acceptance from the other member states, does my right hon. Friend intend to reject the single currency and to ensure that it is not inflicted on the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister: The single currency will not be a matter of discussion, as I said to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) some time ago, in the intergovernmental conference itself. It will be a matter for discussion in parallel with the IGC. Member states will have first to determine whether they meet the criteria to join and then indicate some time before 1999—if that is the date on which people proceed—whether they propose to join. At this stage, no one yet knows whether that date of 1999 can be achieved. Many people, myself included, doubt that it can satisfactorily and safely be achieved.
At a later stage, a decision will need to be made as to which countries qualify and which countries, having qualified, decide whether or not to proceed. We are in the unique position that if we qualify, we do not have to proceed. Other countries are in the position that if they qualify they are committed to proceeding by the Maastricht treaty. That is not our case. So it will not be discussed in the IGC, as my hon. Friend surmises, but outside it, and we are free to leave making the decision until a very late stage whether or not we think it is right for this country to take part.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: What action is the Prime Minister taking to urge a co-ordinated European approach to arms export controls? Does he agree that that would be the first step towards international control of arms exports and to preventing any country in future from supplying Saddam Husseins?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that that is a matter for the European Union. It is a matter for individual Governments.
Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend accept that all those in farming and the processing industry were very glad indeed that he was able to make the beef crisis the top priority in his visit to Turin? Could he keep the momentum going? If we are able to get firm decisions by Tuesday or Wednesday, will he make an
34
announcement, even during the recess, because every day counts in terms of bringing confidence back to the industry and the consumer?
The Prime Minister: I assure my right hon. Friend and the House that the moment we have a conclusion, we will announce that conclusion. If it is in the recess, it will be open to the House to demand a statement from Ministers upon the return of the House. I think that everyone will accept that it is in the interests of the industry to make an announcement as soon as a conclusion is reached. That is our intention.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Prime Minister has recognised the importance of the livestock sector to Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am sure that he is also aware of the importance of that sector to Wales, where more than 90 per cent. of agricultural activity is involved in the livestock sector. He has already understood the need for urgent action in teens of a compensation package with our European partners, but can I urge him to do something urgently this week to assist the abattoir owners? He will know that they are laying off workers almost daily. Some of them face enormous financial costs. Is there something that he can do immediately to assist their plight?
The Prime Minister: One of the matters under discussion this morning—I have not yet had a report of how far the discussions have reached, as they are still proceeding—was the allied industries such as the slaughtering industry and abattoirs. I cannot yet tell the hon. Gentleman what has been decided in those discussions. I have not yet heard. But I assure him that the problems of that particular industry have not been overlooked.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that nothing discussed at Turin could conceivably be made part of a referendum in this country? Will he further confirm his disinclination ever to hold a referendum, which he said earlier was not at all part of robust parliamentary procedures? Will he take it from me that many Conservative Members support his initial and present position that no decision has to be taken for many years to come?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that anything is remotely likely to come out that could possibly justify a referendum. We have said that on a number of occasions and I still believe it to be the case. The one area in which there might be a case for a referendum is in any decision taken to join a single currency, since that clearly is not a matter that is likely to be determined before a general election. I can conceive of nothing in the intergovernmental conference that would require a referendum.

Terrorism
4.19 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the need to amend the prevention of terrorism Act to strengthen the ability of the police to protect the public against the threat from terrorism.
This House voted to renew the prevention of terrorism Act on 14 March. I spoke then of my sadness and anger that these measures are still necessary to defend the citizens of this country from those who are prepared to engage in acts of terror—to kill and maim in pursuit of their ends.
We face a real threat of a continued IRA campaign of murder. No one should be deceived by the fact that for a few weeks we have had a lull. The IRA ceasefire ended with the South Quay bomb. It was followed by other bombs, one of which was planted and exploded after the announcement of a date for all-party talks. We face a serious threat from terrorism. It is the Government's clear duty to take every step possible to meet that threat.
In recent weeks, I have discussed with senior police officers whether there were any additional powers that would strengthen their ability to safeguard the public. I have listened carefully to points that they made. The proposals that I am announcing today are designed to meet the real needs that they have identified. The additional powers will be accompanied by proper safeguards to ensure that they are used only where there is a real operational requirement. They are essentially practical and technical measures, but I believe that they are necessary changes, which will increase public safety.
I shall be seeking five additions to the powers at present available to the police under the PTA. Four of them will give the police in Great Britain powers comparable to those already available to the police in Northern Ireland. The fifth will extend to the whole of the United Kingdom.
I have discussed these proposals with Opposition spokesmen. I recognise that all parties have had little time to consider the detail. The hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) have indicated to me that they will support these measures, and I am grateful for that support. I particularly welcome the co-operation of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and his recognition that these measures represent a responsible and appropriate reaction to the continuing terrorist threat.
The additional powers requested by the police are these. First, I propose to extend the powers of the police under section 13A of the prevention of terrorism Act, to enable them to stop and search pedestrians for terrorist items. That fills a lacuna in the existing powers under section 13A.
That section currently enables an assistant chief constable to authorise searches within a designated area and for a specified time, up to 28 days. Within that area, police officers may then stop pedestrians and search any baggage that they may be carrying, and they may stop a vehicle and search both the vehicle and the people in it. They do not, however, have the power to search a pedestrian to look for devices that he may have concealed about him, for example in a jacket pocket. I believe that they should now be given that power.
36
I propose that the new power to search pedestrians should be subject to all the safeguards that at present govern the search powers under section 13A. It would be exercisable only after an assistant chief constable had designated a specified area and only for a specified period of up to 28 days. In addition, I propose that authorisation of the power to search pedestrians would require confirmation, within 48 hours, by the Secretary of State. Prosecution for any of the offences connected with the new power would proceed only on the agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It may reassure the House to know that the existing stop-and-search powers have been invoked only in the City of London and in the Metropolitan police district in the aftermath of South Quay. In the City, the powers have been applied for the full 28 days allowed on each occasion; in the much larger Metropolitan police district, they have been applied for periods of between seven and 10 days at a time. They remain in force at the moment, and rightly so.
The police are fully aware that this new power will need to be exercised with circumspection and sensitivity. I shall ask the independent reviewer of the prevention of terrorism Act to comment particularly on its use in his annual report on the operation of the Act. As the House will know, existing stop-and-search powers under the PTA are subject to the relevant Police and Criminal Evidence Act code of practice on stop and search. The same arrangements will apply to the new power.
Secondly, I propose a new power for the police to seek a magistrates' warrant to search a list of non-residential premises for material likely to be of use to a terrorist organisation. At present, a warrant can be sought only for a search of particular premises where there are reasonable grounds for believing that terrorist material is present on those premises. The new power would enable the police to respond to intelligence that, for example, a bomb was stored in a lock-up garage or lorry park in a particular area. The magistrates could grant a warrant enabling the police to search a list of premises in that area. The warrant would be issued following an application by a police officer of at least superintendent rank and would have to be executed within 24 hours.
Thirdly, I propose a power for the police to search unaccompanied freight at ports. The law as it stands allows customs officers to search freight to seize contraband, but does not allow the police to search freight for anti-terrorist purposes. That is plainly an anomaly that needs to be remedied. It is the only one of these powers that is not at present available in Northern Ireland. I therefore propose that it should be provided to police across the United Kingdom.
Finally, there are two areas in which the current common law powers require clarification. I propose a new statutory power for the police to cordon off an area. That would be used to restrict access while the police looked for a bomb or while they were collecting forensic evidence following an explosion or following the discovery of a bomb. The current common law powers are uncertain, both as to their extent and as to the length of time for which they can operate. I believe that that uncertainty should be removed.
The power to set up a cordon would be subject to the authorisation of a police officer of superintendent rank. It would be of limited duration. Prosecution for any of the connected offences would proceed only with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

37
I also propose a power for the police to impose temporary parking restrictions in response to a general threat to targets such as Government buildings or royal residences. Again, the current common law powers are uncertain and need clear statutory underpinning. That power would also be subject to the authorisation of an assistant chief constable and would be of limited duration. Any resulting prosecutions would be subject to the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
These are clear, practical proposals. The exercise of these powers will be subject to close scrutiny. As amendments to the prevention of terrorism Act, each of the new powers will be subject to annual examination by the independent reviewer and, of course, the Act lapses in its entirety unless it is renewed each year. To help ensure that the police use these additional powers responsibly, I shall issue the appropriate guidance.
I believe that the need for these powers is urgent. I shall accordingly introduce a short Bill tomorrow, which I hope will receive Royal Assent before Parliament rises for Easter. Copies of the draft Bill are available in the Vote Office.
Let me summarise the effect of the new powers. They will enable the police to search pedestrians in a designated area; to search listed non-residential premises; to search freight at ports; and to impose cordons and temporary parking bans. They are sensible practical measures that will be subject to important safeguards. They will help the police to protect our towns and cities and to save lives. I ask the House for its co-operation in placing them on the statute book with the minimum delay.
Mr. Jack Straw: The House has always, and rightly, been very reluctant to allow its normal time scales and procedures to be bypassed, as hasty legislation all too often turns out to be ill drafted and unclear.
We should naturally have preferred rather longer notice than the Secretary of State has given us, and we certainly would have appreciated mention of the proposals during the debate on the prevention of terrorism Act three weeks ago. Any additional anti-terrorist powers are bound, by their very nature, to cause unease. As the Secretary of State indicated in his statement, however, we shall not stand in the way of the timetable motion, and we are satisfied from the security briefing that we have received about the case that is made for the Bill.
The House will, I believe, have little difficulty with four of the five measures contained within the Bill. We accept that it is unfair to the police to expect them to use vague common law powers when they have to cordon off an area during a bomb threat, or to impose parking restrictions around vulnerable buildings. It is plainly right that the police should have the power to search unaccompanied cargo—a power that will simply place the police in a similar position to that enjoyed already by Customs and Excise.
As to the granting of search warrants, will the Secretary of State confirm that the power that he seeks in the Bill will be explicitly restricted to non-residential buildings, typically lock-up garages or industrial units? As for the extension of the powers in section 13A, the Secretary of State will be aware that in 1994 we supported that change to the law, not least because those powers can be triggered only when a police officer of assistant chief constable rank or above designates an area as one subject to a
38
terrorist threat, and because those limited powers can apply only for a specific period. As the Secretary of State confirmed, in practice there has been one only occasion that has triggered those powers—that following the Canary wharf bomb in early February.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that although the current difference in search powers between vehicle occupants and pedestrians may appear anomalous, there are bound to be anxieties about how a power allowing outer-body searches of pedestrians may be used? I am glad that the Secretary of State has recognised that by including additional safeguards in the draft Bill, which explicitly limit searches to outer garments, hats and shoes, and which require his personal authority for any use of that power for more than 48 hours.
Will the Secretary of State consider two further safeguards, first, that he should report to Parliament regularly about the use of that power and, secondly, that the use of that power should be subject to clear monitoring, as is the parallel power in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that his statement is precipitated by the resumption of violence by the Provisional IRA? Will he join me in calling for the immediate resumption of the ceasefire of August 1994? Finally, we shall continue our support for the all-party negotiations that begin on 10 June, which in our view represent the only way to secure a lasting peace in these islands.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful for the tenor and content of the response by the hon. Member for Blackburn. He asked for a number of specific assurances, all of which I think I am able to give him.
The hon. Gentleman asked for confirmation that the power in relation to the granting of search warrants will be explicitly restricted to non-residential buildings, typically lock-up garages or industrial units. I can confirm that that power will not apply to residential buildings. He asked for recognition that there would be anxieties about the power to allow outer-body searches of pedestrians. I accept that there are such anxieties, which is why I have introduced the particular safeguards to which the hon. Gentleman referred, including the additional safeguard of authorisation by the Secretary of State.
The hon. Gentleman asked for two further safeguards—the regular reporting to Parliament about the exercise of the power and the need for the use of that power to be subject to clear monitoring. I am happy to be able to give him assurances that his requests for those further safeguards can be met.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked for confirmation that my statement has been precipitated by the resumption of violence by the IRA—it has indeed. He asked me to join him in calling for the immediate resumption of the ceasefire of August 1994, and I am happy to do so.
I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the Labour party's continued support for the all-party negotiations that are due to begin on 10 June, and I agree with him that that is the only way to secure a lasting peace in these islands.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Does the Home Secretary understand that what he has announced this afternoon will be broadly welcome to the

39
mass of people in this country? Will he give an undertaking that if, in the use of these new powers, drugs, stolen property, offensive weapons or other smuggled materials are discovered that are nothing to do with terrorism, those discoveries will be followed by prosecutions where that is possible?
Mr. Howard: I can indeed give my right hon. Friend the undertaking that he seeks. Where prosecution is appropriate following the discovery of such items, it will take place. It would be absolutely nonsensical, were it to be the case that a search for terrorist items proved unsuccessful, but a large amount of cocaine was found in the pocket of someone apprehended, to ignore that discovery. I have no intention of permitting that to happen, so I am happy to give my right hon. Friend the assurance for which he asked.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Home Secretary recognise that Liberal Democrats have consistently voted in favour of renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act and will support the additional powers where they can be shown to be necessary and effective? Does he agree that the Bill seeks to clarify the legal basis on which the police already carry out searches and cordons in the case of incidents and will continue to do until new powers reach the statute book?
Does the Home Secretary recognise, however, that in rushing such a complicated Bill through the House in one day he will almost certainly bring about defective and ineffective law, and that the proposed procedure does not give time for outside organisations to consider whether the Bill is effectively drafted? Why cannot we take the Bill in proper stages, by sitting in the House on Thursday? How long is it since the police told him that they wanted these powers? Why did he not publish the Bill at least last week, so that comment could be invited on it?
Is the Home Secretary, fresh from so many defeats in the courts or settlements that he has had to make, setting himself up before the House as an infallible drafter of Bills whose proposals can be waved through without the slightest doubt or reservation—or is his ambition to move to government by decree?
Mr. Howard: It is not true, as a matter of fact, that the powers in the Bill that I propose do no more than to regularise activities in which the police already engage. It may be true in respect of some of those powers; it is certainly not true in respect of all of them.
I confess that I am somewhat astonished by the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should have proceeded in the normal way on Thursday. If we proceeded in the House on Thursday, bearing it in mind that Friday is Good Friday, obviously it would not be possible for the legislation to be on the statute book before the Easter recess.
My responsibility is to ensure that, if these powers have the potential to save one life during the Easter recess, the police are not denied them; that is why I have brought them forward today. I have brought them forward at the earliest opportunity available to me, after discussions and
40
proper consideration of the requests of the police. That is why they have been brought forward today; that is why I commend them to the House.
Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the police face a formidable task in tackling the terrorist threat from the IRA, that the House and the country should be deeply grateful for the work that they do and that, if they need more powers, as they have requested, it behoves the House to pass this legislation with all due speed? Can he assure me that the stop-and-search powers that he proposes for pedestrians are sufficiently comprehensive to have the deterrent effect that I believe they could have?
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I believe that he spoke not only for his constituents, but for the whole country. I believe that the whole country will recognise the desirability of providing these additional powers. He asked whether the stop-and-search powers are sufficiently comprehensive to constitute a deterrent. They are a measured response to a request from the police. I recognise that one must strike a balance in these matters, and that many matters have to be taken into account. In the light of the seriousness of the threat that we face, the proposals strike that balance.
Mr. Clive Soley: Bearing in mind the dangers of rushed legislation, will the Home Secretary give the House the assurance that he has considered, or the commitment that he will carefully consider, human rights legislation in Europe and Appeal Court decisions, because there is a danger of getting legislation wrong when it is rushed in this way? Secondly, notwithstanding the fact that the prevention of terrorism Act has to be reconsidered and renewed, will he confirm that he will not seek to impose these powers, especially clause 1, on the general law should there be a return to a permanent ceasefire in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Howard: In reply to the first of the hon. Gentleman's questions, may I say that of course we have used our very best endeavours to ensure that the Bill is drafted in such a way as to be utterly consistent with our obligations under the European convention on human rights and with all relevant decisions of the Court of Appeal. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made observations a moment ago about some of the recent decisions by the Court of Appeal. It is not always possible to predict with complete accuracy how the courts will respond in particular circumstances. However, we have used our best endeavours to ensure that the legislation is consistent with relevant decisions of that court.
In terms of the future, in the welcome event, for which I am sure we all very much hope, of a return to peace in Northern Ireland, the hon. Gentleman will know that the learned Lord Lloyd of Berwick is considering what powers will be necessary. I shall not give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requests, because if Lord Lloyd concluded that powers such as these are necessary in the long term, that view would clearly need to be given the most careful consideration. That will be looked at in the context of Lord Lloyd's report.
Sir Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the powers to which he has referred will be widely understood and accepted by the majority of law-abiding citizens? Can he confirm that the power to stop and search pedestrians is intended to extend the powers of the police to look, in particular, for devices as opposed to the more general run of offensive weapons? Can he amplify his statement that those powers would be subject to the regulations made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I can confirm that the main purpose of the powers to stop and search pedestrians is to enable the police to find incendiary devices. Such devices have been used on a number of occasions and are now of such a size that they fit perfectly easily into a coat pocket. That is the main target of the powers to stop and search pedestrians. In the context of monitoring, the normal PACE powers will apply, as I think was anticipated in my hon. Friend's question.
Mr. David Trimble: As the Home Secretary has said, for the greater part these powers bring the law in England and Wales a little closer to the law in Northern Ireland. However, is it not the case that the way in which the IRA has resumed its campaign makes the point that it does not regard as significant the administrative and legal boundaries within the United Kingdom and that we need a more comprehensive response by the United Kingdom as a whole, and not simply in legislation, but otherwise? Does he agree that there is an overwhelming case simply for a single United Kingdom-wide anti-terrorism Act, directed against not just IRA terrorism but terrorism generally?
Mr. Howard: As the hon. Gentleman will know, that matter is being considered and it will be open to Lord Lloyd to make a recommendation to that effect. The hon. Gentleman demurs from what I say, but I doubt that he would be enthusiastic if I presented on an emergency basis the kind of comprehensive legislation that he seeks. It is sensible to await the deliberations of Lord Lloyd in looking at that aspect of the matter.
Mr. David Howell: While I recognise that the Northern Ireland peace process is not the direct responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend, does he agree that there is very little hope of that peace process working unless terrorism is thoroughly defeated? Does he further agree that that requires counter-terrorist measures of the utmost vigour and imagination and that the measures that he has announced are certainly part of that, with their powers of search and intelligence acquisition? In the light of that, will he look to other Governments who have the same common interest, or say they have, in the defeat of terrorism? Will he urge his opposite number in Dublin to consider the same sort of powers, so that we really can defeat terrorism and see peace go forward in these islands?
Mr. Howard: Of course, I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend about the need for firm and effective counter-terrorist measures. I am grateful to him for his support. I believe that these powers will add significantly to the armoury of the police in dealing with terrorism. The possibility of such powers being introduced in the Republic
42
of Ireland are, of course, a matter for the Irish Government. I assure my right hon. Friend that discussions on those matters between the two Governments take place quite regularly.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I am one of the Opposition Members who supports the bipartisan approach, but who voted against the prevention of terrorism legislation on the grounds that it contains civil liberties problems and that in many areas it is counter-productive to the peace process. Is not that the case with the measure that is now before the House and which contains some draconian provisions? For example, the 28-day provision might aid the IRA rather than help to contain it.
Mr. Howard: I do not think that any of these provisions would be counter-productive. In many ways, one ought to pay particular attention to the views of the police on that question. They are close to the circumstances in which these powers have to be exercised, and it is not in their interests for the powers to be counter-productive. If that was their view, they would not have requested them.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Either today, or tomorrow during the course of the debate, can my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear whether the new powers under section 13A of the PTA which he hopes to introduce will allow for random searching within the specified area, or must a police constable have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a particular individual, car or bag contains illegal substances? Can he say whether, during a search of outer garments, when a police officer thinks that there may be devices contained within inner garments, that officer can continue to detain that person for a closer search elsewhere? I support the plea by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), that before long, but after proper consideration, an all-UK anti-terrorist law should be introduced.
Mr. Howard: I note what my hon. and learned Friend says about the possibility of all-UK legislation. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Upper Bann, that matter is certainly being considered by Lord Lloyd. Under these proposals, the powers of search allow police officers to search pedestrians without having specific suspicion in relation to those pedestrians. That is really the point of the powers.
My hon. and learned Friend asked about a power to search beyond the outer garments. The Bill does not provide such power: it will depend upon the extent to which the police officer, having carried out a search of the outer garments, has suspicion about the person.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the Home Secretary confirm that all the powers that he seeks could have been announced to the House over a fortnight ago, when we were discussing the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act? To ask the House to pass this legislation, which will be subject to a guillotine, on the penultimate day before the recess, without adequate opportunity properly to examine the terms and content of the Bill or to take proper outside advice, would in itself be sufficient ground to vote against the measure. Will the Home Secretary also confirm that the new

43
powers of stop and search that he suggests would, provided that they are properly authorised, negate section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984?
Mr. Howard: I do not accept the last point made by the hon. Gentleman—it is not right at all. Since the introduction of the prevention of terrorism Act, it has been recognised that there is a case for particular measures to deal with the terrorist threat. In relation to an earlier announcement, no decision had been reached on this matter when the prevention of terrorism Act was renewed. In many ways, I should have liked to be able to refer to it when the Act was before the House. However, as no conclusion had been reached on it, and as it was still under discussion and consideration, I did not think that any useful purpose would be served by mentioning it at that stage. It may have been decided not to bring these measures forward.
I have introduced these measures at the earliest opportunity, having reached a conclusion that they were necessary and justified. Once that decision was reached, it was incumbent on me to bring them before the House at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that the murder of two young soldiers at Lichfield city railway station is still remembered with sadness by many people in my constituency. The proposals that he has announced today will be welcomed in Lichfield and Mid-Staffordshire as a whole. Does he believe that there will be any delays or difficulties because of the provision that he has announced today, that there would have to be approval by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for police constables to have stop-and-search powers for more than 48 hours?
My right hon. and learned Friend has had discussions with the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Therefore, does he know whether the Labour party will vote for the provision, abstain or vote against it, as it did for the prevention of terrorism Act?
Mr. Howard: The dreadful murders to which my hon. Friend referred are remembered far beyond Lichfield and Mid-Staffordshire. We shall take every possible step to prevent a recurrence of acts of that kind, which is why we have brought forward these proposals. The authorisation of the Secretary of State will not negate the ability of the police to exercise the powers during the 48-hour period, which have to be confirmed within the 48-hour period. If they are not confirmed, they will fall when the Secretary of State announces his decision. Until that moment, those powers are available for use by the police.
In relation to the Labour party's attitude, I have acknowledged the extent to which it is prepared to co-operate, and my understanding is that it does not intend to stand in the way of the legislation. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackburn for what he said, and tomorrow we shall see the precise form of that co-operation.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Home Secretary agree that this is a draconian measure? If it is logical to rush it through the House
44
tomorrow, so that it is in place for the Easter recess—as the Home Secretary said—would it not be logical to time-limit the Act so that it lasted for only three months? The House would then be able to return to it and legislate more slowly and more carefully. The powers to stop and search and the powers to stop people having access to their own homes are draconian. It would be logical to scrutinise such powers very carefully.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is not sensible. If concerns develop about the operation of these powers—and I do not expect them to—there will be ample opportunities for hon. Members to express those concerns, without going to the lengths suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Max Madden: If these powers are so important for the police, to enable them to combat terrorism, many of us are finding it hard to understand what has happened or who has intervened to make this issue so urgent for tomorrow. Why on earth could not the Home Secretary at least have hinted at it when the PTA was debated on 14 March? It is clear that these provisions are draconian and, as always, they will bear disproportionately on working-class communities throughout the United Kingdom.
If the Home Secretary really wants to see a restoration of the ceasefire, why does he not repatriate Irish prisoners to the Republic of Ireland, which he has been able to do for the past five months but has failed to do so far—instead of ferreting around and trying to find measures of this sort to restore his extremely damaged reputation?
Mr. Howard: The purpose of these powers is to protect working-class communities in this country—and I think that they will recognise that and value the extra protection that the powers will provide.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Home Secretary recognise that many people do not think that the PTA has served the country well and believe that it is a serious attack on the civil liberties of a large number of people? The amendments that he has proposed today—to be rushed through in an atmosphere of crisis tomorrow—amount to a return of the sus laws by the back door, with an open-ended commitment to keep those new powers there when surely, as a confidence-building measure towards the peace process, we should be getting rid of the PTA and the anti-libertarian aspects that go with it.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his point of view, but I think that it is not widely shared outside the House, and it certainly is not widely shared inside the House. This is not, in any sense, a return to the sus law—and it is quite wrong to give any indication that it is. These are tightly restricted powers, available on the designation of a particular area, for a particular time, in particular circumstances, by a senior police officer. Although I recognise that the hon. Gentleman holds his views strongly, he has served no useful purpose in seeking to confuse people about the extent of the powers that I propose. The powers are very limited and they are not, in any sense, a return to the sus laws.
Mr. Terry Dicks: Ordinary people, especially those who live in my constituency around Heathrow, will support the measures. I am getting a little sick and tired of the apologists for terrorists on the Labour Benches trying to undermine my right hon. and learned Friend's job.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I believe that these measures are necessary and that they constitute a balanced response to the threat that we face. I very much hope that they will gain support from both sides of the House.

Business of the House
4.57 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement. In the light of the statement just made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, the business for tomorrow will now be as follows: consideration of timetable motion on, followed by proceedings on, the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill. The business previously announced for that day will be taken on a later occasion.
On Wednesday 3 April, in addition to the business previously announced, the House may be asked to consider any Lords amendments that may be received. The House will also wish to know that the business on Tuesday 16 April will now be the Second Reading of the Broadcasting Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of any Lords amendments that may be received to the Education (Student Loans) Bill.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us that information, and I confirm that the Labour party will not stand in the way of the legislation that has been announced today. Obviously, the lack of time for greater consultation is very much regretted, certainly by the Labour party and, I hope, by both sides of the Chamber. Notwithstanding that, we are willing to facilitate the passage of the limited legislation on the time scale proposed.
However, we certainly do not want our co-operation on this measure to be taken as a precedent on any other occasion. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have made clear, the Labour party is seized of the importance of fighting terrorism. It is on the basis of the security briefings that have been given that we are facilitating the measure and that we accept the unusual procedures that the Leader of the House has put forward.
The right hon. Gentleman said that tomorrow's business would have to be postponed, but he was not very definite about when we might expect the particular clauses of the Family Law Bill to be debated. Those clauses are of importance to many hon. Members, and early notification of when they are to be debated would be of assistance to all of them.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful for the very constructive response that the hon. Lady has given on behalf of the Labour party, matching that given by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I note the comments that she made in expressing that co-operation. I, too, had hoped that it would be possible to proceed with the Family Law Bill tomorrow, but I have already announced a full slate of business for the first week when we return. I hope that we shall be able to proceed with it very soon thereafter.
Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome the statement today, not least because, as my right hon. Friend may remember, I took him to task during the previous business statement for rushing through the divorce Bill. The various Christian organisations that wrote—at least one wrote to the Prime Minister—to object to the speed will also welcome today's announcement.

47
I want to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), which is important, because we feel that the Bill is a vital social measure. Will my right hon. Friend re-emphasise—this is an important opportunity for him to do so—that the Bill will be brought back at a time when hon. Members are not rushing back from their holidays; when they are not rushing off at the end of the week, perhaps after a one-line Whip or anything like that; that votes will be taken at a sensible time; and that all hon. Members, on the pay roll and otherwise, will have a full and free vote, so that the Government cannot be accused of rushing through quickie divorce legislation?
Mr. Newton: It would be pretty hard to accuse the Government convincingly of rushing the Family Law Bill through, as I indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend last Thursday. I note, however, that one advantage—from his point of view—of what I have just announced is that the Bill will now take a little more time.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Given the controversial nature of the Government's proposals for dealing with the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill, will there will be a business committee, on which all parties would be represented, to discuss the way in which the measure is handled?
The Bill has five clauses and one schedule. Will the Leader of the House undertake to provide considerably more time than two hours to debate them? Will he undertake that there will be a separation between the time when the House is asked to deal with the Bill in Committee and when it is asked to deal with its remaining stages? Will he ensure that all hon. Members are provided with printed copies of any amendments?
If the Bill is so urgent and important, will the Leader of the House reconsider the answer that the Home Secretary gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and consider using the guillotine motion so that the Bill has its Second Reading tomorrow, we debate the remaining stages on Wednesday and the other place deals with the Bill on Thursday, still ensuring Royal Assent before Easter?
Mr. Newton: I would not wish to encourage the expectation that a proposal that would entail the other place sitting later into the week could readily be accommodated.
I shall, of course, consider the other questions that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I am bound to say that we gave a great deal of thought to the proposals for the guillotine motion, which I know have been indicated through the usual channels. I continue to think for the moment that we have it about right.
I shall certainly consider the point raised about the printing of amendments, but given the form in which the Bill will come before the House tomorrow, following its draft publication today, I find it a bit difficult to see any real scope for dealing with amendments except on the basis of manuscript amendments.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will know that I am pleased that the Family
48
Law Bill has been postponed. Having said that, I welcome the Bill tomorrow. Some say that it infringes civil liberties and that there has not been enough time. I remind the Leader of the House, and, indeed, the House, that the people who were at South Quay station had less warning when they were sent into eternity, and many people have had their civil liberties infringed permanently.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the approach that he outlined. He makes a salutary point.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Leader of the House tell us when the timetable motion will be tabled, so that we can all see it? Will it be possible for amendments to the draft Bill to be given to the Table Office, so that at least we can see tonight what amendments other hon. Members are tabling, rather than having to wait until the manuscript amendments appear in the morning?
Mr. Newton: I envisage that the timetable motion will be tabled later tonight, but we have been asked to look at one or two points. Although I do not think that I have encouraged great expectations that I shall be able to make changes, I would like to give further consideration in the light of what has been said.
Perhaps I might consult further on the hon. Gentleman's question about amendments. Given that what has been published is in draft form and therefore is not formally a Bill, I find it difficult to see how the procedures of the House will be able to accommodate some formal procedure relating to amendments, but I shall give consideration to whether there are any practical means of achieving what the hon. Gentleman suggested.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two things? First, if we can have a draft Bill, why cannot we have printed draft amendments tomorrow morning? Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who is the right hon. Gentleman's shadow, spoke about briefings that had been given, which persuaded them of the need to pass this legislation. As neither of my hon. Friends is a Privy Councillor, and in view of the fact that the Leader of the House wishes the whole House to support the proposed legislation, should not every hon. Member be given the same briefings at the same level and in the same detail, so that we can judge whether what has been decided by the Government and by my hon. Friends is a sensible course of action?
Mr. Newton: On the latter point, it is and has been appropriate to treat the hon. Member for Blackburn, albeit that he is not a Privy Councillor, in the way that the Government have sought to do. I am not sure that it would be appropriate to move in the same way in respect of all hon. Members.
On the publishing of draft amendments, the only point that I was making was that I do not think that there can formally be the publication by the House of draft amendments, any more than the publication of the draft Bill is a formal act in House of Commons terms. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is publishing a draft Bill. There is certainly nothing to prevent hon.

49
Members who wish to table amendments from making their amendments available in manuscript, printed or any other form if they wish to do so later today.
Mr. Michael Jopling: I want to raise exactly the same point as the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I am not aware that draft amendments have been made available to the House in this way before, but I cannot see any possible way in which it could be objected to. It seems a thoroughly commendable way in which the House could proceed. If the Table Office is asked to consider draft amendments on the basis of the draft Bill, I cannot see any good reason why they should not be published by the House with the authority of Madam Speaker. I cannot think why nobody has ever thought of it before, because it seems an excellent idea.
Mr. Newton: I naturally listen to my right hon. Friend, with his experience, with great respect. I have already indicated that I shall do anything that I can to find a practical way to meet what is seen as a practical need, but it has to be said, on my advice and on the body language from the Chair and from those who advise the Chair, that the draft Bill has no formal status in terms of House of Commons procedure.
Mr. Max Madden: Recalling that the PTA was initially introduced in 1974 in the aftermath of the terrible Birmingham pub bombings and that it was taken through all its stages in less than 48 hours—it was then described as a temporary measure—I think that it is disturbing that the Government propose to do precisely the same thing tomorrow. Will whoever promotes the Bill be able to give an explanation—clearly, none is available today—as to why this panic measure, which has serious implications for human rights and civil liberties, is being rushed through the House in this way? I hope that that explanation will be forthcoming tomorrow, because if it is not, I am sure that a number of hon. Members, including myself, will be unable to support the measure and will vote against it, not least because of the circumstances in which it is being taken through the House.
Mr. Newton: I naturally regret the hon. Gentleman's indication of his intentions, but that must be a matter for him.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary clearly explained the reasons to the House in his statement.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Leader of the House accept that he and the Home Secretary have got the House into this mess by introducing the Bill, albeit in a draft unprinted form, so that many hon. Members do not even know of its existence, never mind its content? The Leader of the House is now telling us, apparently, that there is no scope to table full amendments today which can appear on the Order Paper tomorrow. Will he please do something quickly to ensure that the House can perform its proper function: the scrutiny of legislation before it is passed, not acting as a rubber stamp for whatever panic the Home Secretary of the day chooses to create?
Mr. Newton: I cannot really add to what I said earlier about the technicalities. The fact is that, from the point of view of the House, the Bill has not yet been introduced, and will not be introduced until tomorrow. Nevertheless, I repeat that as soon as I leave the Chamber I shall explore whether there are practical ways of achieving the same effect, although they would not involve the formal publication of draft amendments by the authorities of the House.
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you be making a statement later this evening or tomorrow about the means by which hon. Members can table amendments to the Bill proposed by the Home Secretary, so that all hon. Members can be aware of them before the debate on the timetable motion tomorrow? Will you be able to give your selection of those amendments in advance of the debate?
Madam Speaker: It is not my intention at present to do so, but, following what the Leader of the House has said, I must consider the matter carefully. I would want all hon. Members to have as much opportunity as possible to table amendments, and to see the amendments that are published.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I cannot take any more points of order on this matter.
Mr. McNamara rose—
Mr. Barnes rose—
Madam Speaker: All right.
Mr. Barnes: We have been informed, Madam Speaker, that a draft Bill is available to us. Is that in order? I understand that First and Second Reading will take place tomorrow. Under the normal procedure, First Reading would give permission for the Bill to be printed, after which it would be available to us. Are we engaging in the correct procedure?
Madam Speaker: There is nothing out of order in that procedure.
Mr. McNamara: May I pursue the point that you were making earlier, Madam Speaker? As hon. Members may recall, there is a precedent: a manuscript Bill has been considered by the House. At that time, however, we encountered major difficulties in getting amendments selected by either the then Speaker or the then Chairman of Ways and Means. The only amendment with which we succeeded asked for the Bill to be examined again in six months. Because of the nature of this Bill, Madam Speaker, may I ask you to ask the Chairman of Ways and Means—who will presumably be responsible for the matter—to bear in mind the difficulties that Back Benchers will encounter?
Madam Speaker: Certainly. I take the hon. Gentleman's point very seriously, and as soon as I have left the Chair, I shall take it into consideration and do what I can to assist all Back Benchers in relation to amendments that they might wish to table.

BILL PRESENTED
  CYPRUS (COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY INTO MISSING PERSONS)
  Mr. Edward O'Hara, supported by Mr. John Marshall, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Alan Meale, Dr. Ian Twinn, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Simon Hughes, presented a Bill to establish a Commission of Enquiry to take evidence and make recommendations concerning the establishment of the whereabouts of certain missing persons and to authorise the provision of assistance in the conduct of any investigations into those matters carried out by the authorities on the island of Cyprus; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 95.]
Opposition Day
  9TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Council Tax
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    5.12 pm
    Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
    That this House deplores Her Majesty's Government's policies which have forced local councils to increase council tax and charges while reducing services, so obliging local people to pay more and get less; notes that Her Majesty's Government intends to continue to do this year on year; and urges the people of England to bear this in mind when casting their votes in the forthcoming local elections.
    At the last general election, the Conservative party warned people that there would be a tax bombshell if Labour were elected. The Tories were elected, and people received not just one tax bombshell; up to now, they have received 22. Twenty-two tax increases or new taxes have been imposed on them. All those taxes have been imposed nationally, at an average cost per family of £670 a year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself acknowledged that the effect of the increases has been to add the equivalent of 7p to the standard rate of income tax.
    The Government have now announced a 1p reduction in the standard rate of income tax, coming into effect around now. I suppose that everyone should welcome the sinner that repenteth, but it is worth reminding the House that the 1p reduction does not wipe out the 7p increase; 6p is still outstanding. There is also doubt about whether the Government have actually repented. At the same time as reducing the standard rate of income tax by 1p, they are knowingly and deliberately forcing up the council tax.
    Giving evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury accepted that the Treasury was assuming an average council tax increase of 8 per cent. in making its plans. Had the average increase been 8 per cent., that would have been equal to about 0.5p back on the standard rate of income tax: it would have taken away half the 1p by which the Government claim to be reducing the rate. The Government are deliberately driving up the council tax and driving up charges for council services, while forcing cuts in services to local people. As a consequence, local people will be expected to pay more and will be given less in return.
    As it turned out, the average increase was not as bad as the Treasury had planned for. It was not the 8 per cent. predicted by the Chief Secretary, but 6.2 or 6.3 per cent., depending on whose calculation we accept. That increase, however, masks many enormous variations in the changes. In Wellingborough, for instance, the council tax increase is no less than 58 per cent., whereas in Labour-controlled Middlesbrough there has been a reduction of nearly 16 per cent. Lest I be accused of political prejudice, I should add that, in the Prime Minister's constituency, there will not be an increase of 6.3 per cent.; his Tory council—he is almost unique

    53
    among Tory Members in having one of the 13 Tory-controlled councils in his constituency—is raising its council tax by 10.1 per cent.
    It is clear from the settlement that, as everyone has known all along, the main determinant of council tax levels and changes, whether up or down, is the level of the Government grant.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman says that the determining factor is the level of the Government grant, and suggests that that grant is inadequate. How much extra does he feel should be put into the coffers in the settlement?
    Mr. Dobson: It is not just the level of the grant; it is the distribution of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] I will answer questions in the way in which I want to answer them. Everyone knows that there are two determinants: one is the overall level, and the other is the method of allocation.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dobson: I am answering one question; I am not prepared to answer two at once.
    The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) may be satisfied with the present arrangements for the allocation of grant between one council and another, but I doubt whether his constituents are. He voted for a settlement that means that council tax payers in Westminster contribute only 4 per cent. to the council's total spending, while his constituents in Brentwood must contribute no less than 37 per cent. of the cost of services there. That clearly shows just how unfair and rigged is the distribution system.
    Mr. Pickles: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if Camden council received the same grant level as Tower Hamlets, this year the increase in the charge would be only £50, that, if Islington received the same grant level, the increase would be £53, but that, if Wandsworth council received that grant level, the council tax would go down? Why has he let down the people of Camden?
    Mr. Dobson: As everyone knows, Tower Hamlets is one of the most impoverished places in Britain and it is right and proper that it should receive a substantial grant from central Government. It does not, however—unlike Westminster—receive 96 per cent. of its spending from central Government; it receives a lower proportion than that. Everyone recognises that Tower Hamlets is impoverished and that, in identifying Westminster as the fourth most impoverished place in Britain, the Government are just a collection of swindlers looking after their friends.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): If that were true, why is it that, under Labour Governments, advised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), Westminster council received proportionately a more favourable settlement than under Conservative Governments? If it is wrong for Conservative Governments to give the settlement that they
    54
    have, why is it that Labour was more helpful to Westminster than the Tories? The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his last statement or apply it to himself.
    Mr. Dobson: We are advised by the House of Commons Library that no published figures justify what the Secretary of State says. If he believes that, under Labour, the system was more favourable to Westminster, will he publish the figures?
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: One of the things that is worth remembering, apart from all the percentages that show clearly that, over many years, the two so-called Tory flagship authorities have benefited as opposed to councils in Derbyshire and in other places, is that people who run the services are being impoverished. On Saturday, several of us met Derbyshire members of the Fire Brigades Union, who told us that, sadly, its firefighting budget is to be cut by about 7 per cent. Every time there is a calamity or a disaster, Ministers praise the work of firefighters, yet in Derbyshire, the FBU's budget is being cut by 7 per cent. and some stations are being closed. That is the reality of this lousy, rotten Tory Government, not all the banging on about looking after Westminster.
    Mr. Dobson: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says and I shall refer to the cuts that the Government are forcing on the fire and emergency services throughout Britain.
    Mr. Gummer: In order that the hon. Gentleman should be helped, I will give him the figures. When the Labour party was in power, the Labour Government estimated Westminster's need per head as £486, whereas Liverpool's need per head was estimated at £327, a difference of 49 per cent. Westminster's standard spending assessment will be £1,265 per head compared with £944 for Liverpool, a difference of only 34 per cent. Under Labour, therefore, Westminster was favoured by 49 per cent. and, under the Conservatives, by 34 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should obtain those figures. They are in the public domain.
    Mr. Dobson: For a start, the Secretary of State is totally misleading the House. It is not just a question of the standard spending assessments. Let me make this clear—I am quoting figures that are used by Westminster's chief executive, or whatever he is called these days in that benighted plague ship of the Tory party. He says that Tory-controlled Westminster is receiving £20 million more than it is entitled to. The main reason for that is that it receives an enormous grant in respect of visitors to Westminster and between £20 million and £30 million a year from parking charges from those self-same visitors—that income from parking charges is added to the grant that it receives from the visitors, not subtracted from it. It is a racket conducted at the expense of everyone else. It is no good all these Tory Members shilly-shallying about it. They must explain to their constituents why, year in year out, they vote for that racket to benefit Westminster to the disadvantage of the people whom they are supposed to be representing.
    Mr. William O'Brien: May I advise my hon. Friend that recent performance indicators show that Wakefield's spending per head of population is the lowest

    55
    among metropolitan district councils because of the way in which the rate support grant is allocated? As we have as much, or more, deprivation than Westminster, will he provoke the Secretary of State for the Environment to say why Wakefield should be worse off under the rate support grant order than Westminster?
    Mr. Dobson: I do not think that my hon. Friend will ever get the Secretary of State to admit even that Wakefield is worse off because, as he must, the Secretary of State proceeds under the theological assumption that Westminster is the fourth most deprived place in Britain. Let us all remember that, in the system that he is running, not only the resident population, but, for grant purposes, the visitors are regarded as the fourth most deprived people in Britain, so, as I have said before, tonight, 12 per cent. of the people staying at the Ritz hotel will be regarded, for Government grant purposes for Westminster, as living in grossly overcrowded conditions. That is how the Government arrive at such figures.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: While on the subject of the use of car parking charges, to what does the hon. Gentleman's own London borough of Camden apply its car park charges and in what way does that differ from the practice in Westminster?
    Mr. Dobson: The practice in Camden does not vary from that in Westminster. It is just that the sum is enormously lower. I am suggesting not that the formula does not allow Bolsover council to take parking charges and to spend them, but that the Government have cobbled together a formula that gives parking charges to the borough that receives far more parking charges than probably the next 20 put together, with the veritable intention of ensuring that Westminster is all right and that Bolsover gets clobbered.
    Mr. Skinner: It is even worse than that. We have tourists in Bolsover. As many people know, we have Harwick hall and Bolsover castle and English Heritage has just been taken over by a French firm. The Government have allowed the French to invade Bolsover castle, so all the parking charges are going back to France.
    Mr. Dobson: Nothing surprises me. When we have the French taking over Northumbria Water and such companies, we can expect them to be taking over Bolsover castle as well.
    Mr. David Rendel: Far be it from me to interfere in a spat between the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for the Environment, but the Secretary of State might have been making an odd comparison in comparing the figures under Labour with the figures now because local councils' duties have changed since then. I would have thought that the extra duties imposed on them would be expected to be roughly the same per person in each council. Therefore, the absolute difference in grants to different councils between the time Labour was in power and now should be compared rather than the proportional difference.
    Mr. Dobson: Oddly enough, I had not even reached Westminster in my speech. I was going to demonstrate that, even without any political prejudice—which of course the Government are full of—their system of allocating grant is widely capricious. There is no better way in which to demonstrate—
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes rose—
    Mr. Dobson: No; I shall move on.
    There is no better way in which to demonstrate the inherently capricious, unpredictable and rather weird nature of the Government's grant system than the council tax increases in the new unitary authorities. Those authorities, which used to be lower-tier district councils, have taken over from county councils—three of which have been abolished—and, in the case of York, taken over from North Yorkshire county council, the provision of extensive services and the control of enormous budgets for education and social services.
    The size of those authorities' budgets is massively greater than it used to be. The councils have no track record on which anyone could base a real and sensible proposition for allocating funds in a way which militated against one council or in favour of another. However, the differences in council tax increases in the new unitary authorities are quite startling. The range is amazing: 31 per cent. in north-east Lincolnshire; 14 per cent. in Redcar, Cleveland; 13 per cent. in Bristol; 10 per cent. in Hartlepool; 9 per cent. in East Riding; and 8 per cent. in Stockton-on-Tees. Other Labour-controlled unitary authorities have council tax reductions: Middlesbrough—which is literally next door to Stockton-on-Tees—has a reduction of 5.8 per cent., and Hull has one of 10 per cent. There is no rational explanation for those differences.
    The Government have absolutely refused to take on board any of the complaints that have been made about the inadequate and capricious nature of those arrangements.
    Mr. Hughes: I have heard the hon. Gentleman and many of his colleagues quote, with great praise, Rita Hale from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, and Tony Travers from the London School of Economics. I think that most of us would accept that they know more about local government finance than anyone else in this country. They say that our grant system goes further to achieve equalisation than any other scheme in the world. That being the case, is not the hon. Gentleman just indulging in silly and stupid political banter?
    Mr. Dobson: I must say that I have never felt compelled to agree with experts. I think that some Ministers probably think that they should not have agreed too slavishly with experts about the safety of beef and about various other things. We are not here to parrot what experts say, we are here to make some judgments. Whatever experts say, the current system is unfair in making grants to many authorities and it is unfair in the amount of grant Westminster receives in comparison with practically every other authority.
    Mr. Gummer: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me why, if the system is as unfair as that, the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) said in her interview in the Local Government Chronicle that she could not promise any major change in it?
    Ms Hilary Armstrong: In the early days.
    Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend, being a prudent person—unlike the Secretary of State, the Ronald McDonald of the Tory Front Bench—said that no change could be expected in the early days of a Labour Government. She is quite right; it takes a long time to put right things that are as badly wrong as local government finance.
    Mr. Gummer: Just in case the House might have been misled, the hon. Lady told the Local Government Chronicle:
    "I would not like to promise major changes".
    She said nothing about early days or anything like that.
    Mr. Dobson: Quite frankly, I would rather take the word of my hon. Friend than the word of the Secretary of State—of that I have no doubt whatever.
    The fact is that, considered nationally, the Government are driving up council taxes, and in his evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made it quite clear that the Government are doing that intentionally. Council tax is being driven up because the Government grant does not meet the increased costs imposed by inflation, pay increases and increased demand for council services because of the extra 86,000 children, for example, who will be going to school in the coming year and the increasing number of old people who—having paid in tax of one sort or another and national insurance all their lives—rightly expect that they will be looked after properly by their local authorities.
    The Government payment and the Government grant also do not meet the costs of implementing various legal changes, such as the introduction of the landfill tax and the requirement to instal seat belts on school buses. It is quite right that there should be a landfill tax. It is also quite right that seat belts should be installed in school buses—a cause for which I have campaigned for a dozen years or more, and I will not go back on it—but it will cost money. As a result of the shortfall in what councils must spend to maintain services, they must meet the difference by council tax increases, charge increases and service cuts.
    Last year, council tax rose by 5.3 per cent. This year, it will rise by an average 6.3 per cent. We have also experienced increased charges. It is perhaps worth reminding the House that school meal prices are still going up. In many areas, they now exceed £1 per child per day. When the Government first came to power, the charge was 20p per child per day, far larger numbers of children were eligible for free meals and councils had more discretion in granting free meals to the most impoverished children.
    It might also be worth reminding the House that this Government, at the same time as they got rid of a national price for school meals, got rid of national nutritional standards for school meals. One result of that action has been a massive increase in consumption of less-healthy foods at school and in the number of children eating burgers, day after day, causing whatever harm or otherwise to their health.
    There have been massive cuts in services all over the country—reductions in the availability of luncheon clubs for old people, libraries closing and libraries opening for
    58
    fewer hours and swimming baths closing. Aspects of schooling that I had regarded, when I was at school, as part and parcel of that experience and as one of the benefits of being a child—such as music, sport and swimming—have been eliminated from the curriculum because the money is not there to fund them. There are examples of such programmes being eliminated all over the country.
    Local authorities are having to make difficult, awkward and unpleasant decisions, which have been forced on them by the Government. I shall give just a few examples. First, the great city of Birmingham—a credit to this country—built the international convention centre, a joint project which provided the city with a brilliant convention centre and the country with a state-of-the-art facility. Virtually every member of the Government, certainly including the Prime Minister, vilified the convention centre up hill and down dale—until they needed somewhere in England to go for the European Heads of Government conference.
    Lo and behold, the Government chose the international convention centre in Birmingham for their conference because it was the best place for it and because the television pictures, broadcast around Europe, would be a credit to Britain. The communications were absolutely first rate. As soon as Ministers came away from the conference—this collection of bumbling hypocrites—they immediately started complaining and groaning about Birmingham having built an international convention centre. Birmingham has also led the way in introducing many education initiatives to the benefit of the city's children.
    Birmingham city council has had to take many difficult decisions this year. The Government increased Birmingham's spending limit by £23 million, but the Government's grant to Birmingham, including the business rate, increased by only £6 million. The Government acknowledged that Birmingham needed to spend £23 million more but gave it only £6 million towards that sum—the other £17 million must therefore come from increased taxes. That, however, is not the end of the story.
    Mr. Keith Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dobson: Not yet; I shall finish this point.
    The teachers' pay award, which the Government decide, was fixed at 3.1 per cent. This year, that will cost Birmingham an extra £9 million. Other pay and price increases will cost Birmingham an extra £21 million. Birmingham will have to find an extra £5.5 million to pay for the implementation of new legislation on pensions and waste disposal. Increases in the number of school children and elderly people in Birmingham will cost £5 million, yet the capital available for school buildings in Birmingham has been reduced by 40 per cent. The budget shortfall will cost 727 council jobs. Birmingham made savings of £20 million but still had to increase its council tax.
    Mr. Mans: In view of what the hon. Gentleman said about Birmingham's spending limit, is it now Labour party policy to encourage all local authorities to spend up to their limit?
    Mr. Dobson: As far as I know, it appears to be the Government's policy. I understand that speakers at successive Tory local government conferences have said that setting capping limits and such like has had the effect, even in Tory areas, of encouraging councils to spend up to their limit, which they might not have done if such limits had not been set. That may or may not be true, but it was certainly said at Tory conferences. The hon. Gentleman might be a better judge of whether what is said at Tory conferences is true, as he attends them more frequently.
    The Government's revenue support grant for Greenwich has been cut by £4.13 million, and the council has held its increases in expenditure to just 1 per cent. although inflation in its services is running at about 3 per cent. Total Government support for Hackney has been cut by £5.2 million, the bulk of which represents a reduction in the money available for education in that borough. Tamworth, despite facing a by-election, has seen a reduction of £141,000, and the great city of Newcastle upon Tyne has had its rate support grant cut by £1.3 million.
    I could go on and on citing examples of cuts that have been made, but I do not want to trouble the House by listing them at enormous length. All hon. Members know from their constituency experience that there have been local tax increases, increased charges and cuts in services, but that is not the end of the story.
    This year's increase in taxes is not the only increase that the Government have in mind. On the day of the Budget, the Department of the Environment published figures showing that the Government expected the total amount of money taken from council tax payers to increase by £3.5 billion over the coming three years. That equals an increase of almost 2p in the standard rate of income tax—that 2p increase would raise the same sum of money from ordinary people as the £3.5 billion that the Government expect, were they to stay in power, to raise from council tax payers in the next three years.
    That, of course, is not the only sign of the Tory commitment to increase council taxes. The former head of local government finance at the Department of the Environment said:
    "Ministers want to increase the proportion of council tax spending from 21 to 26 per cent. by 1998–99 … The downside is that your taxes go up sharply".
    That is certainly happening and was confirmed recently by the deputy secretary at the Department of the Environment in his evidence to a House of Lords Committee on relations between central and local government. He said of a 25 per cent. contribution on average from the council tax towards council services that it was
    "as much as I felt the council tax could properly bear".
    Mr. Pickles: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the council tax in Camden would be lower if the council collected it and reached the average collection rate? Does he think that it would be lower in Haringey if it were collected there? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most of the top 10 councils that collect the least taxes are Labour authorities and that they are responsible for £90 million
    60
    of uncollected resources? Does he believe that the council tax could be reduced and services improved in such areas if the authorities collected the money?
    Mr. Dobson: There is certainly scope for improvement in council tax collection—[Interruption.] I am answering the question. There is scope for improvement in the rate of council tax collection—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What about collecting rents?
    Mr. Dobson: And rent collection for that matter. If we are to bandy facts around, I have to say that the only reason why Brent does not feature in the lists of councils with massive council tax and rent arrears is that Brent has written them off to make the figures look better. As everyone knows—this of course applies to Brent—in areas where the people are predominantly poor, it is bound to follow that it will be harder to get rent and council tax out of them, as they find it hard to pay. There will always be some relationship between the standard of living and the level of income in an area and the council's capacity to collect taxes.
    One line that the Government have been peddling—the Secretary of State has been doing the same—is that they would provide more money for schools. If more money is being provided for schools, it is no thanks to the Government. The Government have allowed councils to spend more of their own money on schools but have not provided any extra if we take into account inflation, the cost of pay increases and the increased number of pupils to which I have already referred.
    Mr. Den Dover: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dobson: Hold on a minute. It is worth remembering that the Government have acknowledged that there was not enough money to cover the pay increases. They have had to accept that the teachers' pay increase should be phased in because councils would not have enough to pay it outright. That is an admission by the Government that the funds would simply not be available.
    I make it clear that if, in the coming year, education authorities were to spend on schools what the Government think ought to be spent on schools, there would be not an increase in spending but a reduction of, on average, £41 per pupil across the country compared with the year just finished. I repeat that if education authorities spent to the Government's target in the coming year, there would be not an increase but an average decrease of £41 per pupil.
    Mr. Dover: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Lancashire council scaremongered and said that this year there would be a further reduction on school spending of 8 per cent. on top of a cut of 5 per cent. last year? The Government have in fact given £26 million extra to Lancashire this year and, at long last, the chairman of the education committee has admitted that there will be a real increase in spending, which is quite different from the scare stories that he was spreading a few months ago.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Scandalous.
    Mr. Dobson: Compared with Conservative Members, it beggars belief to refer to anybody in the Labour party as scandalous when it comes to scaremongering. I do not have at my fingertips figures on the circumstances prevailing in Lancashire. All I know is that, generally speaking, Lancashire county council has been trying hard to provide decent services to the people of Lancashire and has been making a pretty good fist of it. It is a pity that it has not had more help from the Government—or, from time to time, more help from Tory Members representing Lancashire constituencies in arguing with the Government to get some resources for the county.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Is it not a fact that Lancashire, like Derbyshire, has the largest primary classes of any English shire—an average of 27.9 pupils across the whole area? That is indicative of its financial problems as a result of the Government.
    Mr. Dobson: I freely admit that my hon. Friend, who is very familiar with Derbyshire and who has obviously been looking around for comparisons and spotted that Lancashire is in similar circumstances, displays more expertise on the matter than I. I congratulate him on pointing that out.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the reason why class numbers are high in some parts of Lancashire is that, unfortunately, the county council chooses to keep open surplus places in east and central Lancashire secondary schools, where the population is falling, thus depriving north Lancashire of teachers that it should have.
    Mr. Dobson: One of the problems that education authorities face these days in getting rid of surplus classes, or indeed surplus schools, is the possibility that when they try to take the sort of action for which the hon. Lady seems to be calling, the people in the schools concerned will go rushing to the Secretary of State to say, "Can we opt out?", and that there is a reasonable chance that, on base political grounds, the Secretary of State will agree. Virtually everybody connected with education, including some officials at the Department for Education and Employment, acknowledge that that is true. I suspect that even some officials at the Department of the Environment might think that it is true.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised the question of Derbyshire's fire service settlement. I must repeat to Conservative Members that, unless they happened to be absent for the vote, they voted for the general local government settlement. It is worth reminding them what that settlement has provided for fire authorities around the country. The Tyne and Wear authority will have £2.3 million less to spend than it had last year on the fire service. In Wiltshire, although the deficit is just £260,000, it is not a large brigade and that is quite a lot of money. On Merseyside, the cuts contemplated range from £2 million to £6 million. In Cambridgeshire, the figure is £700,000. In Essex, Labour county councillors have proposed cuts of £1.5 million, but Conservatives and Liberals are still gnawing on the bone over whether to make much bigger cuts and reduce spending on the fire service by between £3 million and £4 million.
    62
    In the west midlands, councils are discussing how to reduce spending by £4.7 million. In Greater Manchester, £2 million is having to be found through cuts. In Nottinghamshire, fire service spending is being cut by £80,000. North Yorkshire is looking at a total reduction of £3 million over three years. Difficulties in Humberside have been exacerbated by the disappearance of the county and all the uncertainty surrounding it. In Derbyshire, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) pointed out, a reduction of £700,000 is being looked at. Surrey is considering a reduction of £2.5 million in fire service spending over three years. I have not got the figures for Buckinghamshire, but I know that it has decided to close three rescue units. In Hampshire, there is a reduction of £500,000, and in Greater London the cuts amount to £8 million.
    Everybody in the country knows that Tory Members of Parliament and Tory Governments play fast and loose with people's safety, but they are not entitled to play fast and loose with people's safety when it comes to the fire and emergency services. Nor are they are entitled to play fast and loose with the safety of firefighters who risk their lives daily for the rest of us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover also pointed out, when there is an emergency, Ministers leap to the Dispatch Box to pay tribute to the emergency services. Some of the people in the emergency services feel that it would not be too bad if they were paid some pay from time to time.
    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I compliment my hon. Friend on his points about the fire service. He did not mention West Yorkshire, but I am sure that he would have done if time had permitted. West Yorkshire has minimum fire cover, the reserves are all spent, and in Bradford, which has a population of 490,000, there is one high turntable ladder, which cannot assist in emergencies at high-rise flats.
    Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point. All the cuts may seem fine to people with clipboards and stop-watches—accountants and various other people—but they do not look too good to someone whose house, whose neighbour's house or whose place of work is burning down.
    The other thing about which there is nothing new is how the Government have rigged the grant system. As I have said, they have rigged it in favour of Westminster. All that grant-rigging is still based on the assessment of deprivation. The Government, inspired, no doubt, and advised by experts, have concluded that Westminster is the fourth most deprived place in Britain. I know that not all Westminster comprises Mayfair and Belgravia; nevertheless, Mayfair and Belgravia form a substantial part of it. Nobody in their right mind believes that Westminster is more deprived than the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings). In terms of wealth and income of the people who live in Easington, it is one of the least well-off places in Britain. [Interruption.] If Conservative buffoons do not realise that, given the effects of all the pit closures, they are not even fit to sit on the Conservative Benches.
    According to the Government's scale of deprivation, Easington, after all the pit closures, comes 338th in the priority of deprivation, whereas Westminster comes fourth. While Westminster comes fourth, Warrington is 337th, Stockport is 295th, the Forest of Dean is 257th and Erewash

    63
    in Derbyshire is 228th. According to the criteria laid down by the Government, Chorley in Lancashire, whose Member of Parliament has just been on his feet, is 194th—190 places behind Westminster in the scale of deprivation. The result of those infamous assessments is that Westminster coins it while other areas have to do without.
    As I have done before, I shall give a list of the council taxes that other areas would have had to charge if they had received the same amount of help per head as Westminster. Let us take Tamworth. If Tamworth council had received the same amount of help per head as Westminster, it would not have needed to levy council tax at all. This year, it would have been able to give a rebate of £969 to every council tax payer. In Milton Keynes, the council would be able to pay out a rebate of £692. In Peterborough, represented by the chairman of the Tory party, the council would be able to pay out an £863 rebate. In Basildon, famed in Tory song and story, the council would be able to pay out a rebate of £615. In the borough of Trafford, the council would be able to pay out a rebate of £527. In Oldham, the council would be able to pay out a rebate of £145 and in Rochdale, the figure would be £303. In Cherwell, a good, solid Tory area, the council would be able to pay out a £925 rebate. The figure for Wyre Forest would be £855 and in the great city of Southampton, the figure would be £972. That is the amount that the council would be able to pay out, rather than having to take in any council tax, if it got the same level of help as Westminster does.
    The same unfairness characterises education. With the massive amount that the Government allow Westminster for education per pupil, Staffordshire would be able to take on 4,895 extra teachers and it would not be contemplating job losses in schools this year. Bedfordshire would be able to take on an extra 2,000 teachers, Oldham an extra 1,000 teachers, Rochdale an extra 850 teachers, Essex an extra 5,300 teachers and Kent an extra 5,600 teachers if they got the same level of help per pupil as Tory Westminster gets. Those figures demonstrate the scale of the racket. All this is because the Government regard Westminster as the fourth most deprived place in Britain.
    Four is a magic number for Westminster because the Audit Commission's most recent figures show that people living in Westminster pay only 4 per cent. towards the cost of the services provided by the council and that the Government divvy up the other 96 per cent. I suggest that Tory Members have a lot of explaining to do to their constituents.
    The chairman of the Tory party represents Peterborough, although, as we all know, he is doing a bunk under the chicken run and going to somewhere safer. His constituents in Peterborough have to pay 25 per cent. of the cost of providing local services. People in Milton Keynes have to pay 35 per cent. and people in Basildon have to pay 42 per cent., 10 times the proportion that people living in Westminster have to pay towards council services. In Corby, the figure is 48 per cent.; almost half the cost of services has to be met by local people, whereas the figure for Westminster is just 4 per cent.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is talking about percentages. Does he agree£I do not think that the figure is disputed£that compulsory competitive tendering has saved 7 per cent. of the costs
    64
    of local government services? Does he know that his promise to get rid of compulsory competitive tendering is, in the words of The Guardian, a dangerous capitulation to the trade unions? Is that not what he is about? Is he not about destroying services and trying to mislead people rather than putting forward a policy?
    Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman is up a gum tree if he thinks that I will be embarrassed by quotations from The Guardian. I will give a quotation from the Audit Commission. If we are talking about the value of compulsory competitive tendering, let us see how it performs in Westminster. Profligate Westminster, which gets all this money from central Government, which put poor families in asbestos-ridden blocks and which organised the misspending of £29 million of public money for party political advantage, is so badly mismanaged, even with compulsory competitive tendering, that refuse collection and disposal costs £55 per head of population and street cleaning costs £36.42 per head of population. That is the highest figure in the country by miles. Many of Westminster's other services are equally grotesquely expensive.
    Let us compare the figures with those for the borough of Camden—part of which I am proud to represent. It is literally next door to Westminster, so it faces roughly the same cost conditions. In Westminster, refuse collection and disposal costs £55 per head whereas Camden's service costs £22. Westminster's street cleaning costs £36 whereas Camden's costs £14.83. That shows the better bargain and better value that Labour Camden gets compared with Westminster. All over the country, Labour local government provides good services and good value for money. Nothing the Tories say will shift people's opinion that they are better off with a Labour council and that is why we control 200 local authorities while the Tories control just 13; they may lose four of them in the local elections.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I have a brief announcement to make. Following today's business statement, I have been asked to notify the House that Members wishing to submit amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill may do so tonight in the Public Bill Office. An informal list of amendments submitted in this way will be made available in the Vote Office before 10 pm this evening. A more formal marshalled list of amendments will be made available in the course of the Second Reading debate tomorrow.
    6.6 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'congratulates the Government on the rigorous approach it is taking towards all public expenditure, including that of local government; commends the clarity of their approach towards taxation and the funding of local services; and urges local authorities to make the most efficient use of the resources available.'.
    The speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was entirely in keeping with April fools' day. He managed to choose the worst

    65
    possible ground on which to attack the Government and, as usual, he managed to make the worst possible case on that ground.
    Before I respond to such points as one can remember from the speech, it is worth reflecting on why the Opposition chose this subject for debate. In one of his earliest pronouncements as leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) asked the public to judge the Labour party on its achievements in office locally and not on its rhetoric. He said:
    "I don't think the character of any party becomes clear until you're in power."
    Those words have now come back to haunt him.
    The council tax bills and the Audit Commission's performance indicators, both published two weeks ago, show categorically that people pay more and get less under Labour councils. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield is, therefore, desperate to avoid being judged on that record and he has sent the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to defend him. That is why we are having this debate today, that is why the hon. Gentleman has come forward to explain all about the council tax and that is why the Labour party is so embarrassed. It is embarrassed not only by the record of Labour local government, but by the chasm between what Labour says in soundbites in the television studios and what happens when it is in power locally.
    The fact is that Labour remains the party of high taxes and high spending. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras did not quote two figures. First, that Labour councils charge 50 per cent. more in council tax. Secondly, although pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), the hon. Gentleman never said how much the Labour party would have given to local authorities. He told us that the figure was not high enough, but he never told us what the figure should have been.
    We can all say how much more we would like to spend on this, that and the other, but in the end, we have to say, if we are to be believed by anybody, how much we would have spent. The hon. Gentleman did not tell us. We tried, some time ago, to find out. We pushed him and we asked him, and he finally said that he would not tell us because, if he did, we might pick the figure to pieces. We would do that because Labour has said that it would not spend any more. It is frightened that we might note that the reason why taxes are higher—
    Mr. Dobson: That is not what I said.
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman says that he did not say that. I shall give way to him if he promises to tell me how much extra money he would have spent if he had been in government today.
    Ms Armstrong: The Conservatives never did that in 1978.
    Mr. Gummer: How much extra money does the hon. Gentleman believe councils ought to have?
    Mr. Dobson: I said that the council tax increases have been knowingly brought about by the Government.
    66
    They know that, and it is no use them trying to blame Labour councils or anybody else—the Government are responsible for the council tax increases.
    Mr. Gummer: I have given the hon. Gentleman a chance after his long speech to give the figure, but he has still not done so. That makes incredible any claim that he makes that not enough money has been given. Unless he can say how much he would give, he is not credible and no sensible person will be able to take what he says seriously. Even if they have not heard his speech, they could not take him seriously.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: My right hon. Friend, who was concentrating on the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), may not have noticed the hon. Gentleman's deputy, the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), screeching that we did not tell people in 1978 how much we would spend. May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the hon. Lady is wrong? We made clear at the time that we would not be spending a single penny more, and that councils would have to use their money better. Labour is trying to bribe people into believing that they would get more money.
    Mr. Gummer: If it were in power, Labour would either provide more money—in which case it would have to take the money from somewhere else or push up all taxation significantly—or it would not, in which case it is misleading its own members in councils around the country.
    Mr. Clive Betts: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Gummer: I will in a moment, but I want to get through this part of my speech. It is important that the House listens carefully to what I am suggesting.
    The Leader of the Opposition says that education is Labour's number one priority. Yet all around the country, Labour councillors are busy diverting the extra money that they have been given or have been allowed to spend from education into other areas. Having been allowed to spend the money, Labour councillors are spending it on the things that they want, and not on education that the public want. The Leader of the Opposition says one thing, but Labour councillors do another.
    Mr. Betts rose—
    Sir Peter Fry: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Gummer: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) first, but I will come back to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) later.
    Mr. Betts: Will the Secretary of State move from his imaginary figures to the real ones in the Government's own Red Book? The Chief Secretary admitted to the Treasury Select Committee that council taxes would rise by about 8 per cent. as a result of the Government's own policies because the Government were cutting grants and

    67
    throwing the burden on council taxes. Will he now confirm that there are similar figures for each of the next two years? Does that not amount—in the Government's own forecast—to an increase of 25 per cent. in council taxes in the next three years? Will that not result in councils having to bear 26 per cent. of total local authority funding, rather than 21 per cent. as at present?
    Mr. Gummer: I can confirm that the Labour party—in the presence of Sir Jeremy Beecham—suggested that council taxes would go up on average by 10 per cent. In fact, they have gone up on average by just over 6 per cent. The difference between the figures is very clear, and the increase does not tally with any of the figures given by the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir Peter Fry: Will my right hon. Friend accept confirmation from Northamptonshire of the points that he is making? After making many representations to the Government, the council obtained a 6 per cent. increase in the amount of moneys available to be paid to school governors for the year just started. But the Labour-controlled Northamptonshire county council—after screaming for months about teachers losing their jobs and increasing class sizes—has not passed all the money on and has kept back something like £2 million.
    Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend, but he is extremely lucky. In Labour and Liberal-controlled Suffolk, the local council could have spent £11.5 million but is spending £8.5 million. It has written one of the longest letters ever by a local authority to its head teachers and governors to explain why instead of spending the money on education—because it is spending the money, of course—it is spending it on things that it thinks are more important. The Leader of the Opposition—supported by the Liberal Democrats—talks about education as his great priority. Yet Labour councils around the country are not spending the money on education.
    It costs someone living under a Labour council—whether it is this year, last year or the year before—50 per cent. more than someone living under a Conservative council. The Government do not set council tax bills—the local authorities do. Nobody forced Labour and Liberal Democrat councils to increase their council tax bills, and to increase them by more than Conservative councils. Nobody forced them to reduce services—they have chosen to do so. Why? Because they failed to use the methods by which they could get better value for money.
    Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Gummer: I will in a moment. I want to explain the methods so that the hon. Gentleman can take them back to Wakefield—a council that I am sure would like to know them.
    For all the various budgets proposed by Labour councils—those are enormous in many cases—an alternative is proposed. Labour-controlled Birmingham—mentioned by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras—increased its band D council tax by £76. But the Conservatives' shadow budget proposed a zero increase. There is no need for the council tax
    68
    to go up in Birmingham. The council tax could remain at the same level, and services could be improved by Birmingham being run more efficiently. The fault in Birmingham lies neither with the people nor with the Government, but with the Labour council. The tax increase of £76 is a Labour tax increase. One pays more and gets less under Labour.
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras had the effrontery to talk about Labour's education policy in Birmingham. But the Labour party had a putsch on its leadership in Birmingham because it had not spent the money on education, and had spent it on the very things for which the hon. Gentleman was lauding the council.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it was or was not right for the city of Birmingham to build the international convention centre?
    Mr. Gummer: I am referring to comments by Councillor Theresa Stewart who, in seeking a change of policy, suggested that the priorities of Birmingham city council had been wrong and that the money ought to have been spent elsewhere. I stand by that. My point is not whether this or that particular decision was right, but that the Labour party in Birmingham is deeply divided about what should have been done. The Conservatives have offered a way in which Birmingham could have no rise in council tax under the Government's grant system. Birmingham's tax is therefore a Labour tax.
    Enfield is putting up its tax, while the Conservatives would be able to cut £20 of band D council tax. In Kent, the Conservatives have proposed a council tax rise of 2.9 per cent., but the Labour and Liberal Democrat council had to put it up by 5.6 per cent. In all those places, the Conservatives have said what they would spend. They have given the figures, and are prepared to stand by them. The Labour party is a disgrace because it will not give any figures. It is afraid to do so. Labour could either give figures that show that it is fiscally sensible—in doing so, it would deny the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras' whole case—or figures that would clearly demonstrate that Labour is the raising-tax and lowering-service party that we all know it to be.
    Mr. William O'Brien: I appreciate the opportunity to intervene in the Secretary of State's speech. If Wakefield had the same rate support grant distribution as Westminster, we could spend a further £600 per head on secondary school education. I am using the same performance indicator figures to which the Secretary of State referred. What does the Secretary of State say to those figures?
    Mr. Gummer: Why does the hon. Gentleman not do himself better than that? Why does he not compare Westminster and Wakefield under a Labour Government? He would make even better figures for himself. The Labour Government were even more helpful to Westminster proportionately. Or why does he not look at Tower Hamlets? Why does he not say to himself, "If only we had the money that Tower Hamlets has."? Then he would discover that he could spend even more money per secondary school pupil. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the figures that come out of the system are entirely independent.

    69
    They are based upon need. He knows perfectly well that that is true because when Labour was in power it gave Westminster a higher proportion than we do.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: My right hon. Friend mentioned the increase of 5.6 per cent. in the precept of Kent county council, which is now Labour-Liberal. As the Government gave a more than 4 per cent. increase in central Government finance, people in Kent object to the fact that the increase for the schools is very much less than either figure—only 3.4 per cent. That bears out the fact that Kent people under the Liberals and Labour are having to pay more to get less.
    Mr. Gummer: Before I respond, I should like to offer the House an idea. There is a kind of meter in the House. When the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who sits for part of Camden, laughs or giggles, we know that he is on a weak point. If the House watches, it will notice that whenever he laughs it is because we are right and he is wrong. It is what I call the giggle factor for the hon. Gentleman and it is one well worth watching out for. It is almost infallible—not quite, but almost.
    Kent is a very badly run council. It was a very well run council and I am sorry that Kent, with its particular system at the moment, should have made education so much less a priority than my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) would want and that the Government have sought to give it the means to do.
    Of course, one has to remember that the views that I am putting forward are not only my own. They are independently supported. I was interested to see the article by Dido Sandler in yesterday's Independent on Sunday. She concluded, rather interestingly, on the question of the difference between a Labour and a Conservative council, that:
    "one of the best ways of saving money on your council tax is to move. If you tot up what Band H taxpayers in the London borough of Lambeth have contributed over the past six years, compared with their peers in neighbouring Wandsworth, the difference is enough to buy a car.".
    That is the difference. In Lambeth under Labour the council tax went on and on going up, even though the council received more money from the taxpayer than Wandsworth.
    There is not even a scintilla of truth in the nonsense that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has been talking. If one compares Lambeth and Wandsworth, one discovers that Lambeth, with more money from the taxpayer, pushed its council tax up time after time while Labour was in control. Now that no one is in control, the council has been able to cut the council tax as it was never able to do when Labour ran it. So not only is Labour more expensive than Conservative, it is more expensive than having no one in control. It is more expensive to have a Labour council than to let it rip and let anyone run it—to let whatever collection of people turn up for a meeting run the council. It is a wonderful situation. Labour is worse than any coalition of anyone who happens to turn up on any day.
    The Liberal Democrats are not as bad as Labour. People pay only 30 per cent. more on average with them. People pay 50 per cent. more with Labour. The gap between Conservative and Lib-Lab local government has been widening. It has got worse, not better. The only excuse that there could be is that the services are better for the higher price. That is the only argument and that is what Labour has said.
    70
    So I have looked carefully at the wealth of information produced by the Audit Commission comparing the performances of councils. Indicator after indicator shows that Labour councils provide a poorer service. People are less likely to get their housing benefit, council tax benefit or rent allowance paid on time if they live under a Labour council; less likely to have planning decisions made on time; and twice as likely to find a street light not working. They wait longer for vital equipment after a social services assessment. Labour councils have a higher proportion of their homes empty and available for letting, they take longer to re-let dwellings and they have a greater proportion of tenants in rent arrears.
    So why do Labour councils cost so much more? First of all, they have to make up for the taxes that they fail to collect. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who interrupted the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, was right. In 1994–95, Labour councils failed to collect more than £250 million in council tax. That money could have been spent on teachers and new equipment in schools, on extra home helps or on other local services. It could even have been used to cut the council tax. But none of those things was done.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Gummer: I should like to give the second reason and give an example, and then I will give way.
    Secondly, Labour councils do everything that they can to stifle competition and keep local services under the control of their trade union paymasters. As a result, they end up paying more for inadequate services run by trade unions that bankroll the Labour party. I shall give two examples of that. The first is from Brent.
    Under Labour, Brent was a byword for shoddy services and high taxes. Even the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) accused Labour-run Brent of being "monumentally incompetent". He had all the experience of the Greater London council so he knew what incompetence was. If he said something was incompetent, he meant it, and monumentally incompetent must mean something absolutely unbelievable.
    Under the Conservatives, Brent has the fourth lowest council tax in London. It is the only authority in England to have cut its taxes in each of the past six years. MORI polls show that overall customer satisfaction in that borough has increased by 18 per cent. since Labour was removed from office. The council has won a record seven charter marks. These remarkable achievements are not matched by any Labour council in the land. That is what happens under the same grant system when a council changes from Labour to Conservative.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Gummer: In one moment. I promised the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) that I would give way to him and then I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    I ought to be perfectly fair and have a look at a council neighbouring Brent. Islington, the Leader of the Opposition's own authority, exemplifies the record of

    71
    Labour local government. Islington spends the third highest per head of population in the country yet its results are appalling. It is the slowest council in London, and the second slowest nationally, in deciding planning applications; it is the third worst council for the average time taken to re-let properties; it has just set the sixth highest council tax in the land.
    There is a problem here because Islington does not quite know how it did it. The Audit Commission confirms what we already knew from the recent district auditor's report—that Islington cannot even measure how bad it is. Time and again the Commission expresses "doubts" about
    "the council's arrangements for producing the required information".
    Islington does not know the percentage of items of equipment provided within three weeks for those in desperate need. It cannot tell the percentage of over-75s helped to live at home. It is not sure of the percentage of adults going into residential care who are offered single rooms. It does not have the figures for the percentage of household waste recycled. No one is certain of the percentage of householder planning applications decided in eight weeks. It does not know, it cannot tell and it does not care. As long as the unions in Islington are happy, it does not care. That is the problem with Labour councils that charge people more and provide them less.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I am a little confused. If the right hon. Gentleman follows the logic of his argument that Labour authorities are bad and Tory authorities good, why are there only 13 Tory authorities and 200 Labour councils?
    Mr. Gummer: That is something that will soon be remedied as people realise just what it is like to have a Labour council. I have no difficulties about that. We shall soon see.
    Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman claimed that it was simply to Brent council's credit that it had managed to reduce its council tax. Does he think that its ability to reduce that tax was enhanced by the letters that the leader of the council sent to the special Tory adviser at the Treasury, the local government desk officer at Tory central office and the special adviser at the Department of the Environment in July 1994, saying that he had had discussions with them and asking them to ensure that there would be
    "no swingeing increases in the level of Council Tax set by the borough next year which could then lose us control of the borough"
    and expressing the hope that the Treasury would agree to provide enough funding. Does he think that that might have had a little to do with what the council tax turned out to be in Brent?
    Mr. Gummer: As the Treasury does not decide, the figures are done on exactly the same basis for each of the London boroughs and there was no change whatsoever in the way in which Brent was dealt with, the hon. Gentleman can answer his own question without any difficulty. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he is keen on trying to spread any rumour he likes in any way in likes because he is trying to imply something that is manifestly not true and he ought to be a little more careful.
    72
    This year's settlement struck a fair balance between the needs of local government and of the economy as a whole. The total standard spending for England will be £44.93 billion—a huge amount and an increase of £1.42 billion or 3.3 per cent. That shows the importance that we attach to local government services. We have provided a 4.5 per cent. increase in provision for education and 6.9 per cent. for personal social services, including £418 million in transitional community care special grants.
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras believes that this year's settlement is inadequate, but he never tells us by how much or what he would do. He never says what a Labour Government might do, could do, think of doing or might have to put off doing. The real and the only conclusion—after the hon. Gentleman's speech it is a simple conclusion—is that he neither understands the system nor knows what he would do if we were ever so stupid as to put him in power.
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras believes that the settlement is wrong because local taxpayers are meeting slightly more of the cost of local services. I am surprised that he should say so because the Labour party's local government policy document, "Renewing Democracy, Rebuilding Communities" says that Labour
    "believe that it would be better for local people and make for a healthier democracy if councils were responsible for raising locally a much higher proportion of the money they invest and spend".
    I emphasise the words "much higher proportion". It is not some small amount. That is what Labour wants.
    I have heard Opposition Members mention the business rate. Oh yes, they would like to have that again because it does not make them responsible at all. The policy document cannot mean that, however, because it states that
    "it would be better for local … democracy",
    but the business rate means that one can charge anyone anything one likes without it having an effect on local democracy.
    Indeed, when local authorities administered the business rate, what happened? It meant that the John Lewis Partnership paid three times as much per square foot in Newcastle as it did in Westminster. That was under a Labour Government. Why did the centre of Newcastle almost close down? It was because Newcastle city council taxed people out of existence. When the friends of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) were in power in Sheffield, why could one not find a business that would not have moved out of the city if only it could have found someone to buy its premises?
    That is what happened under the business rate, so it was not surprising that when the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors brought together business men of all kinds, including the Confederation of British Industry and all the other organisations, the one thing that they were all agreed about was that the business rate should continue to be centrally organised and protected so that it could not rise above the rise in the cost of living. Why? Because the Labour party can never be trusted not to put its hands into other people's pockets and the business people of Britain know that. They also know that the north of England has benefited enormously.
    The hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) had better listen. The £800 million that was levied by Labour councils in the north was no

    73
    longer levied once the universal business rate was put into operation. She fought for the retention of Cleveland. We know about her—
    Ms Armstrong: I did not.
    Mr. Gummer: I am sorry. The hon. Lady did not want Cleveland. She was in the other bit of the Labour party—the bit that did not want Cleveland.
    Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman really means my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam). It is about time that he learnt to distinguish between Opposition Members. Just because we are women, it does not mean that we are all the same.
    Mr. Gummer: I am sorry. The hon. Lady jumps to the defence of her hon. Friend, who was on the other side over Cleveland. I know which side the people of Cleveland were on—they were universally against Cleveland. I am pleased to say that one of the most popular measures I have ever taken was to confirm the demise and removal of Cleveland.
    I was amazed to discover that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras dared to stand up and tell me that Labour-controlled Middlesbrough had reduced its council tax. Hon. Members may wonder why. It was because there is no Cleveland any more. Without the incubus of Cleveland, the council has been able to be more sensible. Not sensible enough, however. People would be much better off if the council were Conservative-controlled because they would be paying 50 per cent. less.
    Mr. Dobson: Most unusually, I am almost at a loss for words. The Secretary of State says that the abolition of Cleveland has led to a reduction in the council tax in Middlesbrough, which is Labour-controlled. How does he account, therefore, for the increase in council tax in Redcar and Stockton, which are also Labour-controlled and also in Cleveland?
    Mr. Gummer: If I lived in any of those places, that is the first question that I would ask. Why is that Labour council even more incompetent than that in Middlesbrough? I would be banging at the council's door for an answer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would be in the lead, asking the council, "How is it that even the loonies next door can do better than you?" That is what I would be asking.
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras went on about the money that Westminster gets for daily visitors. I was interested to hear that because Westminster gets 5 per cent., but Labour-controlled Norwich gets 7 per cent., Labour-controlled Cambridge gets 8 per cent., as does Labour-controlled Great Yarmouth, and the independently controlled—just to be absolutely independent—West Somerset gets 10 per cent. I wonder why the hon. Gentleman did not mention any of those and why they did not come high up his list. I wonder whether he has visited Cambridge recently to say anything about the parking charges. It is noticeably one of the worst councils in Britain and it has the smelliest car parks in Britain. It also has one of the most dangerous car parks in Britain. The fact of the matter is, however, that it raises a lot of money in car parking charges and yet it gets a percentage that is
    74
    significantly higher than that received by Westminster. Why did the hon. Gentleman not mention Cambridge? Did he not know about it, or is it because those other councils are Labour-controlled and Westminster happens to be a Conservative-controlled council?
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras knows that the system under which we work is fair and honourable. We worked it out with all the local authority organisations. What the hon. Gentleman said about Westminster is totally countered, first, by the fact that it did proportionately better under Labour than it has under the Conservatives and, secondly, by the fact that no one in local government believes him. None of the experts believes him. But, he never listens to experts. That gives me a grave problem because I listened to his speech extremely carefully and I cannot imagine to whom he listened when he wrote it. No Front Bench spokesman could have written such a speech. It was wrong from beginning to end. He has not checked any of his facts and has not been to the councils. Even the charming comments by the hon. Member for North-West Durham will not cover the fact that the speech was unworthy of the Opposition's local government spokesman. Local government deserves better than it gets from him.
    I want to remind the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras of one that he did not run—perhaps he did not remember it—this time: the old line that it was not true that Labour councils cost more than Conservative councils because that was true only if like was compared with like. If one compared like with unlike, it could be proved that Labour charged less. To that Mr. Peter Kellner rightly said:
    "I dissected Labour's assertion that its councils charged householders £40 less tax. I showed that this figure had nothing to do with the financial prudence of Labour councils, and everything to do with the tendency of Labour voters to live in the less affluent parts of Britain: as a result, homes in Labour areas tended to fall into lower Council Tax bands and this was why average Council Tax was lower. I went on to show that the proper way to judge the figures was to compare like with like—say Band D figures, council by council … [Labour's] claim is as misleading as it ever was … On this issue, Labour is wrong and Tories are right."
    The fact is that not only on this but on every issue that he raised, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has been wrong.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) will deal at the end of the debate with the matters that have not been covered so far and with matters relating to Wales. Many of us wonder how we can discuss council tax without the Labour party raising anything to do with Wales. Could it be that it is afraid to field the shadow spokesman for Wales who, of course, is not being allowed out at the moment? He is not being allowed to say anything on anything lest he should do what he normally does and say the wrong things on everything.
    Mr. Betts: To get back to proper comparisons, will the Secretary of State confirm that when the Government began to compare council tax in different authorities, they used the average value as the fair one? Only when they found that that favoured Labour authorities, which were costing people less, did they change the figures. Will he further confirm that the use of band D is misleading because if two authorities collect the same amount of money from the same number of properties but one has

    75
    lower value properties, that council will have a higher band D council tax than a similar authority with more higher value properties? That is a mathematical point. The Secretary of State should learn some maths before he quotes figures.
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman and I are biased on this so I will quote Peter Kellner, a well-known Labour supporter. He said:
    "Gummer is right and Straw is wrong."
    He is right. Gummer is right on this and Straw and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who follows him with rather less certainty, are wrong.
    I thank the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) for tabling this motion. Without his kind intervention, we would not have had the opportunity of hearing what amounts to the Labour party's lack of a policy on council tax and council spending. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has shown what we always suspected but now know to be true. He neither understands the system nor knows what he would do if he were ever in a position to do something. He has proved that Labour councils cost more and give less; that Labour puts taxes up and puts services down; that Labour's interest is that of the trade unions who work for councils not of the people who pay for local services; that Labour does not know what it would do but that its only answer on any issue is to yah-boo and to laugh. He would not be sitting in his place if he took local government seriously.
    6.44 pm
    Mr. Barry Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a typically sharp, robust and revealing speech. He put the inhuman algebra of revenue support grant and its formulae into the context of the poorest communities, and he was surely right to do so. His opposite number, however, delivered a tirade: the Secretary of State for the Environment made a typically combative and hectoring speech but forgot to say that his party has held the reins of power for 17 years. He forgot to say that his Government proposed and supported the iniquitous poll tax and other unpleasant legislation that was imposed during the 1980s. He then had the effrontery to accuse my party of effrontery. He raises posturing, wriggling, dodging and whingeing to the status of high parliamentary art and one has to admire his cheerful cynicism and aggressive bombast.
    The record of Conservative Administrations on local government is abysmal. Intolerant, repressive and aggressive legislation has robbed Britain's councils of their free status and councils are in danger of becoming the poodles of central Government. The Government, and their predecessors under Mrs. Thatcher, have undermined and all but taken away the independence of our local government, and in so doing they have gone against the grain of Britain's local government history. Legislative attacks on local government hurt our body politic. Her Majesty's Government now dictate and control all but 11 per cent. of council spending. That cannot be right.
    Local government is part of Britain's basic democratic foundations. It is currently fashionable to say that the Executive—that is, the Cabinet—is overmighty, that it dominates and dwarfs the House of Commons. That is
    76
    often argued in the newspapers and sometimes in the Chamber. Certainly, since 1979 measures have been taken to downgrade local government in Britain and in Wales. Our councillors, who work very hard, feel that they are elected to carry the blame for policies imposed upon them and their local authorities by the Government.
    The poll tax was the high point of the attack on local government by Conservative Administrations, but central Government are still throwing their weight about and we are caught short by inadequate central Government funding for our local councils. That is what the debate is about and we are all witness to the real difficulties that our councils face. All paths in this debate lead to the Cabinet room.
    Central Government are clearly determined to cut Treasury taxes with the general election in mind. Council tax bills have gone up by around 6.2 per cent. for band D in England, but in Wales they have gone up by an astronomical 18 per cent. People in Wales are aghast and astounded at the severity of the increases, which represent a serious hike in the private domestic budgets of Welsh taxpayers. I must report to the House the resentment and apprehension felt in Wales at those increases. Our councillors are left with the difficult task of explaining the iniquities and machinations of central Government. It is their lot to explain why those increases have been forced on every taxpayer.
    Wales is at the top of the league for low wages. That is a great problem. Local government finance policies therefore have serious implications and are a key factor in domestic budgets.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He referred to low wages, which prompted me to remember that he claimed that councillors are being downgraded. He pursued the theme that the Government are taking power away from local government, which leaves councillors less to do. If they have so little to do, does he approve of them paying themselves salaries of up to £24,000? Does he approve of the latest wheeze of setting up working parties to consider redundancy packages for defeated councillors?
    Mr. Jones: I judge that intervention as an attack by a Welsh Office Minister on the work of councillors throughout Wales, of whichever party. My remarks will provide evidence of what I think of his argument.
    Many of us suspect that the council tax allocation in Wales has been subject to foul play. We know that this is an election year and that there are precious few Conservative councils in Wales or, indeed, in Britain—so unpopular are the Government. The Conservative Government are therefore evading some of the responsibility for the increases in the council tax because they are not represented on the ground and do not have to answer for them. Although those increases have been imposed by the Conservatives, the Opposition parties are all too frequently expected to take the blame for them. In a general election year, I predict that the Conservative party chairman and others will blame luckless councils for those increases, which would be a travesty of the truth because the increases are the consequence of Government policy.

    77
    My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred to the difficulties of the fire service. The North Wales fire service, which began its life today, is in great difficulties because it is desperately short of money. Everyone would agree, however, that it offers a life-or-death service. The leaders of the North Wales fire service have sought an urgent meeting with the Home Secretary. Should the Under-Secretary of State for Wales catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will be able to tell us that that deputation will be received by the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I, too, represent north Wales. On Wednesday and Thursday last week I rang the Home Office to ask when that meeting would take place. The authority has not even received any written response from the Home Office. I was promised today that I would be told when the meeting would take place, but I have yet to receive a telephone call. That is disgraceful.
    Mr. Jones: I made the same approach to the Home Office last week. As that brand-new, first-day fire service in North Wales faces major difficulties not of its own making, but of the Government's making, will the Home Secretary receive a deputation from the leadership of that authority? I emphasise that the personnel of the North Wales fire service, whom I know, are brave, dedicated and well qualified officers. I also declare an interest because Clwyd fire service made me an honorary fire chief. I can say with great sincerity that the Government have given that new, first-day fire authority a wretched allocation, and something must be done urgently if public confidence is to be maintained.
    This year's council tax allocation in north Wales has also caused severe difficulties for the nationally famous Theatr Clwyd. The new Flintshire county council, in office just from today, has not been given enough money to keep open one of Britain's finest theatres—a theatre of excellence, with a national reputation and national support. When Clwyd county council died at midnight, the new unitary authority of Flintshire county council faced a colossal problem, because it has been forced to increase its council tax by 27 per cent. The neighbouring Welsh unitary authorities face the same predicament in terms of their council tax and the implications for Theatr Clwyd. Nevertheless, they have stumped up cash for the theatre as best they can. Yet the neighbouring English local authorities—Flintshire shares a border with Cheshire and other English authorities—have not contributed to its funding, although 50 per cent. of the theatre's audience are taxpayers from England.
    The people of Flintshire and throughout Wales believe that the Secretary of State for Wales should introduce urgent measures to avert the risk of that theatre closing, and that he should release the £1.3 million that he has been considering using to write off its debt. If he fails to do so, the future of that excellent theatre is extremely bleak. Flintshire county council and the other unitary authorities in north-east Wales have made clear their commitment to the theatre, but it is now up to the Secretary of State to rescue that fine establishment.
    We believe that our Secretary of State has given way unnecessarily to the Treasury on the council tax and local government finance. As a consequence, council taxes for Wales are significantly higher this year. Until now,
    78
    successive Governments of all parties and the Treasury have always acknowledged the difficulties that Wales has faced as a result of the incredibly harsh consequences of the industrial revolution. That is not the case any more. To many of us in Wales, particularly Labour Members, it seems as though the Welsh Office has volunteered to receive less local government funding, even though most people would agree that Wales still suffers from social and economic problems.
    Since 1979, there have been massive, titanic redundancies in Wales as a result of the decline in the steel and coal industries, followed by the textile, cement, brick and slate industries. The valleys in the south-east of my country are still haunted by the consequences of the coal mine closures. The region's social and economic problems are arguably the worst in Britain. The quarry communities of north-west Wales still suffer from a dearth of manufacturing jobs since the closure of the many quarries which produced the world-famous slate. In the steel towns of north-east Wales, we still feel the lash of the huge steel industry redundancies. In 1980, Alyn and Deeside suffered western Europe's biggest ever redundancy: between Christmas and Easter there were at least 8,000 direct steel redundancies and thousands of other redundancies.
    When manufacturing redundancies occur in the steel, coal, slate, cement and textile industries, local authorities need to generate policies to regenerate their economies. The local authorities that I have been able to represent in the House over the years have always had first-rate policies and first-rate records and have delivered some real jobs. Our communities have been grateful. That will be difficult from now on, however, with revenue support grant falling so hopelessly short. The settlement for 1996–97 was seriously defective and the immediate outlook for regeneration—making real jobs and giving hope to communities stricken by redundancies in manufacturing—is poor.
    My constituency labours under a total of 2,400 jobless citizens. In the area of the new Flintshire council, more than 4,000 people are out of work. In what until yesterday was the old county of Clwyd, more than 13,000 people were seeking work. School leavers do not get a fair deal where real jobs are concerned. The long-term unemployed lose heart. The young unemployed, in their tens of thousands throughout our nation, also lose heart. Why, then, are we surprised when we encounter increasing crime or witness drug and solvent abuse? Why are we surprised at vandalism and graffiti and attacks on elderly persons in their homes? Why are we surprised by those things when there is an absence of work for so many of our fellow citizens, especially those who are young?
    A reasonable council tax settlement in Wales would have enabled the new unitary local authorities to make meaningful inroads on those problems. I want our local authorities to be able to tackle those problems, not to be restricted by a serious shortage of central Government cash and grants. Britain's councils have been let down by the Government, and ordinary people are having to take the strain. The budget of every household is under attack as a result of these deficient settlements, but the general election will surely put matters right.
    7.2 pm
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: Local government is always important. I believe that a healthy local government administration throughout the country is part of the spread of liberties and power.
    I remember when we had much smaller local authorities than we have now. My first local authority, in Lancashire, covered only 13,000 people and was very well run. In the reorganisations of 20 or 30 years ago, it was brought into a large mass of other villages and towns and it has never been the same as it was. I am not saying that small is beautiful in every way, but it is especially important, where possible, to have small authorities that know exactly what is happening in their area and do not rely on knowledge gained at second hand.
    This is an Opposition debate and there does not seem much enthusiasm on the Opposition Benches for it. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), for whom I have great respect, has recently spoken, but he is an individual with a life-belt and no one else is around. There is no sign of anyone else concerned about the subject. It seems as though the Labour party has deserted local government—a fact that we should bring to the country's notice.
    I lived through and talked through the issue of the community charge—the poll tax as it came to be called, and which it is being called by history. In theory, we were perfectly all right until one compared the rateable values of the small houses in the north with the big house at the end of the street. I prefer the new council tax system to the old rating system and I especially believe that it is good that we have a 25 per cent. discount for the single householder, which has helped many people, especially pensioners, to keep their independence.
    My borough of Brent is always in the news, as some authorities always are. On the council tax, Brent's is a story almost unequalled in the country—one that I am delighted to tell, especially on behalf of the Conservative councillors instead of the Labour people, who are horrified by the great advances that are being made in Brent because they know that there is no way that they will be able to regain control.
    Ms Armstrong: Corruption.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: The hon. Lady says "Rubbish". She may be an expert on rubbish. I do not usually collect it.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there seems to be an increasing tendency for Front Bench Members to conduct what one might call a running commentary. Those on the Front Bench or anywhere else should either seek to rise in the normal way and make an intervention or keep quiet.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I welcome the defence of the Deputy Speaker. As a quiet man, I welcome the defence so that I can take my speech consecutively, paragraph by paragraph.
    Brent is the only local authority in England that has reduced its council tax in every one of the past six years. In the first year, the council tax was reduced because a
    80
    Conservative Government saved us when there was a Labour-Liberal administration in Brent, but in the other five it was done by the council cutting back.
    Similarly, when the Conservatives came to power in Brent, four or five years ago, the council tax was the fourth highest in England and the fourth or the second highest in London, depending on whether one subtracted the discount. Now it is the second lowest in London if one subtracts the discount of 8 per cent. for paying in the first few weeks, which most people do.
    Brent has moved from the top to the bottom of the expenditure league. It is a remarkable achievement, especially bearing in mind the fact that Conservative councillors in Brent inherited a debt of as much as £61 million from the sale and leaseback policy of the previous Labour administrations.
    Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on Brent's achievements. As Member of Parliament for Brentford and Isleworth, which is in the borough of Hounslow, I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that it is horrifying that council tax in Hounslow has increased by 7.4 per cent.—double the rate of inflation?
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I sympathise with my honourable colleague on this matter, because it is the people who have to pay—not we in the House, apart from our own payment—for the mistakes of a Labour or a Liberal administration that spends so much money. We can compare those administrations. As I have said, this year there has been another reduction in Brent. Band D has been reduced by just over 2 per cent., by £10, and to a pensioner that is a lot of money. I shall compare that with the record in some other authorities. The rate in Labour-controlled Camden is up by 13.2 per cent. this year, and in Liberal Democrat-Labour Barnet it is up by 6 per cent. Labour-controlled Greenwich is up by 17 per cent. Brent has had a reduction of 2.2 per cent.
    Mr. Richard Tracey: Does my right hon. Friend know whether his fellow hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) share his admiration of the sterling work of the local council?
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I do not want to embarrass the hon. Members for the other Brent constituencies, but as my hon. Friend has drawn them to my attention perhaps I may be permitted to say that they are absent because they could not attack Brent council. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) is an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, but it would be difficult for any hon. Member representing a Brent seat to attack a council which has reduced its expenditure to such an extent while maintaining its services. I shall come to those in a moment. I have no wish to upset anyone else in the House although there is a temptation to do that. I shall try not to tempt the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) into interrupting again.
    Ms Armstrong rose—
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: Please intervene.
    Ms Armstrong: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman is taking part in the debate and I shall reply to

    81
    him in my speech. I shall give not only my view but that of many other hon. Members, including my hon. Friends from Brent. As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are allegations of corruption in relation to how matters are proceeding in Brent.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I am speaking about the administration in Brent and about how much it has improved services and cut costs. Obviously, the hon. Lady has nothing to say about that. My people have good services at reduced cost and the more that better services and reduced taxation are drawn to the attention of the public the better.
    I am informed that Brent is the only council in this country to have gained seven charter marks in recent years. If any hon. Member knows of a council that has received eight charter marks he should say so. Among the awards were charter marks for libraries and arts and for the registration of births, marriages and deaths. With low taxes it is obvious that births will go up. Most of the parents are registering as Conservatives. Is it any wonder with such low taxation?
    Another charter mark was for one-stop shops. There are such shops all over the borough and the staff in them have to solve problems in a short time. Whatever the problem, the caller has to receive an answer, and that is good: I like to see people having to provide answers, and I am told that they are good answers. They must have been, or the shops would not have got a charter mark.
    There was a charter mark for student grants and awards. When Labour was in power in Brent, I had sackfuls of post every morning from people at university who had not got their grants. Perhaps the council had to pay for extra staff, but whatever it was that Labour-controlled council could not get the grants out. Sometimes it was the grant for one term and sometimes it was for two, but some of the students had graduated and grown beards before they got the grants. Last year, I did not receive one letter about delays in grants.
    Ms Armstrong: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: Yes, this is very nice.
    Ms Armstrong: How many complaints to the ombudsman were found to be right? Will he confirm that it was, I think, 57—I shall check that—and that no other council in the country comes anywhere near that?
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall have to have a look. Although the House is interested in what I am saying, I do not want to delay matters by going into these 57 issues. Some of them must be very small and some people must have triumphed. I was out in Brent yesterday and knocked the doors of 85 families. I had cards in my pocket which I handed out so I know how many people I met. None of those people mentioned what the hon. Lady has raised. They all said, "It is marvellous to live in a borough with good services and low taxation." Most of the people wanted me to come in, so if any Opposition Member would like to
    82
    join me on a Sunday we can call on the burghers of Brent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Beefburgers."] I am still eating beef at every opportunity.
    Mr. Pickles: On the issue of the ombudsman, is my right hon. Friend aware that Labour authorities are three times more likely than Conservative authorities to be found guilty of maladministration?
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I welcome that intervention. I did not know that. It is nice to learn as one speaks.
    I shall continue with the list of charter marks. They were awarded to revenue and benefits and area planning and trading. When I was out yesterday afternoon I had 12 or 13 people with me. So many wanted to come that I had to limit the number. One could almost charge for knocking on doors, and that would help further to reduce charges in Brent. All the people I met said that they were happy with the services and they were also pleased that there had been another reduction this year. There is good news in Brent and I welcome this opportunity to speak about it.
    Three Brent councillors have been adopted as Conservative candidates in other areas so that they can see what is going on. That might frighten Labour Members because it is dangerous for them. The deputy chairman of my constituency party has also been adopted. The signs are good all over Brent.
    I must not get carried away or you will call me to order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to represent a borough that is doing so well under a Conservative administration. As I have said, it has gained seven charter marks—more than any other authority—and the reductions that it has made are almost unequalled. It gives me great pleasure to represent Brent, North and it will give me equal pleasure to represent it in the next Parliament.
    7.18 pm
    Mr. David Rendel: The annual debate at about this time of the year about council tax is a familiar story that becomes more familiar every year. In the run-up to the local elections, the Conservative party and the Labour party seek to use council tax changes for short-term electioneering. That is a pity: there are better ways to deal with the council tax.
    Each year, the Government promise to boost investment in Britain's essential infrastructure while at the same time promising to cut local taxation. This year, the Government have succeeded in breaking both those promises. Their policy towards local government is to force local taxes up, which has led to cuts in vital services. The increases that have been made in investment have been paid for by local authorities—on the one hand, by making well-nigh miraculous savings yet again and, on the other hand, by increasing council tax.
    The rise in the council tax is, of course, an outcome that the Government fully intended to happen—they meant it to happen and they said that it would happen. The Secretary of State acknowledged that this year council tax would increase above the rate of inflation, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury expected council tax to increase by as much 8 per cent. In fact, as we have heard already, on average, council taxes have risen by just over 6 per cent in England.

    83
    Do we hear Conservative Members congratulating local authorities on holding the increase in council tax below the Government estimate? No, we do not. Why? Because Conservative Members seem interested only in damning all local authorities—and they do so purely because the Conservative party has lost control of almost all the councils that once formed the bedrock of Tory support.
    Mr. Tracey: Presumably the hon. Gentleman will admit that, where councils are controlled by the Liberal Democrats, Conservative councillors in opposition have produced alternative budgets showing lower figures—which surely proves that they have more efficient ideas than the Liberal Democrats who are in control.
    Mr. Rendel: I do not know, because I did not attend all the budget meetings. However, I know that, in my authority at Newbury, that is not the case—the Conservatives failed to produce any alternatives to the budget produced by the Liberal Democrats.
    I was saying that a number of councils that once formed the bedrock of Tory support are now no longer governed by the Conservatives. Those councils, very often, now form the bedrock of Liberal Democrat support. Local people like what they have seen of the Liberal Democrats and they continue to pass control of their local councils to Liberal Democrat councillors. Only last month, the Liberal Democrats gained control of yet another district council—Craven district council—while, in another by-election, Labour notably failed to gain control of Cheshire county council. In the light of that, the constant carping of Conservative Members looks petty, vindictive and self-indulgent. It is time that Conservative Members accepted their loss of power and started to campaign for their local communities.
    As has already been mentioned, particularly in relation to Wales, there is a particular problem this year for Wales and Scotland, because council tax increases have not been 6 per cent. on average but, in most cases, more than 15 per cent. That has come about because of a complete failure by the Government to make proper allowance for the setting-up costs of the new unitary authorities that came into being today. A poll over the weekend showed that most people blame the Government for those increases—and they are right.
    It is important to note that it is not always the cheapest services that give the best value for money. The Audit Commission has found that Liberal Democrat authorities offer high-quality services in a very efficient manner—however, they may not always have the lowest council tax rates. Much more often than not, local people believe that they provide the best value for money. In particular, Liberal Democrat authorities have very high rates of collection of council tax—no doubt, in part due to the efforts to which our councils have gone to consult the public about how their money should be spent. The top four recycling authorities are Liberal Democrat councils—a success of which the Liberal Democrats are justifiably proud.
    This year's financial settlement for local government has been not only a broken promise but an outright con trick. It is now well established that when the
    84
    Chancellor pledged more money for investment in education, he simply was not telling the truth. Local government has had no more money, in real terms, this year than it did last year. However, bizarrely, some Ministers continue to peddle the lie that local education authorities have more money, and they have already begun to attack local councils for not delivering it to schools, as we saw earlier this afternoon.
    Mr. Pickles: If that is the hon. Gentleman's view, will he now advise Essex county council—which is run on a Lib-Lab pact—to release its war chest of reserves of more than £100 million and give it to schools? Will he instruct the council to do that, as it is holding money back from schools?
    Mr. Rendel: That is an interesting indication of the difference between the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats: the hon. Gentleman appears to think that I have the power to instruct local councils what to do with their money. I certainly do not have that power—perhaps he does.
    Mr. Pickles: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a Liberal Democrat, but he should have some views. Does he think that it is sensible for a county the size of Essex to hold more than £100 million in a slush fund and to withhold it from schools? Or does he think that it would be sensible to see that the schools get that money, so that there are no redundancies and they can get school books? Is that a good idea or not? I am sure that no one is paying any attention to the hon. Gentleman, so he should feel quite free to express his view.
    Mr. Rendel: At this moment, I do not pretend that I know everything about all the funds held in all local authorities. Therefore, I cannot possibly answer a question about an individual local authority in the terms put by the hon. Gentleman without looking into the greater detail.
    Mr. Ken Purchase: The £100 million that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) speaks of is almost certainly totally committed against liabilities, either on capital or on revenue, over the next 12 to 18 months. Furthermore, in any county there is a considerable budget and it is likely that the real level of reserves available—the term "slush fund" is an insult to local government—is below 2 or 3 per cent. How would the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar answer that?
    Mr. Rendel: I shall not get involved in an argument between the hon. Members for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), but I shall get on with my speech.
    Local government is at the mercy of the short-term electioneering of Conservative central Government. The sad fact is that the Tories have shown no mercy when it comes to local services, local people and local democracy. The Prime Minister's amendment to today's motion states:
    "congratulates the Government on the rigorous approach it is taking towards all public expenditure".
    Most Ministers constantly boast about how much extra their Departments have spent in real terms. For example, one needs only to look at the constant boast coming from

    85
    the Department of Health about how much more is being spent on the national health service. How can the Government claim, as they do in their amendment, that there is a rigorous approach towards all public expenditure, including local government expenditure?
    Sadly, the one Minister who cannot make a boast of increased spending in his Department is the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration. The Government have been punishing local communities for not voting Conservative. The political capital that Conservative Members seek to make from the problems experienced by local authorities, at the expense of local government, is evidence enough.
    The Prime Minister's amendment continues:
    "commends the clarity of their approach towards taxation and the funding of local services".
    What are the Government talking about? They seem to be losing all grip on reality. The system of funding local government services could not possibly be more complicated. Only 24 hours before the final debate on the settlement, the Department of the Environment still had not got its figures right. It could not even tell me the correct total for England's revenue support grant—it could have been £31 billion or perhaps £32 billion; it simply did not know. The formulae are so complex that even the Government's computers got it wrong—and that is the basis for the Prime Minister commending the clarity of the Government's approach.
    The Prime Minister proceeds to urge local authorities to make the most efficient use of the resources available. I have no doubt that most councils are already doing that, although their priorities may be rather different from those of the Conservative party. For example, most local authorities—unlike the City of Westminster—would not consider spending £20 million to £30 million on outrageous schemes to gerrymander local elections. But as the Conservatives in central Government squander tax revenue on election bribes, perhaps we should not be surprised to see Conservatives in local government indulging in similar practices.
    The answer to the problems of local government and to the chaos of the funding system is not just a change of personnel at Downing street—it has to be said that the Labour party is no better friend to local democracy than the Conservatives. Its latest policy proposals suggest that it will seek to increase the imposition on local government of the priorities and political philosophy of the Government of the day, as long, of course, as it is a Labour Government.
    Criticising the funding settlement is all very well, but what is Labour's alternative? Would it provide a penny of extra money for education and local services? Would it cap local authorities more tightly even than present capping, to keep council tax down, and force yet greater cuts in services? The Labour party has not answered any of those questions. It has become an empty vessel, with no commitments and precious few policies. What we do know is that the Labour party failed to vote against the Budget's tax cuts, so it must accept its share of the blame for this year's financial settlement.
    Local councils will not forget that the Labour party shamefully failed to vote against the 1p cut in income tax last November. It may claim that it will provide local government with the resources that local government needs, but its actions belie its words. So long as it
    86
    continues to play the Tory game of promising to honour tax cuts, but also to build better services, it will have no credibility.
    We Liberal Democrats made it clear that there were investment priorities that were more important than delivering a cut in income tax. That is still our belief, and we stand by our commitment to make the badly needed investment in education. If it is necessary to put a penny on income tax to meet that pledge, so be it.
    Mr. Pickles: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way, but is not it true that his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) conceded that the Liberals' published proposals on education would cost not 1p on income tax but 2.5p?
    Mr. Rendel: We have constantly said that the proposals that we shall make in the first year of any new Government, or at any time when we have power, will add 1p to income tax, and we have stuck to that.
    There are major faults in the whole system of local government finance that must also be addressed, regardless of which party rules in Whitehall. The council tax itself has many problems. After all, it was introduced only as an expedient to quell the uproar against the poll tax. If it is to be retained, at least for a year or two longer, surely we can agree on some of the worst aspects that should be amended.
    One problem on which we could all surely agree is that there are too few property bands. Band A is simply too high. Tens of thousands of people living in low-value accommodation are paying more than their fair share. Owners of mobile or park homes are the best example of the need for a lower starting band. Many mobile home owners survive on very low incomes and will be particularly hard hit by increases in council tax.
    There is also a problem with the higher council tax bands. Band G, running from £160,000 to £320,000, is as wide as all the bands from A to F put together. The difference in implied disposable income between people living in houses valued at £160,000 and those living in houses worth £320,000 is immense. The width of band G makes it too much of a catch-all for so much of suburban and rural Britain. The result is that a large number of people on a wide variety of incomes are paying exactly the same council tax.
    Furthermore, band H provides a rather arbitrary cut-off point, covering all properties valued above £320,000. It draws no distinction between a large, listed family house and a massive country mansion with dozens of rooms, valued in the millions.
    The problems that I have described relate to the central principle of taxation. People should generally pay according to their means. Council tax bands, just like the old rates, imply that everybody living in a large house has a large income, and that everybody living in a flat has a small income. The reality, of course, is rather different. People have different priorities in deciding how much of their money they will plough into buying or renting their home. More important, their personal income changes quite a lot throughout their life cycle. Pensioners are the most obvious group of people who may have acquired comparatively expensive homes, but who no longer have large disposable incomes. The same applies to a great many people who have suffered redundancy or

    87
    unemployment, or, indeed, re-employment, and to those who have simply chosen to change their career or to reduce their working hours: mothers or fathers staying at home to look after children are an obvious example.
    The council tax is a bad tax. It is inherently unfair and is unsuitable for bearing an increased burden of taxation. As the Government continue to shift tax from central Government to local authorities, the problems and disparities will only grow. It is right that a larger proportion of local authorities' revenue should be raised locally, but it must also be raised fairly. If local authorities are to have real independence from Whitehall, and real freedom to adapt to the differing needs of local people, they must have greater control over their own revenue. That means that, over time, more money should be raised locally, with corresponding reductions in national taxation.
    With that in mind, the Liberal Democrat answer is the replacement of the council tax with local income tax. A local income tax has many virtues: it is relatively easy to collect, it is fair, and it can take a much larger burden than other forms of local taxation. Records of current income tax payments already exist with the Inland Revenue, and computerisation has made local authority income tax all the more feasible.
    The obvious fairness of the tax is one of its main selling points. Its fairness helps to make it easier to collect, as people are more willing to pay. It is its fairness that makes it so suitable for taking the burden of tax transferred from national taxation. It is fair because it meets the principle that taxpayers pay what they can afford to pay. Yes, some people on high incomes will pay more, but very many people on middle or lower incomes, including many pensioners, will pay less.
    Labour and Conservative Members may shy away from local income tax simply because it has been so vigorously promoted by the Liberal Democrats, but it is worth remembering that local income tax was backed by the Layfield report in 1976. Indeed, the report concluded that the tax is the only suitable means for raising additional significant revenue from local communities. That view has been wholly endorsed by Sir Charles Carter in his recent report for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The local income tax is not some wild scheme that was never intended to be put into practice. It is the only realistic route forward for local government, if, that is, we really want the rebirth of local democracy. That is what the Liberal Democrats are aiming for. I doubt, however, whether Labour and Conservative Members share the same goal.
    At least the Conservative Government have made their intentions clear. National contributions to local services will be cut in 1997–98 and in 1998–99, just as they have been over the past two years. The Government plan to shift the burden ever more heavily on to councils, so either services will be cut or local tax will rise. Frankly, it will probably be both. Under the current plans, the argument over the council tax is set to intensify over the next three years. As it does, it will become obvious that only the Liberal Democrats seek to reform local government in a way that suits local people rather than in a way that suits central Government.
    88
    The council tax is unjust. It is useful only as a political football between self-indulgent politicians. It must be scrapped, and the sooner that we set about replacing it with a local income tax, the better.
    7.38 pm
    Sir Peter Fry: I hope that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) will excuse me if I do not follow his arguments. My problem is that his fellow Liberal Democrats in my constituency are so persuasive that we do not have a single Liberal councillor either at county or at local level.
    The hon. Gentleman omitted to say where he stood on the capping level of a local income tax. I believe that if one was to hand back to local authorities a big say in the way in which they got their money in, perhaps it would be better not to have any kind of cap, so that we could see which councils were spending well and which were being extravagant.
    The debate should not really have been described as a debate on the council tax; it should have been described as a debate on hypocrisy. I hope to demonstrate the way in which Opposition Members say one thing and do another. It is clear that the Labour party cannot be pinned down at local level, and that will teach the voters a good lesson when they must make up their minds at the next general election. I admit that Wellingborough's council tax increased by a large amount—some 57 per cent.—this year. That increase was, of course, greeted by the Labour party as news that Conservative local government does not work, but it is not as simple as that: it never is. What is the history of the council, once Conservative and now Conservative and Independent?
    For several years, the council has given a £200 rebate to everyone paying band D council tax in the area. In other words, no one in Wellingborough has paid a penny towards the services that have been provided by the borough council—and it is not a low spender: the level of services is high, and has not been cut. Even this year, there is still a £45-per-head subsidy of the band D rate of the county council's precept.
    I could understand it if Wellingborough's tax had gone through the roof in comparison with that of other councils. However, only four London councils—Conservative-controlled—and the Isles of Scilly are asking for less money. It is a pity that ours is no longer the lowest council tax in the country. Why is that? The reason is pretty straightforward. First, much of the council's money was invested, and because interest rates have fallen—which we welcome—the increase in the reserves was less than it had been in previous years. Secondly, the council was faced with the possibility of local government reorganisation. The chairman of a neighbouring Labour authority said, "Wait until we merge: we cannot wait to get our hands on your money." Realistically, the leaders of Wellingborough council decided to invest in the future of the town. They spent more than £3 million on a new theatre, and over £1 million on redeveloping the town centre.
    I should have thought that such policies were reasonable, given that we still had one of the lowest council taxes in the country. Moreover, we are still subsidising the county precept. In the eyes of the local Labour party, however, this is a Tory tax disaster. The party tells us that the Wellingborough Tories were squandering our hard-won reserves, and that the good times were coming to an end. It has said:

    89
    "The prudent management Wellingborough pronounces was thrown to the winds as reserves were plundered."
    But what are the facts? When the issue of spending £3 million on the Castle theatre arose, did the Labour group vote against it? No: all its members were in favour. When the council had to decide whether between £1 million and £2 million should be spent on the town centre, did the Labour group vote against it? No: again, it was in favour. What it did vote against was the budget proposed for this year. Why was that? Because it thought that more money should have been given to certain voluntary organisations. Now, the Labour group has the nerve—the gall and hypocrisy—to produce a leaflet criticising the present level of the council tax. That is why I think that we should have had a debate about hypocrisy.
    The Labour group brought the prospective parliamentary candidate into the argument. He says—using his own delightful phraseology—
    "Labour has consistently warned that the Tories are the party of high taxation, and this is now shown to be true in Wellingborough."
    I have news for the prospective parliamentary candidate. If he knew anything about Northamptonshire and the finances of local authorities there, he would be aware that neighbouring Northampton—Labour-controlled—neighbouring East Northamptonshire—Labour-controlled—neighbouring Corby—Labour-controlled—and neighbouring Kettering—Labour-controlled—are demanding roughly £100 per band more than is being levied in Wellingborough. Be it through the mouths of its councillors or through the mouth of its prospective parliamentary candidate, the local Labour party is talking pure hypocrisy.
    The Labour party often tells us that local government is used cynically as a form of electioneering. Wellingborough borough council can be accused of only one thing: giving their own money back to the people of Wellingborough. The only inference that can be drawn from the Labour party's leaflet is that it would not have given that money back. It would have sat on it, just as it is sitting on money in Essex. Members of the Labour party think that they know best; they do not believe in giving back money that people have paid in, which has increased their investments. I accuse the local Labour party of total hypocrisy, and what I have said underlines what we heard this afternoon from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    It does not even end there, however. Unfortunately, we also have a Labour-controlled county council. For the past two years, my colleagues and I have worked with the Labour leadership to try to secure a better deal for Northamptonshire in terms of the revenue support grant. This year, after a long battle, we obtained some £12 million more for the county. The biggest increase was the increase in funds to go directly to the school governors, to enable school budgets to cope with the teachers' pay increase.
    What did the county council do? Since it has been in power, it has spent virtually every minute deploring the fact that it has not enough money to spend on education, the fact that teachers are liable to be made redundant and the fact that class sizes will have to increase; but what did it do? It drew a smokescreen over the issue, transferring some money from capital expenditure and trying to pretend that that was the revenue expenditure that it was putting into schools. It has been calculated that we
    90
    received an increase of some 6 per cent. in the funds that our schools are entitled to have, and that the county council passed on only some 4.8 per cent., leaving a considerable deficit.
    Why would a county council that was so concerned about teachers, class sizes and the possible anxieties of parents act in that way? Could it possibly be that the council knows that if a few teachers lose their jobs as a result of its policies, and if class sizes increase and parents are upset for the same reason, the people concerned will be angry with the Government rather than the council? I regard that as one of the most hypocritical and cynical attitudes that I have ever seen in local government.
    Mr. William Powell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way.
    Surely the cynicism goes a step further. Each year, we have been told that there will be swingeing reductions in the number of schoolteachers; but we now know from a parliamentary answer that the number of teachers in Northamptonshire schools has risen each year since 1991. Labour says one thing in order to frighten the voters, while concealing the truth.
    Sir Peter Fry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can also enlighten him. The number of teachers who have lost their jobs—the total last year was seven—has been much less than the number who have been given jobs in my constituency. That is a long way short of the hundreds of redundancies that the Labour party was claiming would take place.
    I have tried to make the point that, whether it be at local district council or at county level, we have been fed the wrong information. We have seen twisting of the truth, cynicism and hypocrisy, which we had come to know in the old Labour party. Of course, however, it is not the old Labour party any more—it is the new Labour party. The only problem is that I see the same old tired faces in Wellingborough, Corby, Northampton and Kettering. The Labour party has not really changed and the things that I have specified show that it has no intention of changing.
    Given the things that I have been proving this evening and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who leads for the Opposition, I am astonished that the latter had the cheek to table his motion and to choose this issue for debate. His party is keen to ensure that his proposals are implemented. That is why the Opposition Benches have been so crowded today.
    7.50 pm
    Mr. Harry Barnes: There is methodology in the Government's madness. In determining standard spending assessments, they use a system that is manipulated to achieve certain results. On 31 January, when we debated the local government finance report, I tried to spell out the methodology's effect on North East Derbyshire district council and how the system hit and hammered that region. Tonight, I want to talk about how the methodology hits Derbyshire county council in as serious a way.
    When Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister, I asked her whether she would compliment Derbyshire county council because it had the smallest class sizes of any shire county.

    91
    Her response was that I must be pleased with the Government's record, presumably because the Government's policies had had some impact on what Derbyshire county council had been able to do.
    The position now is that Derbyshire county council has the worst record in terms of primary school classes with more than 36 pupils: 7.6 per cent. of its pupils are in such classes. As I mentioned in an intervention, the average primary class size is 27.9. Derbyshire is joint worst with Lancashire, which is hit equally by the arrangements on standard spending assessment and by the move that has taken place. If the Conservatives wished to gain some kudos from Derbyshire having small class sizes in 1988–89, they must take considerable blame for class sizes in Derbyshire at present and the crisis in education.
    The argument is often produced about Labour authorities that, somehow, they hold too much money back centrally and do not provide enough to schools out of SSAs. That does not operate in relation to Derbyshire. In the list of English shire counties, only four have lower central expenditure per pupil than Derbyshire and only four provide a lower percentage amount. Derbyshire, therefore, has had to be careful about the moneys that it spends because of the pressures on it.
    If we contrast the budget level in 1989–90 with the 1996–97 capping limits for the SSA, Derbyshire's increase in that period is the smallest of any shire county. The budget of some shire counties—including West Sussex, Kent and East Sussex—has increased by more than twice that of Derbyshire. All told, the budget of 21 counties increased by 50 per cent. or more in that period. If we compare grant-related expenditure with the SSA over that period, Derbyshire comes out fifth worst.
    If Derbyshire county council had received the average provision for shire counties, there would have been no cuts in its programmes, instead of cuts that have totalled £196 million. Its band D council tax is £529, but the average is £463. The argument in relation to council tax is used against Labour councils by the Government and it needs turning round. Derbyshire's band D council tax is high and above average because of the problems that the methodology that determines the amounts of money available imposes on the council. Pressure on the council has led it into those problems.
    Likewise, Derbyshire county council spends £575 per head on services, but the average in shire counties is £636—those are Audit Commission figures. That is not to the detriment of Derbyshire county council. It is due to the circumstances in which the council finds itself.
    Let us compare Derbyshire with Hertfordshire county council, which had similar grant-related expenditure just before the move to SSAs. At present, Hertfordshire has £80 million more available. Over the period, its SSA has increased by more than 48 per cent., whereas Derbyshire's has increased by only 28 per cent. In Hertfordshire, £163 more is spent on each primary school pupil than in Derbyshire; for secondary school students, £199 more is spent.
    If Derbyshire had the same SSA as Hertfordshire, it would have available another £11.2 million for primary school expenditure and another £10.8 million for secondary school expenditure. That is an argument not against the position in Hertfordshire, but against the
    92
    imbalance in the SSA structure. I mention other comparable authorities—West Sussex, Kent and East Sussex and Hertfordshire—to ask why they receive resources that are not available for an authority such as Derbyshire.
    The major answer is the area cost adjustment. The 11 counties that, over the period of the SSA, have been the top gainers in relation to education have all received area cost adjustment moneys, which are not available for counties at the lower end. There is always a method by which the Government manipulate the moneys that are available for councils. In district councils, there are problems because of the enhanced population and movements in population. In North East Derbyshire district council, there is a smaller daytime than nighttime population. That is used against the council when calculating the area cost adjustment.
    Similarly, the area cost adjustment is continually used in calculations. Education has a number of blocks under which matters are determined, initially based on student numbers: primary, secondary, post-16, under-fives and other blocks. The area cost adjustment factor applies to each block and has been a growing factor in standard spending assessments. Between 1988–89 and 1995–96, the amount allocated to the area cost adjustment has increased from £418 million to £1,1658 million, but that money has been made available to some authorities but not to others.
    Furthermore, in 1990–91, the area cost adjustment was extended to the entire south-east region. False comparisons are made between Labour-controlled authorities, Conservative-controlled authorities and other authorities as a result of Labour's triumphs in the past few elections. The true comparison is between Conservative parliamentary seats and Labour parliamentary seats, but the formula is used to manipulate the figures against Labour areas.
    The area cost adjustment was extended—at one time it applied only to education—and had to cover all services. Once the Government discovered a method that they could use to manipulate figures, they considerably advanced and extended it. Between 1988–89 and 1995–96, the total amount of the standard spending assessment being determined by the area cost adjustment has increased from 1.7 per cent. to 4.3 per cent. If an authority is unable to claim the area cost adjustment, that will have very serious effects on its finances. It is vital, therefore, that a proper assessment is made. It must take into account labour costs in different authorities such as Derbyshire when equations are being calculated. The methodological fix for shire counties is similar to the methodological fix for enhanced population in relation to district councils.
    Provision is made for additional educational needs. For children of lone parents, for children born outside the United Kingdom or when the head of the family was outside the United Kingdom—we are now discussing ethnic minorities—old census figures are used rather than up-to-date figures.
    The sparsity and density factors tell not only against district councils but against counties. It is reasonable to assume that Derbyshire should do relatively well on the sparsity indicator. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) was in the Chamber earlier. He has a massive constituency, much of which is thinly populated. The Peak district is also in the county. However, that indicator measures only super sparsity, and counties such

    93
    as Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire are deemed to be sparser in provision per population than Derbyshire. Derbyshire has the great peculiarity of being able to score below average in terms of sparsity, and density, of population. There is great nonsense, therefore, about the provision in that area. The sparsity factor, for instance, counts for 1.3 per cent. of education expenditure in the standard spending assessments.
    The problem is not only service provision—there are also problems in capital expenditure and capital money that is available to shire counties. Derbyshire's capital problems are, in many ways, even worse than its budget difficulties. Since 1991–92, there has been a steady annual decline in the money authorised in basic credit approvals—from £30.1 million in 1991–92 to £5.8 million in 1996–97.
    A measure of Derbyshire's need is that it must maintain 1,000 properties, including 506 schools, 56 libraries, 31 fire stations and 200 social services establishments. The county has no money available for new projects, but 450 temporary buildings—many of which are classrooms older than 40 years—need urgent repair and replacement. Some buildings have already been taken out of use, and many more will have to close in the next two years. Derbyshire needs £8 million to tackle the most urgent cases, and the total cost of replacing all 450 temporary buildings will be about £50 million. Another £8 million is needed for residential homes for children and older people and for essential road repairs.
    Derbyshire's finances are tremendously affected by those arrangements, which have created pressures on the council tax that must be charged and in service cuts. Any reasonable person, studying all the indicators, would not think of Derbyshire as a profligate authority, as the Government keep pretending when making arguments against it.
    Derbyshire has a particular problem with fire services. The formula for fire services has always contained a peculiarity whereby coast lines receive exaggerated resources. Derbyshire, being tucked in the middle of the country, has no coast line. I do not deny that some money needs to be spent in coastal areas, but I question the weight that is given to such factors in determining allocations. The Government always have an argument that is plausible on paper, but they then push it to the Nth degree so that the situation becomes completely reversed.
    The Fire Brigades Union is balloting its members on strike action. That strike will be directed towards the county council. That county council must makes cuts to staff, appliances and other provisions. A crisis is being created that is not of the council's own making because it is a matter of balancing the books. Arguments may be advanced about this year's settlement—for example, what its percentage was and whether it made acceptable provision for the fire brigade—but we must always base our comparison on the whole period during which the standard spending assessment has applied. There has been an annual deterioration, and once the council has used up all its reserves, it must try to provide whatever it can under the capping rules. Authorities should not be placed in the situation in which Derbyshire county council and North East Derbyshire district council have found themselves.
    A ready way out of the problem of deciding how much money has to be spent through the rate support grant and what the total is to be for the counties would
    94
    be to have a fair and reasonable methodology to determine what resources are available in various areas. I once spoke to a group of teachers and others and explained Derbyshire's SSA as well as I could. One person said that she was astonished that there was a formula. She thought that a figure was plucked from the air and that it was decided arbitrarily to give Derbyshire only a small sum of money. I had to explain that that was not the case because we still had the remnants of a democratic system. If the Government acted as that person thought, they would be taken to court on judicial review. I explained that they had to have a system and a formula but that they fiddled the formula. They pushed their proposals through Parliament, thanks to their majority, and the system had to be examined all the time and unpicked.
    At last, the area cost adjustment is being examined by an independent body this year. Things could be different in future—they will be different because that lot over there are on their way out and we shall have to put the mess right.
    I have been making speeches on standard spending assessments and local authority grants for eight or nine years. I have led deputations, written letters and done all sorts of things to try to get more money for North East Derbyshire and for Derbyshire as a whole, but not one ha'penny has been gained—not for any lack of effort on my part or on the part of many others but simply because of the Government's refusal to accept a reasonable and decent formula. They come up with the same sophistry time and time again to defend the indefensible—the system that they operate.
    8.11 pm
    Mr. Eric Pickles: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), but I cannot help but feel that Derbyshire would be in a much better position had it not spent the 1980s attacking the Government and demanding to spend extra money, especially the sums that it spent subsidising school meals with the result that primary school children now face the obscenity of having only three quarters of an apple at lunch time.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) was right to castigate hon. Members for the fact that the Chamber has been so empty. This is an important debate, and we have witnessed history being made this evening. We have heard expounded a doctrine that explains Labour's stance on council tax increases.
    There were times when the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) sounded like a social worker making excuses for a particularly recalcitrant and violent client: "He doesn't mean to do it, your Honour. He's basically a good man but whenever he sees a possibility to put up taxes and increase services, he just can't help himself." I suppose that we should call the new doctrine "Dobson's doctrine". It is right to call it Dobson's doctrine of irresistible impulse because the Labour party cannot avoid putting up taxes and increasing services.
    I have known a few Labour councillors in my time—indeed, I can see an ex-colleague across the Chamber. They are perfectly charming as individuals once one gets

    95
    over the look of their sharp suits and the whiff of cheap champagne, but collectively they engage in a form of mass hysteria which means that they have to put up taxes and increase services.
    A Labour council is basically a high-spend, high-tax council. It is therefore not surprising that the gap between Conservative and Labour councils has increased—the difference on a band D council tax is now £225.
    I recently spoke to an ordinary working-class couple from Liverpool. The average council tax payer there faces a bill of £1,006. The couple rightly asked how they were supposed to pay that as it is equivalent to a month's wage being taken out of good people's pockets. Time and again, Labour has increased the council tax—council tax payers pay more but get less. When the Government are putting more money back into people's pockets, the Labour party is taking it out.
    At the time of the standard spending assessment announcement last year, the leader of the new joint authority, Sir Jeremy Beecham, said that the settlement does not match what councils are spending as if that were some criterion. It is a potty idea. Nowhere else in the world, and nowhere else in the private sector or the public sector in Britain, would an organisation say that, having overspent last year, it must have compensation this year.
    There is an alternative way to secure extra resources. The problem with the Labour party is that it can find extra resources only by taxing people. Last year, the Audit Commission examined how councils managed their work forces. After all, 60 per cent. of a council's budget is spent on the work force. The commission's study of non-manual staff found that few authorities had a consistent and coherent approach to three crucial questions: how many staff do they need, how much should they be paid, and how can they get the best from their staff?
    The argument that a redistribution of the share of grant means extra taxes and fewer services is the philosophy of despair. We heard earlier from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. I have sight of his press release, which was issued today. It states:
    "The Government are deliberately driving up Council Tax and charges for council services at the same time that they are forcing councils to cut services for local people … And they intend this process to continue."
    That does not seem to square with the attitude of a political party that is also committed to increasing the share that is raised locally.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke today about Labour's document entitled, "Renewing Democracies, Rebuilding Communities", which states:
    "We believe that it would be better for local people and make for a healthier democracy if councils were responsible for raising locally a much higher proportion of the money they invest and spend".
    The hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) says that that relates to a return to the uniform business rate. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) seemed to be rubbing his hands together with glee at the prospect of getting hold of that money. We recall the times when such people had the opportunity to deal with the business rate—businesses went under because of the way that the rate was skewed against them.
    96
    If Labour Members are looking for extra resources, let Labour authorities collect the council tax. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras conceded that more money should be collected but, for the record, let me list some collection figures. Lambeth collects 55 per cent. of the total due, Hackney collects 69 per cent., Newham 72 per cent., Lewisham 79 per cent., Southwark 79 per cent., Liverpool 81 per cent., Haringey 82 per cent., Islington 82 per cent., Camden 82 per cent., and Manchester 83 per cent. That represents £90 million of extra resources to those councils. No doubt Labour Members would say that Lambeth takes care of most of that £90 million, but even if one excludes Lambeth from the list, there are still £70 million worth of extra resources available.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Are not those figures comparable with the money collected under the old rating system? The increase in the amount not collected came with the poll tax—that much vaunted tax that everybody hated. The figures that the hon. Gentleman is quoting are comparable to those under the old rating system.
    Mr. Pickles: If we were to include figures for the community charge, the figures that I have quoted would be much worse. We would be talking about a much lower percentage of collection. That is the problem that the hon. Gentleman has to face. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that the figures were because of deprived areas that cannot collect as much. In volume 2 of the Audit Commission's report, page 47 says that areas such as Coventry, Rotherham, Doncaster, Wakefield, Leeds, and—I must say to the hon. Member for Bradford, South—even Bradford is managing to do better than the councils that I have mentioned. So it is possible to collect in deprived areas.
    The Audit Commission says:
    "Only about a quarter of metropolitan councils and London boroughs met this target.
    This is a serious problem affecting councils' ability to provide services. Improving performance by even 1 per cent. can bring in significant extra income. For example, some metropolitan councils are due £35 million in council tax. Every 1 per cent. extra they collect in council tax would enable them to provide an extra 8,000 people with five hours of home help work per week or to reduce the level of council tax."
    The money exists in local councils' budgets, and we know that the settlement was in line with inflation, yet the Labour party would make the position much worse. It would abolish capping, introduce the minimum wage and reduce competitive tendering. Councils can easily manage within budgets under the capping level, as has been demonstrated by the few that have been capped this year.
    The important thing is what councils do with the services. As I said earlier, in my area of Essex, to the eternal shame of that county council, the Labour and Liberal councillors decided to parade the old and vulnerable to speak for the council. Yet what do we find? We find that the council underspent on social services last year by £2 million. None of that underspend was necessary, and no one should have come to my surgeries crying because their home helps had been taken away. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) wants to call time. I must tell him that if his friends on Essex council had cared for the elderly, none of my speech would have been necessary. The council also intends to take another £2 million out of resources for the elderly.

    97
    I have discovered that the highest increase in the council's spending in the south-east comes from Brentwood. There has been a 17 per cent. increase there. That is the council that made a mess of the local government review, cabling, council finances and has allowed precious manufacturing jobs to slip through its fingers. What did that Liberal-controlled council debate instead? Last week it debated the possibility of joining Charter 88. I must say to the members of Brentwood council that if people in Brentwood wanted to drink champagne with socialists, they would go and live in Islington. Such action is singularly inappropriate for a local council.
    The Labour party is completely out of control. It brings out the old arguments over Westminster, yet we have conclusively shown that if one bases figures on the amount of money that goes to Tower Hamlets, a similar list can be produced.
    Ms Armstrong indicated dissent.
    Mr. Pickles: The hon. Lady's list is completely bogus, it is a waste of everyone's time and is completely meaningless. [Interruption.] We know from that that the Labour party's reaction to abolish capping and introduce the minimum wage and the social chapter would add to the problems.
    I should like to quote from Hansard because the following two lines seem to sum up the Labour party's inability to give us a figure. When challenged with how much extra the Labour party would provide, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said:
    "I do not endorse anyone's numbers but my own, and the hon. Gentleman is not getting one from me."—[Official Report, 31 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 1032.]
    That seems to undermine Labour's position completely. If Labour Members believe that the settlement is inadequate, they should say so—[Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am very tired of seated interventions. In fact, it seems to be almost a running commentary at times.
    Mr. Pickles: I am most grateful for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker. The noise from the Front Benches is beginning to sound like air conditioning. The Labour party's pure dilemma is that if it believes that the settlement is underfunded, it should say so and show some courage in its convictions. If it does not, it should display a little honesty to local government.
    8.26 pm
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: It is a basic tenet of democratic government that it should be fully accountable the electorate for its actions. I suggest that accountability can be reinforced through taxation. It is important for the electorate to understand the financial effects of the Government's decisions. At a local government level, that clearly means that communities should be able to vote for increased or decreased public spending and to feel the effects of that decision in local tax levels. It is interesting to note that one of the primary aims of the United Kingdom community charge was to
    98
    increase local accountability, but concerns about equity, administrative problems and too high a level of grant meant that such an increase was not achieved in practice.
    Local discretion on taxation is severely limited in the UK. Other countries in Europe have a broader tax base and more local discretion, thus increasing accountability. That very accountability is further weakened by non-elected bodies with responsibility for service provision. There are many examples of such bodies. We have seen the creation of independent hospital trusts, housing associations, school governing bodies, and so on. There is no doubt that local authorities, as bodies representing local government and local democracy, are under threat. To a very large extent the degree of financial independence that local authorities enjoyed has been removed. I referred to certain quangos earlier.
    When a democratically elected central Government have decided on a macro-economic policy that is based on an attack on inflation through control of the money supply in one way, we find that they eye local authorities with a great deal of concern. The Government believe that local authorities are inherently profligate, which is absolute nonsense.
    In practice, that perceived threat is definitely exaggerated. It assumes that all local authorities would pursue an united policy of high expenditure. It ignores the constraints imposed by the fact that the larger share of local authority expenditure is determined by central Government grant policies. Above all, it assumes that a local electorate would tolerate high local taxation policies without wreaking electoral vengeance on their perpetrators. Nevertheless, there is an element of truth in the belief that local authorities pose a degree of threat to a tightly controlled central economic policy.
    A vital prerequisite is that local authorities should enjoy some financial autonomy. In addition to the element of central funding by formula, there should be an element of local revenue-raising on an equitable basis which local authorities would determine and control. Thus local authorities, answerable to their electorates, would determine local priorities and the extent to which they were prepared to resource them.
    Currently, local authorities are being choked by central Government. The Government emphasise the need for good budgeting and cuts in expenditure. This is the fifth year of basic cuts. There is simply nothing left to cut and that is why we now face the appalling prospect of dismissing teachers, cutting community care services and cutting items such as meals for the needy in the community and in schools.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does my hon. Friend agree that while local government has been under threat from central Government in terms of the lack of resources to which he refers, new responsibilities have frequently been imposed on local authorities, particularly care in the community services? Although such services are supposed to be fully funded, they often are not, which imposes an even greater burden on the local exchequer.
    Mr. Llwyd: That point is well made. There is an increasing burden, although I do not like to use the word "burden" in connection with community care because it is valuable. However, it costs a lot of money and there is a shortfall in the funding for it.

    99
    Local government is being dismantled by central Government because they control the purse strings. Let us consider the new authority of Gwynedd, which comprises Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire. The authority has had to cut services quite substantially this year because of the terms of the Welsh Office local government revenue settlement for 1996–97. The settlement implies an expenditure cut of 1.3 per cent. compared with the council's budget for 1995–96. When the transfer of funds for year four of care in the community is added, the cut becomes 0.2 per cent. As a result of the lack of Exchequer funding next year, coupled with shifts of grant due to the deficiencies in the distribution formula, many new councils, including Gwynedd, will face massive council tax increases in 1996–97.
    To alleviate the problem, the Welsh Office has made available a council tax reduction grant of £45 million which is payable to certain councils only. It ensures, at least in theory, that no council will need to increase its council tax for the coming year by more than 25 per cent. Gwynedd's share is £1.991 million, which is equivalent to a band D council tax subsidy of £47. As part of the settlement, the Welsh Office announced expenditure capping criteria for 1996–97, which will allow councils to increase spending over 1995–96 levels by 3 per cent. The cap for Gwynedd is £112.003 million.
    I know that it is not always useful to bandy figures in the Chamber, but I want to make one or two points. Gwynedd council is having to struggle as best it can after five years of consistently deep cuts. The conclusion that can be drawn from the figures I have given—the Welsh Office figures—is that the Welsh Office may seek to narrow the 4.4 per cent. gap between budgets and spending norms in 1997–98. That will mean substantial cuts in service levels.
    Where will the new cuts come, after five years of cuts? The finance committee of the new council has looked frantically in every direction. The additional temporary reorganisation-related costs of £755,000 will be financed from the funds inherited from surpluses. Some £500,000 of major items of repair and maintenance of roads and buildings will be transferred from the revenue budget to the capital budget. I am told that there will be immediate cuts of 0.75 per cent. in the schools and social services budgets and 1 per cent. in other budgets, saving £709,000. The balance of the gap will be met by general balances, so all in all, it is a short-term strategy just to keep heads above water. Heaven alone knows what will happen next year. Apart from the surpluses on collection funds of £1.7 million, there will undoubtedly be cuts in valuable services. They are totally unjustified and will bite deeply in Gwynedd, which serves a large rural expanse.
    The leader of the new authority recently explained the 25 per cent. council tax rise. In a letter, he says:
    "The simple reason for the increase is that the grant from the Welsh Office is insufficient to meet the effects of inflation and the added burden wholly created by central Government.
    William Hague, the Welsh Secretary of State, stated in Parliament that the Council Tax in Wales this year would have to increase on average by about 17 per cent.
    Why? Well, in the last budget the Tories cut 1p off income tax."
    100
    That is the immorality of the situation. That cut has to be paid for in some way and the burden will fall on householders. That is an unfair means of taxation, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) made clear. It is a regressive form of taxation in any event.
    I cannot understand why, under the formula, some councils are badly dealt with while others seem to come out well. If Gwynedd council was treated the same as Westminster council, it would be possible to hand back money to the taxpayer and still provide services.
    We have heard a lot today about fire authorities. They are very important and other hon. Members have rightly referred to the bravery of the firemen and women on whom we rely so heavily. They devote themselves entirely to their public duties, always with the greatest valour. However, they do not seem to qualify for money to run the service.
    The North Wales fire authority was thrust on the people of Wales. against the wishes of the people of Gwynedd and Clwyd. There we are, we have got the new authority. The Government said that part of the reason for the reorganisation was increased efficiency. However, the new authority is not just disappointed but is scared rigid by the level of funding. I remind hon. Members that north Wales has a huge coastline which is one of the important criteria for funding. I also remind hon. Members that under the present basic capital allowance, £296,000 will be allowed under that heading compared with the previous combined total for Gwynedd fire authority and Clwyd fire authority in the previous year of £1.2 million. How can anyone run such a crucial service on such a budget? The decision is utterly indefensible and disgraceful.
    The fire authority recognises that point and wrote many weeks ago to the Home Office asking for an urgent meeting with the Home Secretary. It has not yet received a reply. As the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) mentioned, he and I have asked for some progress on the matter and I am sure that other north Wales Members have done the same. I rang the Home Office last Wednesday and last Thursday. I was promised faithfully that I would be told today over the telephone when we could meet, but I am still waiting for that call. It is simply not good enough. Fire authorities often have to deal with life-or-death situations. It is simply not good enough to give Members of Parliament and fire authorities the runaround. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, because he too has responsibility in the matter, to give me an answer. If he is not careful, there will be blood on his hands. I ask him respectfully to make it known to the Home Office that we in north Wales want an urgent meeting and we want it now before there is a disaster. I ask him to respond to that point.
    Central Government' s constraints have forced upon the people of Caernarfonshire and Meirionnydd, or the new Gwynedd, a couple of choices—to uphold the standards of service provided by the authority or to cut them yet further to an unacceptable level. Logically, the first choice is the only one. Given that, and central Government's chronic and serious underfunding, there will have to be a substantial council tax rise. But central Government should realise that the council tax payer is a far more sophisticated person that they imagine. He or she can see through this fiasco by central Government and, in a few months' time, they will have an opportunity to show this

    101
    Administration what they feel. There is no doubt that the Conservative Administration will pay for decimating local government, and the price will be high.
    8.40 pm
    Mr. Richard Tracey: One thing is certain—someone with a Labour council will have a council tax bill that is 50 per cent. higher than someone with a Conservative council. There is no doubt about that. If one looks down the chart of council tax bills for this year, one sees a long list of Labour authorities heading the list, starting with the iniquitous £1,006 for a band D property—presumably a semi-detached house—in Liverpool. At the other end, not surprisingly, one sees the low levels of council tax charged by Conservative authorities.
    In light of that fact, I thought that it was a brazen gesture by Labour to have an Opposition motion today on the council tax. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out that it is 1 April and said that the motion might be an April fool's joke, but it is getting late in the day for that. The Opposition motion uses the old line of blaming the Government for the high council tax levels in Labour-controlled areas. Labour is not alone in that. While council tax bills are 50 per cent. higher in Labour councils, the figure for the three or four councils controlled by the Liberal Democrats in London is 42 per cent.
    One would have thought that when Labour tabled the motion, it would first have given us some idea of what extra money it would provide. If Labour claims that councils are hard pressed because of the Government, it should give a figure. But as with everything else, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)—the shadow Chancellor—has told Labour Members not to say a word on the matter because the Government might start costing the figures and detailing the total tax to be presented to the nation by Labour at the general election.
    Labour has hinted in its rather vacuous presentation of policy that it would probably lift capping. There is a warning for the people of this nation—the council tax in Labour councils would go through the roof if the cap came off. Labour has also hinted on a number of occasions that it would like the business rate to be back in, as they put it, "democratic local control".
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Tracey: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) is obviously not speaking on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench. That is obviously the common view, however, in the Labour party. That is where Labour will find the extra money—from lifting the cap, so that local domestic council taxpayers will pay, and from local businesses, which will be well and truly soaked.
    Conservative councils have come out extremely well in this year's chart—there is no question about that. As I have said, Labour-controlled Liverpool—where a band D council taxpayer has to find £1,006—is at one end of the scale. At the other end, the bill in Westminster—endlessly maligned this afternoon by Labour Front Benchers—is £295 for a band D property. In Wandsworth, the figure is £434, and in Brent it is £456. My right hon. Friend the
    102
    Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), with all his experience in local government, paid a well-deserved tribute to the Conservative councillors in Brent.
    Those figures are on the record for Conservative-controlled councils, but we must look also at the shadow budgets produced by Conservative oppositions around the country. At this point I shall move away from talking about London in broad terms, as I wish to refer to my own local authority—the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames, controlled currently by a Liberal Democrat authority. There, the Conservatives produced a shadow budget that convincingly undercut the Liberal Democrats' budget by £26 for a band D property.
    It is interesting that, in the oldest royal borough in the country, the council was planning to do away with its heritage officer—the person who pulls together all the historical records and puts across the truly historic message of the ancient royal borough. That job was going to be axed because of the Liberal Democrats' budget. The Liberal Democrats have created seven "neighbourhood councils" in the borough to which money is devolved. Amazingly, the money to pay for the heritage officer was found by the three Conservative-controlled neighbourhoods and—interestingly enough—by the Labour-controlled neighbourhood. The Liberal Democrats were determined to wipe out the heritage officer of our oldest royal borough, but fortunately she has been saved because of the good management of other neighbourhoods.
    In many areas, the shadow budget proves that the Conservatives could manage things better. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is not here. He might be interested to know that Camden council—his local authority—is planning a 13 per cent. increase in council tax from £688 to £779 for band D. The Conservatives, however, produced a shadow budget that would keep the figure down to £635. That assumes—among other things—that the collection rates for the council tax were improved from 93 per cent. to 98 per cent. We have heard a number of times in the debate that the efficiency of Conservative councils produces those excellent levels of council tax.
    We have also heard about total external support. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said that if all councils in London received the same kind of external grant as Tower Hamlets, some amazing figures would be produced. Wandsworth, for example, could have handed back £1,250 to council taxpayers, and even Lambeth would have made savings, with the bill being £785 better than it turned out to be. I accept that there is need in Tower Hamlets, but there is also need in North Westminster, North Kensington and Hackney, and all those areas would have done far better if they had had the level of support that the Government have given to Tower Hamlets. So let us not hear any more of this talk about some sort of preferential treatment by the Government delivering the extremely efficient levels of council tax for Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth.
    The other point that has been made—I make no apology for repeating it once more—is about the level of efficiency that the Audit Commission has found in Conservative councils compared with that in Labour councils. One would think that Islington, with the right

    103
    hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, as one of its residents, would do better. In the Audit Commission's view, Islington is the most inefficient, useless and incompetent council certainly in London and probably in the whole country. It spends the third highest per head of population, yet its results are appalling. It has the worst exam results and it is the slowest in London at dealing with planning applications. Of course, there are other incompetent Labour councils in London. Labour Hackney is poor; it collects less than 70 per cent. of its council tax. Newham is little better.
    Islington has the Leader of the Opposition as a resident—the man who claims that his new Labour party will be so efficient at running the country. Yet there on his doorstep is a classic example of what Labour is like when it is administering anything.
    8.51 pm
    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: The yah-boo style of the Opposition tonight—or the Government, soon to be the Opposition—has not impressed me one little bit. I do not think that it would have impressed the thousands of Labour, Tory and Liberal councillors throughout the country. If they had heard the debate tonight they would have been appalled at the lack of respect for the way in which they had operated their councils during the past 10 or 12 years.
    I start off by defending my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Earlier, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) only partially quoted Hansard. My hon. Friend said:
    "I do not endorse anyone's numbers but my own, and the hon. Gentleman is not getting one from me."
    He went on to say, but the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar did not quote this:
    "I explained that earlier. In case the Conservative simpletons did not notice, that was what one of my earlier responses meant."—[Official Report, 31 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 1032.]
    I have to say that the word "simpletons" comes to mind when I consider the quality of the debate that we are having this evening.
    The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar was for a brief period leader of Bradford council. It was a very brief period from 1988 to 1990. I congratulate him on the efforts that he made on our behalf. The council was then controlled by the casting vote of the Lord Mayor. It is now controlled by a Labour majority of more than 16. That is due in many respects to the hon. Gentleman's efforts.
    I should have thought that the debate tonight would centre on the good work of local authorities across the spectrum of politics. This country relies on the work of local councillors. They know that the make-up of the council tax does not reflect their needs. They would rather not be frustrated by the Government. They would prefer to develop a tax system in local government that met local needs.
    We have a Tory Government who are paranoid about local authorities to the extent that in every other policy they are deregulating and loosening the ropes, but in local government they are not doing so. More than 150 pieces
    104
    of legislation have been passed to tighten the restrictions on local authorities. In many local authorities up to 85 per cent. of the budget is predetermined by central Government. That is not the way forward. Local accountability and democracy is what we want to see.
    Despite what the Government have said, Labour local government works. We have the facts to prove it. The facts that we are interested in are the number of people who vote for us. That is why there are more than 200 Labour authorities and only 13, soon to be fewer, Tory authorities. Whatever methods the Government try to use to detract from Labour local government, it makes no difference. The other week we had the Audit Commission performance indicators. A Minister went along to the Audit Commission to argue that the figures were not correct and argue a different case. The Audit Commission said no.
    Conservative Members refer to the top 10 and the bottom 10 authorities in terms of performance. They are likely to be Labour authorities when the majority of authorities are Labour. The sad fact is that the Government do not want to see local government, of whatever political shade, develop. We have seen 16 years of this. The Government have taken away the powers of local government and put them in the hands of quangos. A fifth of public spending is now in the hands of non-accountable, undemocratic bodies. There are now more than 170,000 quangocrats, as compared with 30,000 councillors.
    Authorities had have to increase the council tax this year as a result of the unfairness of the system, knowing that they will have to cut services. In areas such as mine, cuts in services hit hardest those who can least afford to be hit. We must have a Government who understand.
    I have been along with colleagues from local authorities in my area to see Ministers. We get sympathy. Ministers say that they understand the problems and how, in Bradford's case, the formula does not accommodate the uniqueness of our city, with its rising population and school rolls. We get tea and sympathy, but no extra resources or any promises that Ministers will examine different methods of calculation.
    There must be a different approach under which people are consulted and involved rather than frustrated. Bradford people will face a tax increase of 9.2 per cent. Again, they are the ones who can least afford it. A third of the population of 490,000 is on some form of income supplement. As I said earlier, it is a growing population.
    To digress a little on to the education capital programme, an all-party delegation from Bradford went to see the Minister to say that Bradford needed £40 million to £60 million for education capital spending. The delegation was of local people who knew the local problems in each of the constituencies. The Minister said that the Government were happy to hear about Bradford's problems and understood that the local authority was doing all that it could. Bradford has even tried to implement the private finance initiative—an idea that came from Labour and has been suggested by Tories as the way forward. The response to Bradford's all-party request for £40 million to £60 million was a measly £4 million. So it is obvious that the funding is not there.

    105
    Bradford's council has had to cut £12 million from its budget this year, even with the increase of 9.2 per cent. Bradford's cuts in the past three years have been more than £50 million. It cannot deliver services to the standard that is required when it is having to make cuts to that extent.
    For the first time, charges have been introduced in our galleries and museums. The people of Bradford have always been proud of their cultural heritage. The council did not want to put museums and galleries out of the reach of those who could not afford to pay those charges. Under the present system it will have to do so. We are also going to have to increase charges for the elderly, for example for social service provision in day centres. Local democracy should be about being voted out if one does not do what local people want.
    Although it is Labour party policy to bring back the business rate, the business community wants it as well because they have seen the benefits of being involved in partnership schemes and discussions. Bradford chamber of commerce is more than willing to support bringing the business rate back to the local authority because it wants to play its part within the local community. As an interesting aside, the business rate would have increased by 40 per cent. on revaluation, so the Government had to bring in a transitional relief. Local business must be encouraged to be part of the community—and they want to be a part.
    Powers have been taken away from local government and given to unaccountable bodies such as the local training and enterprise councils and colleges. We need to bring those powers back.
    It is appalling that Ministers attack Labour-controlled local authorities in the Chamber and yet go to them for photo calls on good practice, as they did in Bradford recently. In Bradford and other cities, Ministers have wanted to be a part of the publicity for good council practices, for example on closed circuit television, crime initiatives and road safety.
    We should be looking into council finances. What about this nonsense of year-on-year spend? When the Budget was changed from April to November, local authorities had only four or five months to determine how to spend their moneys. They did not get the final figures for the spend for the year starting in April until the December of the previous year.
    Perhaps we should be considering three-year plans for spending, which would give councils the opportunity for development and the chance to plan for the future. Instead, we are seeing political dogma—if it is anything to do with a Labour local authority, it is not good.
    What of the paragons of virtue that have been put before us today? Westminster would damage people's health by putting them in flats full of asbestos. Brent is full of corruption and it is not the Labour party, but the Audit Commission that has said so, among others. So where are the paragons of virtue among Tory-controlled authorities?
    That is not to say that there are no good Tory councillors. We have good Tory councillors in Bradford. When they see that the district has a need, they put the district and not their party politics first. They are doing so in the all-party bids that have been put to the Government. The sad thing about it is that the Government do not listen to them.
    106
    What do we get when we speak to Ministers? They say, "Why don't you sell it off?" and, "Why don't you privatise it?" They said that about old people's homes, children's playgrounds that are not in use and school playing fields. That is always their approach.
    When the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar led Bradford council, he had what he called the sale of the century. He was prepared to sell any of his city's assets, cultural or otherwise, for short-term gain at the expense of the long-term future of the district.
    In education, things are so bad in Bradford that many children have corridors as classrooms. We have more temporary classrooms than anywhere else in the country. I see the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar returning to the Chamber, smiling. He talks about local need but he seems to have forgotten that, in 1985, under the old rating system, his group put the rates up by 36 per cent. when it was in control. I think that he was right to do so because he was meeting local needs. How interesting that he has changed his mind now.
    Mr. Pickles: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his customary courtesy in giving way and I apologise for missing the earlier part of his speech. I remember that when Bradford council was Conservative-controlled, it used to put extra resources into education and extra teachers. When the Labour party took control, it made cuts. I also remember that when the council tried to renovate old people's homes, the Labour party opposed it and sold the same homes off to Labour councillors.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I am sorry that I gave way because the hon. Gentleman's memory is obviously failing him.
    Mr. Dobson: CJD again.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Yes, too many beefburgers. Had the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar been here for the earlier part of my speech he would have heard about the cuts that Bradford has suffered over the years. He knows the true situation, but he is off and away—unfortunately, the people of Essex have him now.
    Many Ministers saw compulsory competitive tendering as the way forward—the way to make council services more efficient and effective. The reality is this: wages and concern for conditions have dramatically reduced and job losses have affected people who could not afford to lose their jobs. Had the rules on competitive tendering been fair, one would have accepted that, but Bradford seems to have been singled out by the Government again. Bradmet, the organisation for direct works that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar was involved in setting up, has been barred from two contracts by the Government because of what they say are anti-competitive policies.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): What about Bradmet's missing £1.9 million?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: The Minister is welcome to intervene, but not from a sedentary position. As he is interested, I hope that he will consider investigating the company that has won the highways contract. The relationship between senior civil servants and private sector company directors has been mentioned in the House before. I understand that

    107
    Tarmac has won the contract. Will he examine the activities of a Mr. J Hobson, who is a senior civil servant in his Department and also a director of Tarmac? Is that not a conflict of interest?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I understand that such situations are being looked into, but where has the £1.9 million that has disappeared from Bradmet gone?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: The Minister knows that there is an inquiry and that auditors and the Audit Commission have been heavily involved. If he has any problems about that, I am sure that he will let us know. He talks about the £1.9 million, but what about the disclosure that a senior civil servant is on the board of a company that is interested in a contract? I hope that he will examine that.
    Sir Paul Beresford: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could assist the auditor by helping to find some of the papers that seem to have disappeared and the head of services who has suddenly gone ill?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: If the Minister wants to pursue that, he can do it outside this debate. I would be only too willing to meet him at any time to discuss Bradford's problems. The trouble is that when we talk to him about them, he does not listen.
    We need to make sure that local government gets its rightful place. After 17 years of Tory central Government when local government has not been appreciated, the next Labour Government—and that is not far off—will recognise the successes of Labour local government in adverse circumstances. When we have the resources, and the support of a central Government who understand how we need to develop local government, councillors will realise their worth. It is unfortunate that we cannot have a sensible debate on local government. We understand why; the Tories have given up on local government.
    9.6 pm
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: It is extraordinary that this debate would be taking place on a day when 1,500 GP practices become fundholders and the majority of the population are being better cared for as a result. On the day when a new environment agency comes on stream and key European issues are to the fore, we get an April fools day debate with a motion worthy of a failed GCSE politics student. No doubt the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) would merely declare that it seemed a good idea at the time, but his speech was unworthy of the House of Commons and in marked contrast to that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    The motion suggests that the disgraceful Labour council tax increases are somehow the Government's fault. Time after time, Labour spokesmen come to the Dispatch Box to say that they are ready for office, but when they make a shambles of the many councils that they control it is the Government's fault, not that of their party's administrations.
    I shall confine most of my speech to local government and the council tax in the fair county of Kent. I start with Kent county council, which has had the misfortune of
    108
    being run by a coalition of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties since 1993. This year, we in Kent were immensely grateful to the Government for increasing their funding of Kent county council by 4.2 per cent. With inflation running at 2.8 per cent., that gives the lie to Labour's repeated claims about underfunding. The increased funding for Kent and most other authorities, which is ahead of inflation, speaks for itself.
    Government funding for education in Kent has increased by 4 per cent., which means an extra £22.5 million for Kent schools. We have had the highest award in the country for school buildings—up by 7.5 per cent. Among the shire counties, we have received the highest amount from the Government for new roads and our road programme—£81 million. All the nonsense about inadequate Government funding just does not add up when one looks at the facts.
    Despite the increase of 4.2 per cent. in funding from the Government for Kent county council, which is way ahead of inflation, the Lib-Lab pact running the county council has had the nerve to go to the council tax payers for an increase of 5.6 per cent. That might be thought worth while if it was to be spent on services, but school budgets in our county will increase this year by just 3.4 per cent.—a much lower figure than the increase in Government funding to the county council, and a much lower figure than the increase in the council tax. That follows on from last year when, despite an extra 2.4 per cent. in funding from the Government, the schools just got 1 per cent. extra—and that was after a monumental row which left the Labour party cowering under the school desks.
    One has to ask whether such funding is due to incompetence on the part of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties or political malice. Let us consider incompetence on the part of Labour and Liberal Democrats on Kent county council. More than 50 per cent. of our secondary schools are now grant maintained and more than 50 per cent. of secondary school students are now in grant-maintained schools; yet the central education administration of Kent county council has not been reduced by anything like 50 per cent. The proof of the pudding is in the figures. The council keeps back £81 per child from schools throughout the county to be spent by the bureaucrats at county hall. That figure is the highest of any shire county in England. Our answer to that is that it should do better.
    The council has spent a vast amount of money and has had its officers and lawyers working overtime to try to sabotage the grant-maintained schools. It tried to introduce a new system, which it botched up, for the selection process for youngsters aged 11 who have applied to the grammar schools. It has spent a vast amount of money, estimated to be in excess of £1 million in terms of officers' time and other costs, trying to bamboozle the Local Government Commission about local government reform. As for its scatter-gun approach to the roads programme, the result has been a disgraceful shambles. Many major road projects have seized up, notably in the Medway towns.
    So on the charge of incompetence, yes, the council is guilty. But what about malice? I would say that it is certainly guilty of this, too. The Conservative opposition on Kent county council proposed a detailed budget for the coming year, which demonstrated better value for money and would have resulted in a council tax increase

    109
    restricted to the rate of inflation at 2.9 per cent., but what did the Labour and Liberal-Democrat councillors do? They voted it down.
    It is also extremely interesting to look at what has happened to the district and borough councils of Kent. Sadly, none of them is under Conservative control. Last year, far too many voters did not go along to vote—for reasons that we do not need to discuss now—and thus saddled themselves with Labour and Liberal Democrat councils. The Opposition spokesman has said that we should look at Labour in government. Indeed, let us look at it. Let us look at three councils—Sevenoaks, Tonbridge and Malling, and Ashford—which had been Conservative since time immemorial. Thanks to the election last year, they are now under Labour and Liberal Democrat coalitions. What did those great political party councillors do? They threw off management controls and had bright spending ideas. And what has been the result? The bills going out to the residents of those three districts have gone up. In Ashford, they have increased by 12.4 per cent.; in Tonbridge and Malting, they have increased by 24.8 per cent.; and in Sevenoaks, the district precept levied by the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties has increased by no less than 89 per cent. So much for Labour and Liberal Democrat control. Perhaps the electors of those boroughs will make sure that they vote next time. In those boroughs there is new Blairite co-operation between Labour and Liberal Democrats. What happens when one or other of those parties runs a council alone? Gillingham has been in the hands of the Liberal Democrats for some years. Its council tax increase is 8.7 per cent. this year.
    As this is a Labour debate, however, let us consider Labour councils. Dartford went Labour last year. What thanks did the poor council tax payers get? They got an increase of 15 per cent. in the levy from the borough council. Rochester went Labour in 1991. Under the Conservatives, the city council subsidised the greater part of the Kent county council precept and levied the lowest shire district council tax in England. It was able to do so because of careful Conservative husbandry of the finances and the management of capital funds. Now it has been under Labour control for five years, and what has happened? Labour has blown the funds to such an extent that this year there is no subsidy to Kent county council and the people of the city of Rochester are feeling the full weight of the county level like the rest of us. And where is the highest council tax in Kent? It is in Labour Thanet.
    What of my borough of Gravesham? This year, our council tax increased by a modest 2.9 per cent.—that is only £40,000 from the electorate—but why was that increase levied when the Labour borough council proposes to put £697,000 into reserves, taking those reserves to £4 million? Why increase the load on the backs of my constituents? The Conservative group on the council recommended no increase, but the Labour party voted it down. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that only a few years ago, when Gravesham borough council was Conservative, it had the third lowest council tax among the shire districts—after Rochester city, which was then Conservative, and Wellingborough, which due to the wisdom of its residents is still controlled by the Conservatives with their independent allies.
    I hope that the good management of councils in Kent by the Conservatives for many decades will not fade too fast before we regain control of those councils. The people of Kent should take as a warning the record of councils
    110
    that have had Labour control in the long term. They must weigh up the facts for themselves. The highest council tax in Kent—currently in Labour Thanet—is £640 at band D. That council has only just become Labour-controlled. The people of Kent should compare that with the band D council tax of Labour Liverpool at £1,006, or of Labour North Lincolnshire, which is not dissimilar to some of the Kent districts, at £887. Of the 20 councils with the highest council tax, 18 are Labour; of the eight with the lowest council tax, even with the small number of Conservative councils today, six are Conservative while the other two are the City of London and the Isles of Scilly, which do not carry out politics locally.
    The lesson for the people of Kent is clear: Labour councils cost you more.
    9.17 pm
    Mr. Ken Purchase: Disappointingly, part of the debate has been marked by an attack on public servants in local government. It is surprising to hear former leaders of local authorities going to town about slush funds. Earlier, we heard of a county which allegedly had very high reserves that were referred to as a "slush fund". That council, which I understand is a coalition of interests, has nothing to fear and nothing to hide when compared with the Conservative sleaze that we more properly associate with the term "slush fund". It is more appropriate for Conservative Members to apply that term to themselves than to any other party in the House.
    I wish to defend people who have worked for a long time in local government. I hear talk, not about council members, but about some professional officers who have served in local authorities for many years. They certainly are professional officers, no matter how much Conservative Members shake their heads. Those officers are properly qualified in their professions and they give a proper, good, efficient and effective service to their communities.
    The House has heard complaints that rate increases vary from district to district, from borough to borough and from county to county. Of course they do: that is local government reflecting the needs of each area. People have been blamed for voting for people other than Conservatives, but that is the nature of local democracy—words which do not frequently pass the lips of Conservative Members, and when they do they are usually employed as marks of hypocrisy and cant.
    It is unfortunate that we have had to listen to an attack on the integrity of local government which, by and large, has a proud record of serving the interests of its communities. In so doing it will almost certainly continue, as long as it is allowed, to have rate demands set at different levels for different purposes for different services serving different communities. And long may those arrangements continue, for they are entirely admirable.
    Many of us who served in local government remember when an uptight grocer's daughter stamped her foot and decided to put an end to the rating system. She charged several of her Ministers to find ways in which the powers of local government and hence its spending could be curbed. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) mentioned the methodology. The first method employed by the Government was simple, straightforward and crude: it was to ensure that

    111
    Labour-controlled authorities would be punished. The Deputy Prime Minister, who at that time was Secretary of State for the Environment, contrived a formula so complex in its application that no computer installation in western Europe could cope with the calculation: it had to be sent to Texas in the USA where the calculation was worked out authority by authority. As Robert Burns said,
    "O what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive."
    I apologise to Burns if I did not quite get that right, but I am sure that hon. Members know exactly what I mean.
    That exercise by the then Secretary of State for the Environment was followed by what was probably the greatest debacle in the history of local government: the poll tax. That was the uptight grocer girl's next attempt, and it was a total, miserable and utter failure. By golly, there was a price to be paid and it is still being paid. My hon. Friends have referred to the difficulty of collecting huge unpaid poll tax bills going back many years simply because people did not have the money to pay an outrageous tax which was levied on them to satisfy political incompetence on the back of political malevolence, for that is the only way in which it can be described.
    Now we have a council tax system which relies on banding. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) spoke of the awfulness of the present system and, of course, he is right. Eventually, the Conservatives may hit on a big idea for local government. They might think about calling it the rating system under which there is a rateable value for every property and those who can afford it will pay and those who cannot afford to do so will get help by way of a rebate. That would be a revolution. People would be grateful to get back to those happy, far-off days.
    Under an exceedingly high gearing, 80 per cent. of local government finance is not collected by local government. That means that only 20 per cent. is collected, but in those far-off happy days we provided over 33 per cent. of locally funded schemes and paid far less for our services. My borough now has £30 million less to spend in real terms than it spent in those far-off happy days when there was a rating system and the method of disbursing central Government grant was fair and reasonable. Those are the differences.
    In the early 1980s, when the late Sir Keith Joseph was Secretary of State for Education, my borough brought forward a plan to reduce school places. It is expensive to keep school places empty and we intended to reduce them to the level suggested by the then Department of Education. What happened? Sir Keith could not see his way clear to agree to our plan. We asked whether we could bring forward a modified plan. We were told that we could, but that we would have to go through exactly the same procedure to come to the table with the Secretary of State with a plan. We have been implored to reduce places in schools, but when authorities have come forward with viable plans which have not suited the Tories, they have been turned down—thus adding to the overall burden of local government expenditure.
    My authority is a good example of what is happening now. This year, my authority has a growth figure of 1 per cent. in real terms in education, which seems to me to be
    112
    a considerable achievement; in fact, it is exemplary in my borough, considering that under a Conservative ideology it delegates 90 per cent. of the entire budget to schools. In that sense, my borough does everything that has been asked. However, over the years the cuts have been very hurtful—many teachers have had to leave the service by one route or another and the pupil-teacher ratio has increased.
    My borough experiences severe deprivation; yet this year the social services budget has been cut by £250,000 in relation to services for the disabled—and many other cuts have been made in the social services area. The economic development function has been diminished in a borough with an unemployment rate well above average—there is up to 30 per cent. unemployment among young people in some areas. It is incumbent on the Government to recognise what is being done in local government, to recognise the varying conditions which exist and to fund their part of it properly.
    Unfortunately, the council tax in Wolverhampton has increased by 15 per cent. this year—despite sending 90 per cent. down to schools and despite making major cuts in some of the services. We are a good example of having to pay more but getting less—that is what has been happening in Wolverhampton. It is a good authority, and it has been recognised as such for 30 years or more, under both Labour and Conservative control.
    We have taken it on the chin in Wolverhampton when Labour has lost control of the council—we have recognised that the local population has said, "Labour, you are not doing the job that we want you to do", and it has voted us out and put in Conservatives—often in coalition with the Liberals, which is a bit of a change-around. However, they have then voted Labour back in again.
    Hon. Members must accept that local democracy is an important and cherished bloom among those who value local government, local democracy and all that it means to local populations. Local democracy can work when it is properly and reasonably funded, both from central Government resources and from its own resources.
    9.28 pm
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Tonight the Labour party has referred to something that it thinks will wash with the electorate until the next election—that if only the formula could be got right, we could have more money to spend in our areas. I have listened to Labour Members and I am worried because I think that some of them actually believe it. It is not true and it does not mean anything. A number of Labour Members have said, "If the formula were different, there would be more to spend in my constituency and my council would have more". They forget that they would merely be robbing other councils—often Labour controlled—in a system which simply would not work.
    If one wants more money for services—as, no doubt, the Labour party will pretend that it will provide—one has to increase the amount of money produced in taxation. What must be most worrying, certainly for my constituents and, indeed, for people throughout the country, is what the Labour party would do with the return to business rates. We all remember—certainly those of us who served in local government remember—that the Labour party in local government regarded business rates

    113
    as a mulch cow. Businesses did not have a vote, so Labour went through the process of consulting them and then ignored them. The result, certainly in London, was that people moved their businesses. They voted with their feet and moved out of Labour-controlled areas into Conservative-controlled areas.
    Mr. Dobson: Balderdash!
    Mr. Hughes: It is all very well for the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to swear, using unparliamentary language to describe what I said, but I represented Croydon on the Greater London council until 10 years yesterday, and businesses were moving out of Lambeth and into Croydon to avoid Lambeth's business rates.
    On top of that, there were spending promises from every Labour councillor one could name. Labour supporters in the unions demanded that compulsory competitive tendering be abolished, which meant that the cost of providing services would go up. There was the cost of a return to regional authorities and those who hold the blank cheques of nods and winks from the Labour party, demanding that more money be spent on every service that one could name.
    In conclusion—I have only two minutes to speak in the debate if, unlike some hon. Members, I am to stick to the agreement that I made—if the Labour party were to hold to what it promises the people every time it opens its mouth, it would have to increase taxes both locally and nationally. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras says that he never listens to experts: anyone who has ever listened to his speeches will know what he means and will not be at all surprised.
    9.32 pm
    Ms Hilary Armstrong: Conservative Members have tried to suggest that people will pay more and get less. People do pay more and get less under the Conservative Government. The Government have a history, certainly since the previous election, of extracting from the taxpayer more and more in tax. This month, with the increase in council tax, people across Britain will face their 23zrd Tory tax hike. Council tax bills will go up. Services will be cut. Taxpayers will pay more but get less. Ordinary families throughout the land are paying the price of Tory economic mismanagement and incompetence.
    As if it was not bad enough that the Government have introduced 22 new taxes since 1992, costing the typical family an extra £670 a year, residents will now face hefty increases in their council tax bills.
    Sir Paul Beresford: By how much will Labour load central taxpayers, to give to local government?
    Ms Armstrong: I shall deal with the Minister's sedentary intervention in a moment.
    Government figures produced during the Budget, and subsequent statements from civil servants and politicians, show that the Government have a clear policy of forcing the council tax up, not just this year, but next year and the year after that. Council tax payers will have to fork out an extra £3.5 billion over the next three years—equivalent to almost 2p on the basic rate of income tax.
    114
    Since the general election, we have experienced three years of Tory-driven national tax increases, which are to be followed by three years of Tory-planned local tax increases.
    During the previous election, unsurprisingly, so busy were they scaremongering about what a Labour Government would do, that Tory politicians appeared to forget—I am always generous in my interpretation of history—to tell the electorate that under a John Major Government taxes would go up and up. In fact, Tory politicians appear to have got so muddled that they told the electorate that taxes would not go up. The 1992 Conservative party manifesto, for example, stated clearly:
    "We will maintain mortgage tax relief'.
    What happened? The Conservatives cut mortgage tax relief two years running.
    On 28 January 1992, the Prime Minister told the Leader of the Opposition in the House:
    "So that the right hon. Gentleman is in no doubt, I tell him that I have no plans to raise the top rate of tax or the level of national insurance contributions."—[Official Report, 28 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 808.]
    In 1993, what did the Conservatives do? They raised the rate of national insurance contributions from 9 per cent. to 10 per cent.
    On 27 March 1992, John Major told the electorate:
    "I have made it clear, we have no plans"—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady has forgotten the convention that hon. Members do not use names, but use only titles.
    Ms Armstrong: I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister—even better—told the electorate:
    "I have made it clear, we have no plans and indeed no need to extend the scope of VAT".
    What did the Conservatives do? In the very first Budget following that election, the Government extended VAT to home energy and fuel. Now, no more than 12 months away from a general election, Ministers are scurrying around trying to pretend that they really have not been putting up taxes—oh no. The problem is that public finances are in such a mess that their options were restricted. I wonder who got the public finances into such a mess.
    Accordingly, the Government resorted to their twin magic tricks. The first is the sleight-of-hand trick: having put up taxes every year, they are trying to claim maximum credit for a 1p cut in income tax while denying responsibility for grabbing the money back by forcing council taxes up. The second trick is entitled "pass the buck", and involves central Government cutting support for local government and then blaming councils for the fact that they have had to raise the council tax to pay for essential services.
    The problem that the Government and Conservative Members face is that the electorate are becoming tired of these old Tory tricks. They can see through them; they know what is going on, and where the blame truly lies. What the electorate want is honesty. They do not expect miracles, but they do not expect tricks either. They want

    115
    us to be honest and straight with them. Unfortunately, they have not had such treatment from the Government, and they have not had it from some Tory councils either.
    Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Armstrong: I have already given way to other hon. Members, and I want to ensure that the Minister has time to reply.
    I also want to respond to what the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) had to say. I thought it very brave of him to defend Brent council this evening. The House has not just heard and considered Westminster's problems in past weeks; there is also the real problem in Brent. Before the elections in May 1994, Brent electors were told that the Tories were committed to cutting the council tax. The right hon. Gentleman is right: they did cut it. However, they appeared to be suffering from amnesia when it came to telling the electorate, or even the council, where the necessary funds were to be found.
    A Conservative Political Centre pamphlet launched this weekend, co-written by—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am trying to listen to the sedentary interventions.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the House knows my views on sedentary interruptions. I am afraid that they apply to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Ms Armstrong: The pamphlet tells us:
    "Brent Conservatives … were even in a position to tell voters the amount by which taxes would be cut by the Conservatives in their first year of office; clearly this did a great deal to help them win the election."
    So we have that model of Tory best practice.
    The electorate, however, were not told of the gaping hole in the council's finances or that the cut had to be financed through a quick sale of Alperton lane depot to Onyx, a deal that was conditional on the company being given the profit-making council contract to manage trade waste collection and skip services. The deal was never even reported to a council committee. It cost taxpayers £1 million. The truth has only now come out and been reported to the district auditor. That deal, which appears to be ultra vires, went ahead because Conservative councillors were more interested in cutting the council tax than in protecting the public interest and probity in local government.
    This year, the Tory budget in Brent is again in a shambles. The council was clear that the minimum prudent reserves were about £2.5 million. All parties in Brent proposed budgets that set aside £2.5 million in reserves, but, unlike Labour and the Liberals, whose budgets were driven by a commitment to quality, efficient services and a sustainable public financial regime, the Tories were more obsessed with cutting the council tax and so they misled the council and council tax payers.
    In the past couple of days, therefore, those Tories have had to announce that they forgot to include expenditure of £1.1 million for statutory special education and for the funding for recycling initiatives, so, surprise surprise,
    116
    once the budget had been agreed, the Tories admitted the oversight and had to raise those balances by £1 million. We shall ensure that the auditor has a chance to say something about that.
    It is of course possible to cut budgets if councillors are not going to take any notice of the district auditor and of probity. I know the right hon. Member for Brent, North well and that, above all, he expects and demands honesty, so I hope that he will ask his councillors some questions about how they managed to cut the council tax last year and this year.
    Other authorities have been trumpeted today. We have heard about Wandsworth council. We seem to have forgotten that, this year, it issued a press release bemoaning the end of the bonanza last year, when 35 per cent. of all transitional relief money went to one council: Wandsworth. Because this year the Government wanted the level in Brent to be lower than in Wandsworth, they removed the bonanza and changed the basis of the arrangements. Wandsworth councillors are not happy.
    The Government have a responsibility to protect the public interest, but instead they collude with councillors in Brent who want to avoid the honest budget process. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has already read the letter which, following the 1994 budget, Brent council's leader wrote to officers in the Department of the Environment—I trust political officers.
    The activities in Brent contrast sharply with those in many other authorities, where councillors are working hard properly to meet aims and aspirations.
    Mr. Gummer: It is well run.
    Ms Armstrong: I am amazed that the Secretary of State dares say that it is well run. I have already given the figure on the cases in Brent that have been proved by the ombudsman, which number 43—I got the number wrong earlier. The nearest other London council had 17 cases. The ombudsman does not, therefore, seem to agree with the Secretary of State.
    Time and again, the Tory Government are hitting taxpayers where it hurts. In the same way as it was not an accident that there were tax cuts before the previous general election and huge tax rises after that election, it is not an accident that, in the year before the next general election, income tax is cut by 1p and the Government are grabbing the money back through the council tax.
    Several of my hon. Friends pointed out the problems with the way in which the Government calculate the standard spending assessment. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has long given great service by raising the matter year after year. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) mentioned the importance of what is happening in Wales today, when Wales is having new authorities forced on it because of the Government's gerrymandering.
    Authorities across the country are desperately trying to provide fire services and other services to meet the aspirations of local people, but are having to cut those services while increasing the money that they raise.
    Despite the Secretary of State's attempts to pass the buck on taxation, the truth is clear from the Department of the Environment's annual report, which states:

    117
    "This reflects the Government's view that council tax payers should contribute a slightly increased proportion of the costs of local government".
    That is what it is about—because the Government cannot manage their finances, they are putting the onus on council tax payers.
    It is a tribute to the hard work and efficiency of local government—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), continues to tries to laud the 13 councils that the Tories still run. Why are there only 13 of them? It is because of democracy. The Government hate the fact that democracy works.
    Tribute must be paid to the hard-working councillors for having managed to keep the council tax increase below the 8 per cent. that the Tories expected. The Government said that the increase would be 8 per cent., but the average increase is lower. Instead of indulging in complacent attacks on local government, it is time that the Government admitted the truth which, I know, is hard for them. The truth is that local people are having to pay more but get less because of the Government's incompetence and mismanagement.
    The people will know what to do when they experience the 23rd tax increase since 1992. They will know how to vote. I look forward to seeing the Government suffer the results of what the electorate say.
    9.47 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): We thank the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) for her cure for insomnia. The positive approach to local government was most appropriately set out by right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he began the Government's response to the motion. He drove home the differences between Labour and Conservative councils in practice and between what Labour says and what Labour does. That point was well echoed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry), for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the opportunity to ensure that this debate on local government is fully rounded and includes Wales and England. I intend to make proper mention of Wales shortly.
    This is an Opposition debate, but what a lacklustre, uninspiring performance we saw from Opposition Members, despite the fact that it was their choice of subject. The only enlivenment provided by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) came when he displayed his giggle factor. He also displayed an almost maniacal twitch as he looked around desperately for supporters on the Benches behind him. The hon. Gentleman really knows how to pack them in—at the height of his oratory, he had nine Back Benchers to support him. It is no wonder, as he had nothing new to offer and there was no substance to his speech, which was merely a collection of incoherent points. In addition, his figures did not add up. Even he admitted that he refuses to listen to experts—I have to say that that came over very clearly. We know that he has maintained his amateur status, or, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that,
    118
    along with the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms Harman) and for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), he has displayed that the Labour party is unfit to govern.
    The hon. Members for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), in line with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, called for more spending and more accountability. The hon. Member for Newbury wanted local income tax. I can imagine how that would be welcomed. None of them would quantify what he had in mind or put figures on the bills that would be presented. Perversely, they complained that the Government should give more to local government, but again, they would not quantify it. I must ask how such demands square with the abolition of capping and the provision of greater accountability. They simply cannot make up their minds.
    Over and over, it came across this evening that new Labour equals new taxation. It would impose a minimum wage. That would have to be paid for. It would abolish compulsory competitive tendering. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dared to offer the advice in The Guardian that such a plan would be a dangerous capitulation to the unions, and yet another expert was brushed aside by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. Labour would want to put business taxes under local-authority control. I defy the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) to come up with any credible authority in the business world which would prefer to return to what was previously inflicted on it.
    All that is as well as abolishing capping. It is incredible to think of the total that would be created as a result. I honestly believe that, in their heart of hearts, the last thing that Labour Members want the Government to do is abolish capping and let their Labour supporters loose in local government. Have they ever stopped to think about the effect? That point was well brought home by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough. It brings us back to the Labour party saying one thing and doing another. It is proof of the prophecy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State quoted earlier. The Leader of the Opposition said in The Spectator:
    "I don't think the character of any party becomes clear until you're in power."
    It is exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said when he referred to the way in which his Labour-controlled county council has not passed on all the money that it has been given for education to the schools; it is saying one thing, doing another.
    New Labour is certainly the party of new taxation. If the list that I have read out is not enough, I remind the House about the tartan tax that Labour would impose in Scotland and the taffia tax that it would impose in Wales to pay the price of a Welsh Assembly that would be brought in without giving the people of Wales any opportunity to comment on it.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Jones: I fear that time is too short.
    As has been mentioned, 1 April should be a great day for local government in Wales. We have had fireworks to celebrate the end of such unloved councils as South

    119
    Glamorgan. Today is the completion of a process that was begun in 1974. We have ended the two-tier system and the confusion apparent in so many people's minds about which council did what. Such confusion certainly existed among the councils themselves.
    Now we have 22 new unitary authorities in Wales. They are much more closer to the people whom they are meant to serve. What will those new councils do? The people of Wales will rush to say that clearly they must do better than their predecessors.
    Mr. Wigley rose—
    Mr. Jones: I am afraid that time is too short. [HON.MEMBERS: "Go on."]
    Mr. Jones: Very well.
    Mr. Wigley: The Minister will be very well aware that among the new authorities assuming power in Wales today there is a massive variation in increases in council tax. His own council of Cardiff, Rhondda, Cynon, Taff, and Gwynedd have increased their council tax by up to 25 per cent., whereas neighbouring authorities, carrying on the policies that they inherited from their predecessors, have needed only to increase their council tax by 3 or 4 per cent. Will he give an undertaking that during the year the Welsh Office will consider the distribution of grants in order to find the anomalies that have led to today's position so that it can be put right for next year?
    Mr. Jones: We shall certainly look at the SSAs for Wales, beginning with community care and education. The hon. Gentleman would have to agree that in Wales we have been caned this year by the level of council tax increases. There is a simple explanation why: there are no elections in Wales this year. We had elections in every council last year, and there were far lower increases, but now the accountability has been removed.
    My constituents would name education and community care as obvious priorities for spending. However, we were reminded again recently by the Audit Commission of the bad reputation of South Glamorgan council. It is the second lowest county council in England and Wales for spending on education. It does not have the excuse that it is a low-spending authority because we know from the Audit Commission that it is the sixth highest spender in England and Wales. We have excellent schools across Cardiff; I think of Whitchurch, Llanishen and Cardiff high. What they achieve is despite the Labour-controlled education authority and not because of it. Labour's meanness comes through so clearly in South Glamorgan, in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It has been proved over and again that education is not safe in the hands of the Labour party.
    Opposition Members have made it clear that they think that the level of resources for local government spending should be increased. It should be a simple matter for them to tell us by how much, but they do not. We should keep on asking the questions. I ask these questions at every available opportunity, but it is just as well that I am a patient man because I do not receive answers. I have not
    120
    given up hope of receiving an answer and I shall give way now to the hon. Member for North-West Durham if she wants to give me one.
    If we are to believe that local authorities are unable to manage effectively within the resources available to them, what are we to make of an article in the Western Mail on 19 March? I will enlighten hon. Members who may not have had an opportunity to read the article. It was headlined, "Local authorities in last spending spree" and it went on to report:
    "The year of the big spend is almost at an end but local authority treasurers are still scouring town hall coffers. Many councils in Wales beefed up their spending programmes before they are abolished".
    One local authority is reported to have found an extra £2.6 million in the past 12 months and the treasurer is quoted as saying:
    "This year will be remembered as the year of the great spend. My creative accounting abilities and pulling out of the finance hat have been pushed to the limit."
    Such reports give no credence to the laments of Opposition Members. In my view, it would have been much better for those authorities to contain their enthusiasm for breakneck spending and to provide their successor authorities with a sensible level of reserves.
    Central Government support for local government spending in England and Wales for 1996–97 has increased by about 2.8 per cent. It has certainly not been cut as some reports suggest. It accounts for about 80 per cent. of English and Welsh total standard spending. Local government in both England and Wales argue that central Government support represents too high a proportion of spending, and that it fetters their discretion and diminishes local accountability. That can be remedied only by increasing the amount that local authorities can raise locally through the council tax.
    The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) is concerned about Theatr Clwyd. The problems of Theatr Clwyd have not been caused by local government reorganisation; the decision was taken by Flintshire county council. It has the spending power, but it has chosen not to put money into the theatre. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have been most concerned about the theatre's future so we have offered £1.3 million to write off its debts. I must tell the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside that the offer is conditional on a solution being found for the long-term future. We do not want Flintshire to create the problem each year. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the outcome because we received a reply from Flintshire county council only last Friday. The reply is being studied urgently and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is my hope that, as he wants, we shall reach a conclusion that secures the theatre's future.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Minister agree that the letter written to the Secretary of State for Wales by the leader of Flintshire county council gives the Minister the way forward so that we can keep open this excellent regional theatre?
    Mr. Jones: All I can say tonight is that I hope that it does.
    The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy were concerned about the new fire authorities. They should know that the financing of the new fire authorities has essentially not changed. It is

    121
    the responsibility of each unitary authority to set a budget, including provision for the fire service, in accordance with the resources available to it and its own assessment of needs and priorities. All the new fire authorities in Wales will spend more in the coming year than they did last year. The increases range from 2.2 per cent. for north Wales and 5.3 per cent. for south Wales to 10.5 for mid and west Wales. I have noted what hon. Members have said about a meeting with the North Wales fire authority, and I will ensure that the point is conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
    In conclusion, we have had a mean and whingeing debate from the Opposition this evening. Local government has the resources and the opportunities, and we certainly have the way forward in Wales with the new reorganised councils that are closer to the people they are meant to serve. That is the way forward, and I commend it to the House.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
    The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 287.

    Division No. 91]

    [21.59 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Coffey, Ann

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Cohen, Harry

    Ainger, Nick

    Connarty, Michael

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Allen, Graham

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Alton, David

    Corbett, Robin

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Cousins, Jim

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Cummings, John

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Ashton, Joe

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Barnes, Harry

    Dafis, Cynog

    Barron, Kevin

    Darling, Alistair

    Battle, John

    Davidson, Ian

    Bayley, Hugh

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Bell, Stuart

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

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

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Denham, John

    Benton, Joe

    Dewar, Donald

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dixon, Don

    Berry, Roger

    Dobson, Frank

    Betts, Clive

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Boateng, Paul

    Dowd, Jim

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Eastham, Ken

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

    Etherington, Bill

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Burden, Richard

    Fatchett, Derek

    Byers, Stephen

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Fisher, Mark

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Flynn, Paul

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Foulkes, George

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Fyfe, Maria

    Canavan, Dennis

    Galbraith, Sam

    Cann, Jamie

    Galloway, George

    Chidgey, David

    Gapes, Mike

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    George, Bruce

    Church, Judith

    Gerrard, Neil

    Clapham, Michael

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Clelland, David

    Gordon, Mildred

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    122

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Gunnell, John

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Hain, Peter

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Hall, Mike

    Mudie, George

    Hanson, David

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Henderson, Doug

    O'Hara, Edward

    Heppell, John

    Olner, Bill

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hinchliffe, David

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hodge, Margaret

    Pendry, Tom

    Hoey, Kate

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Pike, Peter L

    Home Robertson, John

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

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

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Purchase, Ken

    Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Hoyle, Doug

    Radice, Giles

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Rendel, David

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Illsley, Eric

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Rogers, Allan

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Rooney, Terry

    Jamieson, David

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Short, Clare

    Keen, Alan

    Skinner, Dennis

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

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

    Khabra, Piara S

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Soley, Clive

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Spellar, John

    Litherland, Robert

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Stevenson, George

    Loyden, Eddie

    Stott, Roger

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    McAllion, John

    Straw, Jack

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    McCartney, Ian

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    McFall, John

    Timms, Stephen

    McKelvey, William

    Tipping, Paddy

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Touhig, Don

    McLeish, Henry

    Trickett, Jon

    McMaster, Gordon

    Turner, Dennis

    McNamara, Kevin

    Tyler, Paul

    McWilliam, John

    Vaz, Keith

    Madden, Max

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Maddock, Diana

    Walley, Joan

    Mahon, Alice

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mandelson, Peter

    Wareing, Robert N

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Watson, Mike

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Maxton, John

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Meacher, Michael

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Meale, Alan

    Wise, Audrey

    Michael, Alun

    Worthington, Tony

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Milburn, Alan

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Miller, Andrew

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    123

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Mr. Greg Pope and

    Mr. Eric Martlew.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter(East Surrrey)

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Alexander, Richard

    Dover, Den

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Amess, David

    Dunn, Bob

    Arbuthnot, James

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

    Ashby, David

    Elletson, Harold

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Baldry, Tony

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Faber, David

    Bates, Michael

    Fabricant, Michael

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bellingham, Henry

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Forman, Nigel

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Forth, Eric

    Booth, Hartley

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Boswell, Tim

    Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    French, Douglas

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Fry, Sir peter

    Bowis, John

    Gale, Roger

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gallie, Phil

    Brazier, Julian

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Garnier, Edward

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Gorst, Sir John

    Burns, Simon

    Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Burt, Alistair

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Butcher, John

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Butler, Peter

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Butterfill, John

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Cash, William

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Churchill, Mr

    Hannam, Sir John

    Clappison, James

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Harris, David

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hawksley, Warren

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hawksley, Warren

    Colvin, Michael

    Hayes, Jerry

    Congdon, David

    Heald, Oliver

    Conway, Derek

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Coombs, Anthonoy (Wyre For'st)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hendry, Charles

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hicks, Robert

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Couchman, James

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Cran, James

    Horam, John

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

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Day, Stephen

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Devlin, Tim

    Hunter, Andrew

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    124

    Jack, Michael

    Richards, Rod

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Riddick, Graham

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jessel, Toby

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Johnson, Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Key, Robert

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    King, Rt Hon Torn

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Knapman, Roger

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Sims, Roger

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

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Legg, Barry

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Leigh, Edward

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Spring, Richard

    Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

    Sproat, Iain

    Lidington, David

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Steen, Anthony

    Lord, Michael

    Stephen, Michael

    Luff, Peter

    Stern, Michael

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Stewart, Allan

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Streeter, Gary

    Mackay, Andrew

    Sumberg, David

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mcloughlin, Patrick

    Sykes, John

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Tapsell, Sir Petr

    Madel, Sir David

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Malone, Gerald

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Mans, Keith

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Marland, Paul

    Thomason, Roy

    Marlow, Tony

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Merchant, Piers

    Townend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Mills, Iain

    Tracey, Richard

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Trend, Michael

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Trotter, Neville

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Viggers, Peter

    Nelson, Anthony

    Walden, George

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Waller, Gary

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Ward, John

    Norris, Steve

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Onslow, RT Hon Sir Cranley

    Watts, John

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Wells, Bowen

    Ottaway, Richard

    Whitney, Ray

    Page, Richard

    Whittingdale, John

    Paice, James

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Wilkinson, John

    Pawsey, James

    Willetts, David

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Wilshire, David

    Pickles, Eric

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Yeo, Tim

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Mr. Timothy Wood and

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House congratulates the Government on the rigorous approach it is taking towards all public expenditure, including that of local government; commends the clarity of their approach towards taxation and the funding of local services; and urges local authorities to make the most efficient use of the resources available.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    SUPREME COURT OF ENGLAND AND WALES
    That the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.—[Mr. Conway.]
    Question agreed to.

  Ordered,
  That Mr. Greville Janner be discharged from the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Conway.]

  SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Terry Dicks be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Mr. John Marshall be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  PETITION

    Roots and Shoots
    10.15 pm
    Miss Kate Hoey: I have great pleasure in presenting a petition from more than 2,000 people living in the Kennington area, among whom are some hon. Members. It supports a valuable project called Roots and Shoots. I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will have an opportunity to visit this valuable scheme which provides work skills and training in horticultural products to disadvantaged young people in Lambeth. It should be adequately funded so that it can continue. People who know the value of the scheme have signed the petition. They have visited the scheme, bought the plants and seen what is happening there. I hope that the Minister responsible will study the petition carefully and do something to ensure that this valuable scheme does not have to fold. The petition states:
    "Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House asks that the Secretary of State for Education and employment intervenes to save 'Roots and Shoots'.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray".
    To lie upon the Table.

  Drought (Yorkshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
  10.17 pm
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: I asked for this debate because of my disgust at the wriggling and constant evasion on the part of the Government and, in particular, of the regulator, in respect of the chaos that Yorkshire people suffered last year. As the public inquiry in Leeds town hall, funded by Yorkshire Water and headed by Professor Uff, provides more and more details of the inadequacies—which go back not months but years—I predict that the Government's explanation will change. Instead of saying that it had been an exceptional, once-in-500 years summer and that the company did all that it could, they will say that it is a case of one bad company and that now that its senior executives and chairman have gone, everything will be all right. I also predict that the Government will fail even to address the flaws in the regulatory system that allowed the chaos to happen.
  The Government's golden rule is that nothing, but nothing, must be seen to be wrong with water privatisation. That must be stated and restated by Government and regulator alike but never subjected to public scrutiny. I suggest that even today's announcement about competition was more a diversion from the public scrutiny of the management of the water industry that people want than anything new about how the industry will be managed in future. What other reason is there for the refusal of the Department of the Environment and the regulator to attend or give evidence in public to the inquiry in Leeds? Were they not also involved during last year's crisis? Did not the Secretary of State meet the company's chairman, Gordon Jones? Did not Ian Byatt write letters of complaint to the company? Why should those meetings and that correspondence be kept secret when everything else is in the public domain?
  The public inquiry has been useful, in particular because it has offered the chance to the other regulator, the National Rivers Authority, to clarify many of the long-term issues relating to water resource management in Yorkshire without getting hung up on the "we must defend privatisation" charade. Certain factors have stood out, including the explanation that water for drinking in Yorkshire and anywhere else can be collected for treatment purposes from three sources: reservoirs, bore holes and rivers. Reservoirs are the cheapest source because water flows down hill and is collected in the uplands, where it is kept relatively pure. Bore holes are the next most expensive option because of the pumping costs, and rivers are the most expensive because the water needs to be pumped and cleaned up more to make it safe to drink.
  Last March, Yorkshire Water looked at the beautiful reservoirs of the Pennines brimming over after one of the wettest winters in history and saw not water, but a year of bumper profits. Instead of conserving the good wine till last, it gobbled it all up month after month through the summer. It was not until the middle of August, the 18th to be precise, that Yorkshire Water looked to increase its take from rivers, despite persistent NRA warnings.

  127
  The second fact to come out of the inquiry is that the company was warned way back in 1991 that the grid system was not sufficient to move water around the county. Indeed, since 1989, drought restrictions have been imposed throughout the county in every single year.
  The third fact to come out of the inquiry is that the need for investment to reduce leakage was identified four years ago, but no action was taken. According to the minutes of a meeting of the Ofwat Yorkshire customer service committee, the director general visited Yorkshire on 8 April 1992 to discuss in particular Ofwat's concern about the leakage control policy and the lack of investment to combat those leaks. There is nothing new about leaks.
  The truth is that, last year, there was no drought in the real sense of the word in Yorkshire. A drought occurs when there is year on year of low rainfall—more like in 1976, or, potentially, this year—and when stocks are low after a number of dry winters and summers. In 1976, people displayed a community spirit to save on external use and garden watering.
  Yorkshire people are not blind, and they can detect greed and waste. They saw the brimming reservoirs in March, and fished in them. Those reservoirs were full of public water collected from rain in public ownership. They saw and reported leaking pipes and discovered that it took at least two weeks for the company to take action. They read about the 100 million gallons of water leaking daily from company pipes. With one voice—chambers of commerce, Tory and Labour Members of Parliament, local authorities, rich and poor alike and public health bodies—they turned on the company when they were threatened with standpipes, rota cuts, business relocation and constant appeals to restrict their use of water for washing and in the garden. They said, "No. This is your problem. We, the customers, will not accept the blame." Indeed, usage started to go up every time a Yorkshire Water boss issued another television appeal.
  Tonight, I want to take the issue further. The problem was not trivial, but touches the very heart of public health. People now want to know why the Government allowed that irresponsible company simultaneously to retain its senior management, return record profits and increase prices by nearly 6 per cent. while overseeing a crisis that could have caused major outbreaks of dysentery, environmental devastation and even mass evacuation.
  The public want to know what the so-called independent regulator's role was in all this. He showed no concern about water resources last year until 21 August, when he issued a press release calling for
  "the companies to improve the way they manage the demand for water"—
  not the way they manage water, but the way they manage the demand for water. He admitted:
  "where companies are short of water is it likely that leakage control should be an important part of its strategy, … In other areas, however, it will not be cost effective. These are decisions for the company to make. Although Ofwat monitors companies' leakage rates, its prime concern is with the service that customers get."
  That is not true. If Ofwat's prime concern was for customers, we would have seen action years ago to set targets on leakage. Instead, Ofwat's prime concern is with the financial well-being of the water undertakers. In the words of the Department of the Environment, Ian Byatt is
  128
  "the independent economic regulator of the Water Industry in England and Wales."
  It is to the director general that companies deliver their annual leakage returns and their five-year investment plans. It is the director general who says whether companies can sell off their land or reservoirs. It is he who receives their capital asset management reports.
  Are all these reports and information simply a library exercise? No, they are not even that, because the information is kept behind closed doors and in locked cupboards and is not open to the public.
  When investment proposals are inadequate, does the director general ever intervene? At the price review in 1994, he will have known that Yorkshire Water's investment in water distribution was dropping 26 per cent. from 1992 to 1993—a shortfall of £100 million, which just happens to be the sum being rushed through in six months to improve the grid because of the crisis.
  What action did the regulator take at the time of the price review? What happens when investments have been promised and agreed but are not delivered? The inquiry heard last week from the Sewer Renovation Federation. I quote from the evidence of Paul Hayward:
  "the total infrastructure renewals"
  underspend
  "for all … private water companies amounted to £l398 million"
  by March 1995,
  "of which Yorkshire Water's share was £136 million".
  That £136 million represents money collected from customers for the express purpose of maintaining the water and sewerage infrastructure, but not spent.
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Does the hon. Lady agree that if Yorkshire Water had had first-class management last year, we would not have had a crisis because there was not a drought? There was water in many areas in Yorkshire, which Yorkshire Water said it would take five years to put pipelines in to transport. If we had had a first-class regulator who was doing his job properly, he would have urged them on to manage the company better, to ensure that leakages were reduced and that people in Yorkshire received the service for which they pay.
  Mrs. Jackson: What the hon. Lady says endorses the concern and anger that has been felt by public representatives of all political views in Yorkshire about the poor management last year.
  I would make two points in response. First, there were some extraordinary management decisions. In the middle of the crisis, when morale was at rock bottom, Yorkshire Water management continued the process of contracting out—outsourcing. On 4 August, in the middle of the crisis, it held a meeting with workers to say that the jobs of workers in leakage control teams in South Yorkshire were on the line. Is that not an extraordinary management decision, when everyone needs to join in and do what they can to tackle leakage? Yes, there were some extraordinary management decisions, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that the actions could have been taken before last year and then we should not have had the problem that we had last year.
  Secondly, what is the point of the regulator having powers to monitor the service and financial indicators if he is either unwilling or unable to take action to ensure

  129
  that companies keep to their plans? He would say that in mid-November, which was right at the end of the crisis—it had even started to rain—he did decide to act. He was spurred on by the imminent public inquiry into the emergency drought order seeking permission to impose rota cuts.
  The regulator wrote to Yorkshire Water stating that he intended to investigate its performance—in private. The only record that we have of that letter was leaked to The Times and he still will not make public the letter or what he was particularly concerned about. We know from the one in The Times that he was particularly concerned that the plight of customers
  "raises serious questions about decisions taken by the company in the years leading up to this summer as well as the action or inaction in response to warning signs".
  The regulator recognised that the problem went back some years and did not start just last summer. In the letter he announced that he was setting up a team which would report its findings in January. What team? I rang the regulator on Friday and I was told that it would not include any senior executives from the company, which is what had been said in the letter—if there were any of the old ones left—but that his team included just his own staff and appointed advisers. What have they been doing since 12 November and who are the consultant advisers? How much are they being paid and what are the inquiry's terms of reference? None of that information was forthcoming.
  On 7 March, Mr. Horsman from the Mid-Yorkshire chamber of commerce received a letter from Mr. Byatt explaining that he would not attend the Leeds inquiry because his own inquiry was under way. In the letter, he said that the teams had been appointed and had started in January and that his inquiries would be completed in April. 1 wondered this morning if that was what the Secretary of State meant when he spoke about bringing competition into the water industry. As soon as one inquiry is set up, it has to compete with another.
  Will there be a race to the finishing line? John Uff has given 30 April, but can Ian Byatt get there first? Is there a third report in preparation and completely under wraps? We must not forget Mr. Nixon, the Department of the Environment inspector from the Dewsbury public inquiry held on 12 to 14 November. His report was on the Secretary of State's desk by 24 November, but despite persistent questioning in the House, nobody saw it until 16 January when it was reluctantly placed in the regional office in Yorkshire and Humberside for anyone who was interested enough to go and get it. Even then, it came with a letter stating that the Secretary of State saw no useful purpose in going further into the questions that it raised because the application for the emergency drought order had been withdrawn. That two-day public inquiry was a waste of time.
  We need answers from the Government about the part that they played in last year's crisis and in the period running up to it. What meetings took place between Ministers and Yorkshire Water throughout last year? What ultimatums were given and when by any Minister and especially by the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration whose bulging postbag on this issue must have been a great embarrassment to him? What pressure was brought to bear by Tory Members in Yorkshire's marginal constituencies who saw their chance of re-election draining away like the water
  130
  supply? What discussions have taken place between Ministers and the regulator about whether they should participate in the public inquiry?
  I believe that neither Ministers nor Ian Byatt dare to face the public. The regulator will not make his letters and his actions public because they endorse his failure as a regulator. The problems were not of one summer—they are long standing—nor do they relate to one poor company. The Ministers and the regulator must answer in public how they will stop the rampant profiteering in this industry. It is for them to say what they will do to make regulation of this public service—a much better description than utility—work for customers, not for companies.
  I wish Kevin Bond and his new team at Yorkshire Water well. He has started this job today. I am pleased that he comes from the environmental side of the industry, because he well understands the interface between the different elements of the industry: water, drainage and sewerage. I do not want this debate to add to the significant job that he has started today.
  I believe that the Government have missed a huge opportunity over this two-week inquiry. By hiding from public scrutiny on the appalling record of events in Yorkshire, they have added one more episode to the catalogue of disasters from which they seek to evade all responsibility—from the Scott report, to the recent bovine spongiform encephalopathy scare, to the death of children for whom no intensive care beds can be found and to chaos in our prison system—the failure to deliver a proper water supply for the people of Yorkshire last year.
  10.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): The issue of water supply in Yorkshire is of concern to the public in Yorkshire and it will assist hon. Members if I outline a brief factual account of the background to this. Rainfall across the Yorkshire region between April and October 1995 was only 59 per cent. of the long-term average; rainfall in the west of Yorkshire, where Yorkshire Water's reservoirs are situated, was even lower, at between 46 per cent. and 52 per cent. of the long-term average; and approximately half the company's water resources are obtained from these reservoirs.
  Rainfall continues to be disappointingly low. Following nine months of rainfall at or below 50 per cent. of long-term average for west Yorkshire, January was again 50 per cent. of average; February was just above average; and, so far in March, it is about 58 per cent. of average—with less than 50 per cent. of average in Calderdale and Kirklees.
  In the autumn of 1995, Yorkshire Water drew up plans to secure water supplies through the winter of 1995 and the summer of 1996. These plans were set against the possibility of the winter being as dry as ever recorded and a repeat of the exceptional conditions last summer. The company has identified a possible daily shortfall of some 132 million litres.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: I am sure that the Minister recognises that the proposals to establish a better grid to move water around the county was in existence two years before the summer of last year.
  Mr. Clappison: I am setting out the company's plans in response to those conditions that I have described. It

  131
  has devised 18 schemes capable of delivering in total an extra 137 million litres per day. These schemes involve the construction of over 100 km of large diameter pipework and seven associated pumping stations in two main phases. One phase is due for completion about now and the other by May. One of these pipelines will connect Eccup reservoir, north of Leeds, with Bradford, Calderdale, Wakefield and Kirklees. The other will run from Selby to Leeds, Wakefield, Huddersfield and Calderdale. The cost is some £100 million.
  These schemes are also based on further drought orders and time-limited variations to existing abstraction licences on the rivers Derwent, Ure, Wharfe and Ouse. The Environment Agency is considering the licence variations. Drought order applications have been handled expeditiously by my Department. There are currently 11 drought orders extant in the Yorkshire Water area and one application is under consideration. Another drought order application, concerning the River Derwent, is still the subject of discussion between the company, the Environment Agency and English Nature in view of the particular environmental issues involved. My Department will proceed with its consideration when the company indicates that it is ready to proceed.
  Even with the severe conditions considered in its recent planning, Yorkshire Water has expressed confidence that, with the new schemes in place, there will be no need for water tankering or water rationing in 1996. I hope that that is of interest to Yorkshire consumers. The company states, however, that it will be necessary to maintain a hosepipe ban.
  The company is presently engaged in a £12 million pilot leakage reduction programme in west Yorkshire to find the most cost-effective long-term solution. This is in addition to the enhanced leakage control programme that the company ran throughout 1995. We note that the Environment Agency intends to agree economic targets for leakage reduction with Yorkshire Water within the next few months for Leeds, Bradford, Calderdale and Wakefield. The company has also recently announced environmental and engineering studies of the option of transferring water from the River Tees, which is supported in part by the Kielder reservoir, into Yorkshire. That is part of its medium to long-term water resource planning.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clappison: Briefly.
  Mrs. Jackson: In the light of today's announcement, will the Minister confirm that the transfer of water from Kielder reservoir to Yorkshire can operate whether or not the rules that were introduced today are in place?
  Mr. Clappison: This is part of the company's long-term planning. I hope that I have set out clearly for the hon. Lady the short and medium-term measures that it is taking against a background of assumptions about the situation this year.
  On Government monitoring, since last September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has commissioned a series of reports from the National Rivers Authority on the developing water resources situation throughout
  132
  England and Wales. The third report considered the position as at 31 January 1996 and again drew attention to the difficult situation in west Yorkshire. I can assure the hon. Lady that they certainly have taken an interest in what is taking place in Yorkshire. A fourth report, which will be published in late April by the Environment Agency, will consider the situation as at 31 March and the contingency arrangements to maintain supplies in the event of a dry summer.
  Ministers and senior officials have kept in close contact with the management of Yorkshire Water throughout the drought, from the early part of July 1995, when it became clear that there might be a problem. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is meeting the chairman of Yorkshire Water tomorrow to hear from him the very latest position.
  In common with all water companies, Yorkshire Water has a statutory duty to maintain water supplies, and we expect it to take all measures necessary to do that.
  The hon. Lady referred to the independent commission of inquiry into water supply, which was announced at the beginning of February 1996. It is a private inquiry, commissioned and funded by Yorkshire Water. The commission's chairman, Professor John Uff, has publicly stated the complete independence of the inquiry and that Yorkshire Water is no more than one interested party in the proceedings. Yorkshire Water has stated that it will consider the inquiry's report, when it is published, to determine how it should influence the company's planning for water supply in the future.
  My Department has made plain our willingness to help guide the inquiry to published information that may be relevant to its deliberations, but we have not received an invitation to submit evidence. Professor Uff has indicated that he is fully content with that position. Contrary to recent press reports, we understand that no criticism of the Department has been made in the inquiry sessions. I understand that the inquiry sessions will conclude this week.
  The Director General of the Office of Water Services decided in November 1995 to carry out his own inquiry into various aspects of Yorkshire Water's performance of its statutory functions, including those relating to water supply. He has powers of enforcement that may be exercised as appropriate following his own investigations. The director general therefore considers that it would not be right for him to be seen to participate in an inquiry commissioned by the company while his own investigations continue. He has written to the inquiry chairman with this explanation of his position in relation to the inquiry. We are aware of the criticisms of Yorkshire Water's actions made by the NRA in its evidence to the independent inquiry. It will now be for the Environment Agency, irrespective of the outcome of the independent inquiry, to make use of statutory powers as it thinks fit to remedy any deficiencies. We note that the Environment Agency may seek to enter into a formal agreement with Yorkshire Water under section 20 of the Water Resources Act 1991 concerning the company's management of the Yorkshire grid. Such an arrangement would have to be lodged with the Secretary of State and would be enforceable by him. We shall await receipt of such agreements as and when they are developed.
  As the hon. Lady is well aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 1 September 1995 a review of water resources and supply arrangements in

  133
  England and Wales as a whole in the longer term. This is being conducted with the Office of Water Services, the Environment Agency, the water industry and others. A report on the outcome can be expected within the next four months. The outcome of the independent inquiry into water supply in Yorkshire is a matter for the company that commissioned it, and its shareholders and customers. We shall study its findings with interest in relation to our own work.
  As the hon. Lady said, we issued a consultation paper today on extending competition and customer choice in water and sewerage services. It is an evolutionary approach, beginning with large users. We hope that, in
  134
  the long term, it may be possible to extend the benefits of competition to the majority of water customers, both in Yorkshire and elsewhere.
  It must be accepted that rainfall in Yorkshire has been exceptionally low, and that no amount of rhetoric or hindsight can alter the basic truth that the provision of water supplies depends fundamentally on rainfall. What matters now is that action is taken to secure supplies for the future in the event of further exceptional conditions. Normal supplies have been maintained so far, and it is important that that should remain the case.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Government Policy (South-West)
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of arrangements for co-ordinating Government policy towards the south-west. [24461]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government office for the south-west already plays a valuable role in ensuring close dialogue between Government and the people, businesses and local representative bodies of the south-west. But this is the largest English region, and it has distinct identities and needs. In recognition of this, I have asked the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration to act as a central co-ordinator of Government policy towards the south-west. Working with colleagues in the relevant Government Departments, my hon. Friend will take a close interest in the broad issues affecting the whole of the south-west, but will focus particularly on the concerns and interests of the peninsular counties of Devon and Cornwall.

  Ministerial Reponsibility
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about ministerial responsibility for volunteering, the voluntary sector and charity matters. [24475]

  The Prime Minister
  In consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, I have decided that ministerial responsibility for:Government co-ordination of policy on the voluntary sector including volunteering,
  charity matters, including sponsorship of the charity commission grants to voluntary sector infra-structure bodies,
  sponsorship of the National Lottery Charities Board, the Community Development Foundation and the Volunteering Partnership,
  should be transferred as soon as the necessary financial and other arrangements can be made from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I have concluded that these matters will fit more appropriately within the framework of the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who already has responsibility for other lottery distributors.

  No. 10 Downing Street (Receptions)
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Prime Minister who hosted the reception held at No. 10 Downing street on(a) 7 November 1994 and (b) Monday 6 November 1995. [23724]

  The Prime Minister
  My wife hosted a reception on 7 November 1994. There was no reception on 6 November 1995.

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister how many pieces of existing Community legislation have been repealed or amended in each of the past three years. [23698]

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Much new Council and Commission legislation supersedes, repeals or amends existing legislation.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers have hosted non-official party receptions of functions in No. 10 Downing street since July 1993. [23605]

  The Prime Minister
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has hosted three receptions since July 1993.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the functions for industrialists held at No. 10 Downing street which were attended by the chairman of the Conservation party since November 1990. [23777]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, none.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he will bring forward to the international community to address health problems among the population of Iraq. [23757]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 March 1996]: United Nations Security Council resolution 986 is designed to bring much-needed relief to the people of Iraq by permitting the sale of oil to purchase more humanitarian supplies. Iraq has so far refused to implement the resolution. We, and a number of other countries, already give substantial support to humanitarian projects in Iraq, many of which specifically address health needs. Food and medical supplies are not subject to United Nations sanction.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Minister if he will make it his policy to compensate fully any person who has contracted CJD from beef since 1989. [23602]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 March 1996]: Any claim for compensation would be considered within the framework of the Government's legal obligations.

TREASURY

  Capital Projects (Voluntary Contributions)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make voluntary contributions to capital projects tax deductible. [21879]

  Mr. Jack
  Voluntary contributions to capital projects will commonly be tax deductible under the present system. For instance, a person who, for the purposes of his or his tenant's trade, contributes towards another's capital expenditure can generally claim capital allowances on that contribution. And businesses can have a deduction in calculating business profits for tax purposes for
  3
  contributions to a capital project if the expenditure is revenue in nature and incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

  Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines are currently in force in his Department and its executive agencies relating to competitive tendering and the use of single negotiated tenders; on what grounds single negotiated tenders can be used; and what procedures are in place within his Department to ensure that the use of single negotiated tenders in competitive tendering processes is justified in all cases. [22860]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  It is Treasury policy that all contracts to be placed by the Department with a potential value of over £10,000 should be the subject of a competitive under tender. The Government's public purchasing policy consolidated guidelines require goods and services to be acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary, such as(a) the requirement cannot be sufficiently defined so that normal tendering procedures cannot be adopted; (b) there are insufficient firms in the market capable or willing to bid; (c) intellectual property rights restrict the options available; or (d) extreme urgency, where for example public safety is at risk. All competitive tenders are processed by the Department's purchasing unit. Cases for single tendering are put to the unit where they are evaluated on an individual basis, following the guidelines.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many contracts for goods or services have been awarded by his Department and executive agencies on the basis of single negotiated contracts in each of the last three years; if he will list the companies involved and the value of the contract in each case; what percentage this represented of contracts awarded by his Department and its agencies after competitive tendering; and, in each case, why the contracts were awarded on the basis of a single negotiated tender. [22872]

  Mrs. Knight
  It is Treasury policy that all purchases made by the Department should be subject to competition. Each exception is treated on its merits. Individual contracts would each need to be checked to determine the overall number in this category, the value of each such contract and the reason why it was awarded on a single course basis. This information could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures for United Kingdom exports of manufactures in the form of the first three lines of the table in page 31 of the March OECD main economic indicators. [22959]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The best available estimates of values of UK exports of manufactures in US dollars at 1991 prices can be made from information available from the CSO database which may be accessed by the House of Commons Library.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost of answering parliamentary questions in each parliamentary Session since 1989–90. [22902]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The estimated cost of answering questions to Treasury Ministers is given in the list:

  1989–90: £219,000

  1990–91: £164.000

  1991–92: £104,000

  1992–93: £342,000

  1993–94: £208,000

  1994–95: £256,000.

  These figures are based on service-wide average costs and assume that half the questions tabled for oral answer were in fact answered in writing.

  EDS Software
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what out-sourcing contracts his agencies have with the EDS software computer system; what is the current cost; when the contract ends; what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [23740]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  None of these agencies holds out-sourcing contracts with the EDS software computer system.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the terms of contract the Inland Revenue has with the EDS computer system; and if he will make a statement. [23718]

  Mr. Jack
  I am unable, on the ground of commercial confidentiality, to give any details of specific provisions contained with the contract between Inland Revenue and EDS.

  Season Tickets (Taxation)
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of revenue which the Treasury accrued in the financial year 1994–95 from the taxation of staff perquisites in relation to bus and rail season tickets. [23711]

  Mr. Jack
  Employees are generally liable to income tax on vouchers provided for free or cheap travel. Where the employee takes a cheap or interest-free loan from the employer to purchase a season ticket, no tax is chargeable if the total balance outstanding does not exceed £5,000 at any time in the year of assessment in question.

  Estimates of the revenue raised from the taxation of these vouchers and loans are not available.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in real take-home pay for (i) a one-earner couple with two children and (ii) a single person on(a) 75 per cent., (b) 100 per cent. and (c) 150 per cent. of average male earnings, in pounds per week at 1995–96 prices, to the nearest 5p in the years 1990–91 to 1991–92 and 1992–93 to 1993–94. [22388]
  5
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 25 March 1996]: The information requested is contained in the table.

  Change in real take-home pay (£s per week to the nearest Sp 1995–96 prices)

  Percentage of male average earnings

  75 per cent.

  100 per cent.

  150 per cent.

  1990–91 to 1991–921

  One-earner couple with 2 children2

  5.95

  7.40

  9.10

  Single

  5.40

  6.80

  9.10

  1992–93 to 1993–942

  One-earner couple with 2 children2

  3.35

  4.30

  6.20

  Single

  3.10

  4.05

  3.30

  1Two child benefit regimes were in operation during 1991–92—one covering April 1991 to September 1991 and one from October 1991 to March 1992. The year average of the two regimes is used in this calculation.

  2Child benefit is treated as a negative income tax.

  Tax Reliefs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual expected cost to the Exchequer of the tax reliefs on(a) personal equity plans, (b) tax-exempt special savings accounts and (c) national savings products, in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97. [22776]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: The latest estimates are in the table.

  Estimated total cost of tax relief

  1995–961 2 £million

  1996–971 2 3 £ million

  PEPs4

  450

  650

  TESSAs

  450

  350

  National Savings Products5

  350

  350

  1Provisional

  2These figures are tentative and subject to a wide margin of error. They have been rounded to the nearest £25 million.

  3The cost will fall in 1996–97 due to the reduction in the basic rate of income tax on savings from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. and follow-up accounts starting with only the capital (but none of the interest or bonuses) from the first TESSA.

  4Including the CGT cost of capital gains within Personal Equity plans.

  5Cost of exemption of interest on National Savings Certificates including index-linked Certificates, and first £70 of National Savings bank ordinary account interest.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the revenue which would be raised by introducing a new upper rate of income tax of(a) 45 per cent. and (b) 50 per cent. for marginal incomes above (1) £75,000 per annum, (2) £80,000 per annum, (3) £100,000 per annum and (4) £1,000,000 per annum; and if he will estimate, in each case, the number of individuals whose post-tax incomes would be affected. [22687]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: Estimated full-year yields at 1996–97 income levels are given in the table. The estimates do not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the
  6
  introduction of such changes. It is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the effect of introducing the higher tax rates for taxable incomes over £1,000,000.

  Lower limit of taxable income

  Full year revenue yield at 1996–97 income levels Upper rate1

  Number of taxpayers affected

  £

  45 per cent. £ billion

  50 per cent. £ billion

  Thousands

  75,000

  0.8

  1.5

  190

  80,000

  0.7

  1.4

  170

  100,000

  0.6

  1.1

  110

  1The figures include consequential effects on the yield of capital gains tax.

  Tax-free Lump Sums on Retirement
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the revenue consequence of restricting the tax-free lump sum on retirement to £75,000. [22689]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 March 1996]: I regret that the information required to provide such an estimate is not available because detailed figures on tax free payments are not required for tax administration. The current level of the earnings cap is £78,600 and from 6 April 1996 it will rise to £82,200, giving a maximum lump sum of £123,300.

  Orders
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many orders under the negative resolution procedure have been brought into effect on the day they have been made since January 1995. [23316]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 29 March 1996]: None.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Defence Exports
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to establish a launch aid scheme for defence export products. [23685]

  Mr. Eggar
  None. The promotion of defence export product is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The statutory basis for launch aid is the Civil Aviation Act 1982.

  Aerospace Technology
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what additional support has been given to the Society of British Aerospace Companies' competitiveness challenge since the 1995 report from the technology foresight panel. [23691]

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has fully supported and the Society of British Aerospace Companies' competitiveness challenge to increase the aerospace industries' competitiveness.

  In addition to the £86,000 given to the competitiveness challenge, prior to the publication of the technology foresight panel's report in 1995, DTI has provided further

  7
  direct financial assistance to the programme of £165,000 as well as a full-time DTI member of staff, seconded to the SBAC.

  DTI has also provided £50,000 to the competitiveness challenge-related supply chain relationships in aerospace initiative.

  Ms Squire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what additional support has been given to the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council's innovative manufacturing initiative since the 1995 report from the technology foresight panel. [23690]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The EPSRC's allocation for 1996–97 is £375.95 million. None of this has been specifically allocated by Government to the innovative manufacturing initiative and it is for EPSRC to decide how much to spend on it.

  UK Space Agency
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to create a UK space agency with a dedicated space budget. [23687]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The UK's expenditure on civil space programmes, totalling some £180 million a year, is co-ordinated by the British national space centre, which comprises eight Government Departments, agencies and research councils.

  British Coal
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether permission was(a) sought from the guarantor and (b) given by the guarantor for British Coal's action in appropriating the assets of the industrial death and retirement fund. [23515]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation. I understand, however, that the industrial death and retirement scheme—it was not a fund—had no guarantor. British Coal retains the liability to meet all entitlements under the scheme, and informed my Department of its plans before the scheme closed in January 1995.

  Life Assurance (Orphan Assets)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding his Department's policy on the disposal of orphan assets held by the life assurance industry: and if he will make a statement. [23995]

  Mr. Nelson
  My Department's general approach to this question was set out by my hon. Friend the then Minister for Corporate Affairs on 24 February 1995,Official Report, columns 362–63, in the context of an announcement by the United Friendly Insurance Co. about attribution of its estate. Since then, a number of life offices have announced that they are entering discussions with my Department over the attribution of their long-term funds. In addition, the Department has received representations from some 20 interested parties.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the value of orphan assets currently held by the life assurance industry. [23996]
  8
  Mr. Nelson
  A precise figure is not available. Any estimate is subject to a wide margin of error because of the differences in the circumstances of individual companies. In aggregate, the unattributed assets of long-term funds of proprietary life offices are likely to be of the order of £20 billion to £25 billion. I expect much of this to remain undistributed within the funds for the foreseeable future.

  British Business (Cuba and United States)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action the British Government intend to take to ensure that British businesses are not adversely affected by the United States Cuba Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act. [23077]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 27 March 1996]: The key provisions of this legislation are titles III and IV. Title III introduces a private right of action in the US courts for US nationals against non-US persons allegedly trafficking in property expropriated from US nationals in Cuba. Title IV excludes from the US any alien, including company officials and controlling shareholders, allegedly trafficking in confiscated property, a claim to which is owned by a US national.

  The impact of the legislation on British business will depend on the way in which it is implemented by the US Administration and the US courts. The UK, the EU and other Governments have made a number of representations to the US authorities on the matter and the Government are considering what further action might be appropriate.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the value of the loan guaranteed by his Department to Porthocurno Management Co. Ltd. under the loan guarantee scheme in 1994 and the value of the guarantee that was assessed when the company was dissolved. [22569]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 25 March 1996]: This information is commercially confidential between the Department and the lender.

  I can confirm the Department has paid a demand under the guarantee to the sum of £70,601.16.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EDS Software
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what out-sourcing contracts his agencies have with the EDS software computer system; what is the current cost; when the contract ends; what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [23726]

  Mr. Hanley
  The executive agencies of this Department have no contracts for software computer systems with EDS.

  New York Assembly Bill
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by United Kingdom diplomats in the United States of America on the New York Assembly Bill, Ref. A6510/S4880, amending the education law in relation to instruction on genocide and mass starvation in Ireland from 1845 to 1850; and if he will make a statement. [23222]

  Mr. Rifkind
  None. The consulate-general in New York, who is monitoring the legislation closely, believes that this Bill is unlikely to pass into law.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated audience for BBC World Service English language broadcasts in each of the 10 countries with most listeners; and from which 10 countries the most audience letters are annually received with the numbers involved. [23224]

  Mr. Hanley
  The estimated audiences for BBC World Service English language broadcasts are as follows:

  Top 10 countries (excluding UK)

  Country

  Audience (millions)

  Nigeria

  7.5

  India

  5.5

  USA

  3.5

  Australia

  1.9

  Ghana

  1.1

  Ethiopia

  0.9

  Kenya

  0.9

  Bangladesh

  0.8

  Germany

  0.7

  Uganda

  0.7

  Total

  23.5

  The UK domestic audience is estimated at 1.3 million.

  The highest numbers of letters in 1995 were received from the following countries:

  Country

  Letters

  India

  172,000

  Burma

  78,700

  Nigeria

  32,400

  Indonesia

  29,000

  China

  25,800

  Pakistan

  19,000

  Sri Lanka

  10,800

  Algeria

  10,400

  Egypt

  9,800

  Somalia1

  3,500

  1A further 4,000+ letters originated in Somalia but were posted via other countries, assisted by the Red Cross.

  The World Service received 13,400 letters from the UK in 1995.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what would be the annual cost and the estimated savings involved in rebroadcasting BBC Home Service programmes on to the 10
  current schedule of the World Service or the proposed World Service news and current affairs channel; and if he will make a statement. [23225]

  Mr. Hanley
  Programme content is a matter for the BBC World Service. English language programmes are prepared for a global audience. Most listeners have English as a second language. Many have no first-hand knowledge of the UK. BBC Home Service programmes are meant for a UK audience, but the World Service uses them when appropriate.

  The BBC has made no estimate of the cost of rebroadcasting domestic material since most of it is unsuitable for its global audience.

  WEU (Irish Republic)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what commitments the Irish Republic was required to make in relation to territorial claims on fellow members of the Western European Union when it applied for observer status of that organisation; and if he will make a statement of the compatibility of such claims with the WEU's European defence policy. [23226]

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Rome declaration of 20 November 1992 on WEU observers, which recorded the invitation to the Republic of Ireland to become an observer, does not incorporate any such commitments. We do not regard the Irish constitutional position as incompatible with observer status in WEU.

  Refugees (Croatia)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to ensure the safe return of the refugee followers of Fikret Abdic from Kolaric in Croatia to their homes in Velika Kladusa; and what instructions have been given to United Kingdom forces in Bihac in respect of this matter. [23223]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  All but 5,900 followers of Fikret Abdic have returned to Bosnia. The rest remain in the Kuplensko refugee camp in Croatia. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Croatian authorities have decided to close the camp. Those who do not wish to return to Bosnia will be moved further away from the border until permanent arrangements for their future are worked out.

  There are no British units based in Bihac.

  Appeals Mechanisms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many appeals mechanisms, as laid out in section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, he expects to establish by the end of 1996; how many staff each appeals system will employ; and what their estimated annual running costs will be. [23613]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which commercial bank applied for a banking licence on St. Helena prior to 1996; for what reasons it was not granted; and if he will make a statement. [23625]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The Bank of Nova Scotia applied for a banking licence in 1994, but subsequently withdrew its application.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average gross annual income on the island of St. Helena of each quartile of those employed in(a) the private sector and (b) the public sector. [23626]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Information in the form requested cannot be extracted from the statistical data.

ENVIRONMENT

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for England and for each English local authority for the latest year for which figures are available(a) the number of contracts put out to competitive tender, (b) the number and percentage of those bids which were won by in-house teams, (c) the number and percentage of those bids won by other local authority-managed teams and (d) the number and percentage of those bids won by private companies; and what was the political control of each authority in the relevant year. [23380]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not held centrally. The Local Government Management Board publishes survey reports of its CCT information service which give information about eight areas of activity covered by the Local Government Act 1988. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Policy Planning Guidance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the date he originally announced for the publication of the revised guidance PPG6; and when he now expects the guidance to be published. [23669]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No date has been announced for the publication of the revised PPG6, but I expect to be in a position to publish in May.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received asking for publication of the revised PPG6. [23670]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have received no representations, but we have had a number of inquiries about the publication date.

  Butchers (Rate Reduction)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if a reduction in uniform business rate will be made for butchers with stocks of unsold beef. [23768]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have no plans to make such a reduction.

  Water Industry
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will issue his consultation paper on proposals for promoting greater competition in the water industry.[24287]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have today issued a consultation paper on extending competition and customer choice in water and sewerage services.

  Competition is the best guarantee for consumers that they receive value for money, better services and lower prices. The Government are looking to increase progressively competition in the water industry within a strong regulatory framework designed to ensure effective protection and enhancement of water quality and the environment. The proposals in this consultation document, "Water—Increasing Customer Choice", mark an important step in this process.

  In summary, the proposals which have been developed in consultation with the Director General of Water Services, would:
  Introduce scope for water suppliers to compete for customers through the shared use of water mains. This "common carriage" arrangement would involve the use of an existing supplier's pipework by other suppliers in order to provide individual customers with a choice of supplier. "Common carriage" opportunities would allow any existing water undertaker or new supplier to compete for "large users" with a view to extending competition to other customers in the future.
  Introduced safeguards to ensure that standards of water quality and reliability of supply are maintained and to enable the Director of Water Services to protect customers of the existing water undertakers.
  Introduce similar "common carriage" provisions in the sewerage industry.
  Extend the existing scope for "inset appointments" which allow a new water or waste water undertaker to be appointed to supply an area within an existing undertaker's area of appointment. Proposed changes would allow such appointment to be for limited periods only and increase the number of opportunities for their use.
  Remove the existing restrictions on cross-border supply to enable a water undertaker to supply water for non-domestic purposes to customers in the area of another licensed undertaker.
  Remove the water undertaker's monopoly on making connections to the water main.

  The Director General of Water Services intends to issue a further consultation paper on the regulation of common carriage agreements.

  Competition provides opportunities for customers to choose the combination of price and service which best meets their particular needs. Where such choice does not already exist, competition offers operators the opportunity to provide it where they believe it would be profitable to do so.

  Copies of this consultation paper, on which comments are requested by 1 July 1996, have been placed in the Library.

  Abattoir Waste
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what regulations exist to control disposal of waste from abattoirs(a) in water catchment areas, (b) in areas used for grazing and (c) adjacent to public rights of way; [23214]
  13
  (2) if the spreading of blood and gut contents on land will be brought within waste management regulations. [23237]

  Mr. Clappison
  The disposal of substances discarded as waste by abattoirs is controlled under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. These controls also apply to such wastes which are recycled by spreading on land for the benefit of agriculture. The objective of these controls is to ensure that waste is disposed of, or recycled, without endangering human health or harming the environment. The Environment Agency is responsible from 1 April 1996 for the administration and enforcement of the waste management licensing system.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies have been carried out into potential human health risks associated with the distribution of abattoir waste(a) in water catchment areas, (b) in areas used for grazing and (c) adjacent to public rights of way. [23215]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department, together with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the national Rivers Authority, is funding research to provide guidance on the landspreading of industrial wastes, including abattoir waste. A prime objective of the research is to provide technical, scientific and practical guidance on the spreading of industrial wastes on land in a manner that protects human health and the environment as required by article 4 of the waste framework directive 91/156/EEC.

  The results of the research will be published by the Environment Agency.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what level of advice he receives from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food relating to the disposal of abattoir waste(a) in water catchment areas, (b) in areas used for grazing and (c) adjacent to public rights of way. [23216]

  Mr. Clappison
  The code of good agricultural practice for the protection of water, jointly prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Welsh Office Agriculture Department, provides guidance on the application of wastes from animal processing to all types of agricultural land.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring takes places of the effectiveness of the code of good practice for the protection of water following the disposal of abattoir waste in water catchment areas. [23220]

  Mr. Clappison
  The spreading of waste on land for the benefit of agriculture or ecological improvement is a recovery operation for the purposes of the amended EC framework directive on waste; and is controlled under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. The objective of these controls is to ensure that waste is recovered without endangering human health or harming the environment.

  It is an offence under section 33 of the 1990 Act to carry out this operation without a waste management licence or contrary to the conditions of a licence or a licence exemption. The administration and enforcement of
  14
  the licensing system are the responsibility of waste regulation authorities whose functions are transferred to the Environment Agency with effect from 1 April 1996.

  The National Rivers Authority also has statutory duties and powers to protect the aquatic environment from pollution and the authority is required to monitor water quality and investigate pollution incidents. The authority's functions are also transferred to the Environment Agency with effect from 1 April 1996.

  Any pollution incidents that result from abattoir waste being spread in contravention of these controls will be taken into account when the "Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water" is reviewed.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the oral answer of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 26 February,Official Report, column 576, if he will list those statutory instruments and Acts of Parliament which have been gold plated in the past five years; and what steps he is taking to amend or repeal each piece of gold plating on existing legislation.[23637]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government's policy is not to add unnecessary burdens when implementing EC directives. Departments take every opportunity to review existing legislation in the light of this. Officials are currently working on revised guidance to enable Ministers to see where implementing legislation goes beyond the underlying EC directive.

  Appeals Mechanisms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals mechanisms, as laid out in section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, he expects to establish by the end of 1996; how many staff each appeals system will employ; and what their estimated annual running costs will be. [23615]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Shopping Centres
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers are available to local authorities to enable them to maintain the competitiveness of town and city shopping centres against out-of-town shopping centres; and if he will make a statement. [24020]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Local authorities can help by ensuring that the services for which they are responsible are delivered as effectively and efficiently as possible. This includes providing a clear planning framework and local plan that properly reflects the principles set out in PPG6—retailing and town centres—and PPG13—transport.

  Environment Agency
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he has taken in respect of potential conflicts of interests for members of the board
  15
  of the Environment Agency who are professionally engaged in industries that must be licensed by the agency with particular reference to the chairman of Ready Mixed Concrete. [23775]

  Mr. Clappison
  The statutory requirements in respect of agency board members' interests are set out in schedule 1 to the Environment Act 1995. Agency board members were required by their terms of appointment to abide by the Department's general guidance on the declaration and registration of interests—both financial and non-financial—until the agency had drawn up and issued its own guidance. The agency is required to draw up a code of practice for its board members, based on the Government's general code of best practice for board members of public bodies, for approval by the Department. This will incorporate guidance on the declaration and registration of interests.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further action is needed to implement Council directive 91/689/EEC as amended by 94/31/EC, the hazardous waste directive. [24369]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Special Waste Regulations 1996 were laid before Parliament today and will come into force on 1 September 1996 and implement Council directive No. 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste as amended by Council directive 94/31/EC. These regulations replace the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980.

  The main provisions of the 1996 regulations are to:
  introduce new criteria for determining whether or not waste is special;
  require pre-notification of movements to the Environment Agency by consignment note;
  provide better descriptions of wastes and their associated hazards by means of a revised design for the consignment note;
  simplify arrangements for repetitive movements and collection rounds;
  ban mixing by carriers and consignees of categories of special wastes, and of special with non-special wastes, unless for safe disposal;
  require periodic inspections by regulators of special waste producers; and
  introduce fees for many consignments of special wastes.

  The new regulations contain a number of deregulatory initiatives, designed to make the system easier to operate, while ensuring that special waste is soundly managed, and safely reaches appropriate facilities. Provisions include specific criteria for determining whether or not waste is special, to keep to a minimum the number of wastes which will be subject to these regulations, consistent with the overall aim of securing adequate levels of environmental protection.

  These regulations also introduce fees, in line with the "polluter pays" principle, and to recover the costs incurred by the environment agencies for ensuring compliance with the regulations. A fee of £15 will be payable for most consignments. Consignments of automotive lead-acid batteries will attract a fee of £10 because they will be subject to lower levels of regulation.
  16
  Public consultation was carried out in March 1995 on the proposed regulations and accompanying guidance. The regulations have been modified to reflect the concerns and interests of industry, regulators and the public in response to those consultations. The Government are satisfied that these regulations will continue to ensure the environmentally sound management of special waste movements within Great Britain.

  Waste Disposal Inquiry (Kent)
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the report from the inspector involved in the public inquiry on Kent county council's waste disposal plan to be available. [23430]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 29 March 1996]: The inspector's report on objections to the Kent waste local plan is expected to be issued to Kent county council in April 1996. It will be for the council to decide when to publish the report. I have asked the Planning Inspectorate's chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from D. E. John to Dame Peggy Fenner, dated 28 March 1996:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has asked me to reply to your question about the Inspector's report on objections to the Kent Waste Local Plan.
  The report is expected to be issued to Kent County Council in April 1996. It will be for the Council to decide when to publish it.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Early-day Motions
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the total annual cost to public funds of early-day motions. [23643]

  Mr. Newton
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office estimates that the total cost to public funds of producing EDMs in the Official Report, for the Session 1994–95, was £1,868,000.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the average number of signatures added to early-day motions per week. [23642]

  Mr. Newton
  The parliamentary on-line information service database records that, from 15 November 1995 until 26 March 1996, 28,842 signatures were added to EDMs over 77 sitting days, averaging 374.57 per day.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  HMSO
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what outstanding loans HMSO has; and from what source these loans come; [23251]

  (2) what plans there are to extend or replace the HMSO service level agreement that is held with the Ministry of Defence; [23255]

  (3) what service level agreements HMSO holds with other Government Departments; and which of these are due to expire during 1996; [23253]
  17
  (4) on what date the HMSO 1996 accounts are expected to be published. [23256]

  (5) what is the value of goods and services supplied by HMSO under the Ministry of Defence service level agreement. [23254]

  Mr. Freeman
  As these are purely operational matters, I have asked the chief executive of HMSO to reply directly to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from Mike Lynn to Mr. Derek Foster, dated 28 March 1996:
  I have been asked by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to reply to your Parliamentary Questions Nos 140, 141, 142, 145 and 146. The information is as follows:
  140. As at 26 March 1996, HMSO had one outstanding loan of £12m, advanced from the National Loans Fund.
  141. New service agreements were signed with the MOD on 13 March 1996, for both office supplies and print. These agreements will run for two years.
  145. HMSO normally publishes its Trading Fund Accounts at the end of April. Subject to audit, we expect to do the same this year.
  146. In 1995, £25m of office stationery products and £11m of print were supplied to the MOD.
  142. HMSO currently holds the following major service level agreements with other Government departments:

  Customer

  HMSO Business

  Expiry date

  Passport Agency

  Security Print

  1999

  Benefits Agency

  Security Print

  1998

  OPCS

  Security Print

  1997

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  Security Print

  1999

  National Savings

  Security Print

  2000

  DSS

  Print and Logistics

  1997

  IR

  Print and Logistics

  1997

  UKPA

  Print and Logistics

  1996

  F&CO

  Print and Logistics

  1996

  DNS

  London Print

  1998

  MOD

  Norwich Print

  1998

  MOD

  Office Supplies

  1998

  DSS

  Office Supplies

  1996

  IR

  Office Supplies

  1998

  Home Office

  Office Supplies

  1997

  C&E

  Office Supplies

  1997

  LCD

  Office Supplies

  1996

  Emp. & Ed

  Office Supplies

  1997

  Environment

  Office Supplies

  1997

  Scottish Office

  Scotland

  1997

  GPS/NI

  Northern Ireland

  1997

  DENI

  Northern Ireland

  1996

  IR

  Business Systems

  1997

  DSS

  Business Systems

  1996

  DVLA

  Business Systems

  1997

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the House will be given full details of the information memorandum related to the proposed sale of HMSO. [23257]

  Mr. Freeman
  The information memorandum is a commercially sensitive document to which access is carefully controlled in order to protect HMSO's business and the interests of the Government in the sale process. I do not intend therefore to make the information memorandum generally available. However, in accordance with the undertaking which I gave to the 18
  Finance and Services Select Committee when I appeared before it on 21 November 1995, I shall provide the information memorandum to the Committee Clerk.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what leasehold and freehold properties are to be included with the proposed sale of HMSO. [23252]

  Mr. Freeman
  The intention is that all freehold and leasehold properties occupied by HMSO at the time of the sale, with the exception of suite B, St. Clement's house, should be included with the proposed sale.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 328, what was the cost of printing and distribution for the two booklets "Getting a Good Deal in Europe" and "Checking the Cost of Regulation"; and when he intends to distribute the remaining copies of these publications.[23640]

  Mr. Freeman
  The cost of printing the two booklets was:

  £

  "Getting a good deal in Europe … Deregulatory Principles in Practice"

  8,062

  "Checking the Cost of Regulation: A Guide to Compliance Cost Assessment"

  8,666

  The costs of distribution are not separately identified.

  Current stocks are intended to last the lifetime of the booklets and are made freely available to officials throughout Government and to others with an interest as and when they are needed. I have also sent copies of the compliance cost assessment booklet to my ministerial counterparts in other member states.

  Appeals Mechanisms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many appeals mechanisms, as laid out in section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, he expects to establish by the end of 1996; how many staff each appeals system will employ; and what their estimated annual running costs will be. [23614]

  Mr. Freeman
  As I made clear in my response to my hon. friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) on 11 March,Official Report, columns 464–65, consultation on a draft statutory instrument setting out provisions for the model appeals mechanism is currently in progress. Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Library and I have asked for replies by 11 May this year.

  Under section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act, there will be only one model mechanism. This model will be considered for all appeals against enforcement action in appropriate legislation.

  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what targets he has set for Property Advisers to the Civil Estate on its creation as an executive agency in his Department. [24354]
  19
  Mr. Freeman
  PACE has today been established as an executive agency in the Office of Public Service. Its main aims are to enable Departments to achieve best overall value for money in the management of their property assets, by providing advisory and co-ordination services, and to carry out residual functions of disposing of inherited vacant property and collecting opportunity cost rents. I have set performance targets for its first year 1996–97:

  (i) to identify savings from proposals to be agreed with Departments for the co-ordination of property activities on the civil estate which in total should exceed the agency's related running costs;

  (ii) to recover 100 per cent. of the costs of providing intelligent client services;

  (iii) to contain expenditure on vacant properties within an annual net provision of £110 million;

  (iv) to recover 100 per cent. of opportunity cost rents due;

  (v) to recover 100 per cent. of the costs of the Whitehall district heating system.

  I have today placed copies of the agency's framework document in the Library of the House.

  Chessington Computer Centre
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what key targets have been set for the Chessington Computer Centre trading fund for the current financial year.[24353]

  Mr. Freeman
  My primary objective for Chessington Computer Centre is to implement its privatisation this summer. However, until that is achieved, Chessington will be managed with the following key targets for 1996–97:

  (1) to achieve an operating surplus of £223,000;

  (2) to increase pay clerk productivity by 7 per cent. over 1995–96 performance;

  (3) to increase use of the on-line data capture system (SPIRE) to 60 per cent. for a new major customer;

  (4) to maintain the minimum on-line service availability at 98.5 per cent.

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made with the establishment of the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency as a next steps executive agency. [24355]

  Mr. Freeman
  I am pleased to announce that I have today established the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency as a next steps executive agency. The arrangements for CCTA are fully described in its framework document, copies of which will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The purpose of CCTA is to improve the delivery of public services by developing, maintaining and making available, expertise about information technology which public sector organisations will draw on in order to operate more effectively and efficiently.

  I have set CCTA the following targets for 1996–97:
  to break even on a accruals basis after taking into account payments from the Office of Public Service in relation to transitional costs and the provision of "common good" services, and to operate within PES and supply estimates provision;
  20
  to secure and provide procurement services and best practice consultancy to the value of at least £6.2 million on a full cost recovery basis;
  to secure and provide telecommunications services to the value of £11.6 million;
  to establish, validate and to have approved ready for implementation for 1997–98 quantified performance measures for the financial, quality of service, customer satisfaction and efficiency aspects of the agency's performance.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Consultative Group for Kenya
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Paris meeting of the consultative group for Kenya. [23151]

  Mr. Hanley
  The consultative group for Kenya met at the invitation of the World bank in Paris on 21 to 22 March. Donors welcomed recent positive developments in Kenya's economic policies and the publication of a new policy framework paper, while underlining the importance of a range of good governance issues. The UK announced the immediate release of £5.1 million of programme aid, to support civil service reforms. A copy of the World bank's press statement has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the St. Helena tourism bureau commenced operations; what is its annual budget; and how many(a) local and (b) non-island staff it employs. [23624]

  Mr. Hanley
  No tourism bureau exists on St. Helena. A consultancy visit in the near future arranged by the World Tourism Organisation, under United Nations Development Programme auspices, will help advise the St. Helena Government on future arrangements for tourism development.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many copies of "Investing in St. Helena" were printed on behalf of the St. Helena development agency; at what total production cost; how and where they were distributed; and if he will make a statement.[23801]

  Mr. Hanley
  Some 1,000 copies of the booklet were produced at a total production cost of £2,891. Copies were sent to UK chambers of commerce; South Africa chambers of commerce; individuals and companies that had previously expressed an interest in investment in St. Helena; and to the UK representative of St. Helena.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of the people of the British Isles were capable of qualifying for legal aid in 1966; what is the latest corresponding figure; and if he will make a statement. [21927]
  21
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Department has no estimates of eligibility for 1966. The Department's estimate of the proportion of households in England and Wales currently eligible for civil legal aid is 48 per cent.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received about legal aid in civil cases. [21929]

  Mr. Evans
  I have received many representations recently on legal aid in civil cases.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applications for legal aid over £10,000 have been awarded by the Legal Aid Board during the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [21932]

  Mr. Evans
  Information prior to 1993–94 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The number of civil legal aid certificates where the Legal Aid Board paid gross costs in excess of £10,000 for the following years was as follows:

  1993–94: 5,437

  1994–95: 7,346.

  In addition, the Legal Aid Board paid gross costs of over £10,000 for criminal legal aid in the magistrates courts as follows.

  1993–94: 356

  1994–95: 389.

  The Legal Aid Board is not responsible for payment of legal aid bills for work done in the higher criminal courts. Those bills are paid directly by the Lord Chancellor's Department and it is estimated that in 1993–94 and 1994–95, the Department paid gross costs of over £10,000 for criminal legal aid in the higher courts as follows:

  1993–94: 3,125

  1994–95: 3,500.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the operations of the Legal Aid Board. [21935]

  Mr. Evans
  The day-to-day operations of the Legal Aid Board are a matter for its chief executive. The board's annual report, which sets out its performance, is available in the House Library.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the(a) gross cost and (b) net cost of the legal aid fund in (i) 1979, (ii) 1989 and (iii) the last year for which figures are available. [23161]

  Mr. Evans
  The gross and net costs of the legal aid fund in 1979–80, 1989–90 and 1994–95, being the latest year for which figures are available are:

  £ million

  Gross cost

  Net cost

  1979–80

  124

  98

  1989–90

  716

  565

  1994–95

  1,598

  1,299

  Judicial Vacancies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of judicial vacancies were advertised in 1995. [21928]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Over half the appointments to the full-time professional judiciary in 1995 were made following either advertisement or notice to eligible candidates where eligibility is restricted. The equivalent figure for the part-time professional judiciary was about 20 per cent.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received on the working of the magistrates courts. [21930]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I receive frequent representations on the working of the magistrates courts.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what advice he has given to judges in respect of dealing with cases in which a public interest immunity certificate relating to the suppression of evidence has been issued. [21931]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None. Decisions on such claims are matters solely for the courts.

  Family Law Bill
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what have been the principal issues which were raised in representations to him about the Family Law Bill during March. [21933]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I received representations on the Family Law Bill on a number of issues during March. The principal issues were: reconciliation and support for marriage, the use of allegations of fault, the professional competence of mediators, the influence of conduct on financial settlements and the timing of finance and property orders.

  Advice and Representations to HM the Queen
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are his responsibilities in respect of(a) giving advice and (b) making representations to Her Majesty the Queen in her private capacity. [21934]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 4 March 1996,Official Report, column 73.

  Community Care Policy
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what information his Department collates on judicial reviews of community care policy. [24155]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.
  23
  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 1 April 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to the above question about judicial reviews of community care policy.
  Statistics on judicial review relate only to the total number of cases. No separate information is collated on judicial review of community care policy.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Sickness Rates
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of regional variations in sickness rates(a) in the civil service, (b) elsewhere in the public sector and (c) in other employment. [22377]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table gives an assessment of regional variations in sickness rates in the civil service. The Department has not made an assessment of sickness rates for elsewhere in the public sector or in other employment.

  Sickness Absence in the Civil Service 1994: CS Occupational Health and Safety Agency Report

  Average working days absence per staff-year by region.

  Region

  Unadjusted

  Adjusted

  1993

  1994

  1993

  1994

  North West

  11.8

  11.2

  10.5

  10.6

  Scotland

  11.7

  10.1

  10.9

  10.0

  Wales

  11.2

  10.0

  9.4

  9.3

  North East

  11.2

  9.7

  9.9

  8.9

  West Midlands

  9.4

  8.9

  8.6

  8.5

  Northern Ireland

  9.2

  9.4

  8.5

  8.4

  South East

  8.9

  8.1

  8.7

  8.3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  9.3

  8.3

  8.6

  8.1

  East Midlands

  9.2

  8.5

  8.3

  8.0

  South West

  8.3

  7.5

  7.9

  7.4

  East Anglia

  8.5

  7.6

  7.9

  7.3

  Civil Service average

  10.1

  8.9

  —

  —

  Having adjusted for the factors affecting sickness absence which have been considered earlier in this Report (age, gender and grade level), there remain substantial differences between regions. The North West has the highest rate of absence of all Regions, followed by Scotland and Wales. East Anglia and the South West were clearly the regions of lowest absence.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money has been made available for each year since 1990 for information technology initiatives(a) for initial teacher training and (b) in schools; and if she will make a statement.[22556]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has given a central lead to the development of information technology in schools since the early 1980s. It is not possible to isolate the initial teacher training element.

  The main source of the Department's financial support is provided through the grants for education support and training programme. The specific GEST
  24
  allocations for IT in schools in the five years from 1990–91 to 1994–95 were: £19.8 million, £30.4 million, £30 million, £30 million, and £21.9 million.

  In 1995–96 and 1996–97 support for IT in schools continues to be available through the school effectiveness GEST programme. Eligible expenditure, which attracts grant at the rate of 60 per cent., includes IT equipment, upgrades and software, the installation of networking, the cost of teacher training provision and the employment of IT advisory teachers.

  Over the period from 1990–91 to 1995–96, the Department has also separately made available funding in excess of £22 million to pilot new technologies; to stimulate software development focused on the needs of the national curriculum; to provide additional funding to equip many schools with multimedia technologies, and to support the development of the effective use of IT in individual curriculum subjects, the primary phase and with children with special educational needs.

  In addition, the Department has made an annual grant available, in the region of £5 million per annum, to support the work of the National Council for Educational Technology to help schools use IT effectively for curriculum and administrative purposes.

  Community Self-build Schemes
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what circumstances unemployed benefit recipients who are engaged in community self-build housing schemes from October 1996, will be required to limit their self-build participation to(a) 21 hours and (b) 16 hours in a week; and if the figures will be the same for (i) those carrying out self-build work on a voluntary basis, (ii) self-builders participating in training and enterprise council-funded training programmes and (iii) those participating in European social fund-funded programmes. [23058]

  Mr. Forth
  The Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996 make no special provisions for people who participate in self-build housing schemes. To be entitled to JSA all jobseekers must be available for and actively seeking employment, and not in remunerative work for 16 hours or more per week as defined in the JSA regulations. The current approach in income support that those involved in self-build schemes will not usually be treated as engaged in remunerative work will be carried forward into JSA. Each claim from a jobseeker who participates in a self-build scheme will be considered on the individual facts of the case.

  Further and Higher Education
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the number of students in further and higher education in the United Kingdom; and what is the current ratio of school leavers to the number entering higher education. [23249]

  Mr. Forth
  The numbers of enrolments in further—excluding adult education centres—and higher education in the UK in 1994–95 are provisionally estimated to be 2,573,000 and 1,701,000, respectively.
  25
  Information on the numbers of school leavers who entered higher education directly is not readily available. In some cases, progression to HE will be direct from further education or tertiary college, and some students will enter after a year abroad or other sabbatical. The available information on entrants to HE by age is given in the following table:

  Age1

  Number of entrants2 to HE in UKs in 1994–95 (000)

  18 years and under

  154

  19 years

  87

  20 years and over

  561

  All ages

  802

  1Age at 31 August.

  2 Provisional. Includes Open university.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the oral answer of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 26 February,Official Report, column 576, if she will list those statutory instruments and Acts of Parliament which have been gold plated in the past five years; and what steps she is taking to amend or repeal each piece of gold plating on existing legislation. [23634]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government's policy is not to add unnecessary burden when implementing EC directives. Departments take every opportunity to review existing legislation in the light of this. Officials are currently working on revised guidance to enable Ministers to see where implementing legislation goes beyond the underlying EC directive.

  Appeals Mechanisms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many appeals mechanisms, as laid out in section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, she expects to establish by the end of 1996; how many staff each appeals system will employ; and what their estimated annual running costs will be. [23617]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the number of temporary exclusions from schools in each year since 1979. [24026]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the number of permanent school exclusions for each year since 1979. [24024]

  Mr. Squire
  The Department is this year collecting, for the first time, systematic data on permanent exclusions from all maintained schools, through the annual schools 26
  census return issued in January. Comprehensive data on permanent exclusions in the school year 1994–95 will thus be available in the autumn.

  Prior to this, information was collected on an ad hoc basis. Data on permanent exclusions from maintained schools in England were assembled by the Department over a two year period, starting with the summer term 1990, under the national exclusions reporting system. Some 2,910 permanent exclusions were reported in the first year and 3,833 in the second.

  A survey conducted by Christ Church college, Canterbury on behalf of the Department and published in July last year, showed that there were 10,624 permanent exclusions in the school year 1993–94 in the 101 local education authorities in England which responded to the researchers' questionnaire out of a total of 109 LEAs. It also showed there were 4,550 permanent exclusions in the autumn term 1994 in 101 LEAs.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children in care of the local authority have been excluded from school in each year since 1979. [24025]

  Mr. Squire
  This information is not available centrally.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current benefit sanction on claimants failing to attend 1-2-1 interviews; and what sanctions will apply under the jobseeker's allowance. [24152]

  Mr. Forth
  Under current legislation any jobseeker who fails to attend 1-2-1 interviews when required will be disallowed benefit until such time as he does attend. Under jobseeeker's allowance any jobseeker who fails to attend a 1-2-1 interview without good cause will face a fixed period sanction of two weeks' loss of JSA. If he has received an earlier sanction within the previous 12 months, the fixed period may be four weeks' loss of JSA. Depending on the circumstances of the jobseeker, he may be able to receive hardship payments of JSA during the period of sanction.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if regulation 9 of the Job Seeker's Allowance Regulations 1996 will allow claimants who satisfy all other availability conditions to restrict their availability for employment during the first six months of a claim. [24156]

  Mr. Forth
  Jobseekers may place restrictions on the nature of the employment for which they are available, the terms or conditions of employment, including the rate of remuneration, and the locality in which they are looking for employment provided that they can show that they have reasonable prospects of securing employment despite those restrictions. Regulation 9 imposes a six-month limit on any restriction to do with the rate of remuneration. There is no limit to other areas of restriction, although an adjudication officer may take into account the length of time a jobseeker has been unemployed when determining whether a jobseeker continues to retain reasonable propects of securing employment with the restrictions he has imposed.
  27
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the new 13-week qualifying period for employment on trial of claimants of JSA will take into account any period of unemployment preceding 7 October 1996. [24154]

  Mr. Forth
  Yes. Jobseekers can take advantage of employment on trial if they have been unemployed for a continuous period of 13 weeks falling before the start of the job. Jobseekers will not have to have been in receipt of benefit during this period in order to qualify. The reduction in the qualifying period to 13 weeks represents a significant improvement in the provision enabling more people to try out an unfamiliar job without fear of losing benefit later if they decide to give up the job.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what order the jobsearcher's plan and jobseeker's agreement will be completed by claimants of JSA; what additional forms will have to be completed by those entitled to income related JSA and passported benefits; and at what intervals the jobseeker's agreement will be reviewed by Employment Service staff. [24153]

  Mr. Forth
  New claimants to jobseeker's allowance will be asked to complete a "helping you back to work" form—formerly referred to as the jobsearch plan form-to help them prepare for an interview to agree a jobseeker's agreement. The jobseeker's agreement may be reviewed at each fortnightly attendance and advisory interview, and will be varied as necessary.

  Jobseekers who claim income-based JSA and wish to claim housing benefit and council tax benefit will also be required to compete forms NHBI (HB) and NHBI (CBT), as they are currently required to do, in addition to the JSA claim form. Existing arrangements for claiming benefits from other Departments will be carried forward into JSA.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has for Employment Service staff to take adjudication decisions on benefit sanctions against claimants of JSA. [24149]

  Mr. Forth
  All labour market adjudication decisions in JSA, including those where a benefit sanction is appropriate, will be taken by adjudication officers employed by the Employment Service. Adjudication officers act independently of the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment at what intervals claimants of JSA will have to attend compulsory advisory interviews; and if the existing pattern of compulsory six-monthly restart interviews will be maintained. [24151]

  Mr. Forth
  Jobseekers will have to attend advisory interviews when they make a new claim, when they have been unemployed for 13 weeks, or earlier if that has been agreed with the jobseeker, and when they have been unemployed for six months—the existing pattern of six-monthly restart interviews will be maintained.

  Jobseekers will also have a short review when they attend the jobcentre every fortnight. If, as a result of those reviews, it is decided that a more in-depth advisory
  28
  interview is appropriate, one will be arranged. Failure to attend any interview as required may lead to the loss of JSA.

  This pattern of interviews will, of course, be reviewed from time to time in the light of changing circumstances.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to enable all unemployed people on Government employment and training programmes to count participation in these towards the three-month qualification period for undertaking part-time education as specified in regulation 11 of Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations. [24147]

  Mr. Forth
  Jobseekers who claim jobseeker's allowance will be able to study part time so long as they remain available for and actively seeking employment.

  There will be an additional concession for certain jobseekers, where no aspect of their study will be taken into account when deciding whether they are available for work if they are willing and able to rearrange their course to take a job within the hours that they have agreed in their jobseeker's agreement they will be available for work. Those who have been in receipt of JSA or certain other benefits for broadly three months or more in the last six will qualify for this concession. Such people may also have been participating in Government programmes. Attendance for an appropriate period on a Government employment and training programme aimed primarily at 16 and 17-year-olds will also qualify a jobseeker for this concession.

  Part-time Study
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in which areas and when the new approaches on part-time study arrangements will be piloted; and what particular aspects will be covered. [24148]

  Mr. Forth
  Once jobseeker's allowance has been established, we shall decide whether to pilot different arrangements for jobseekers who wish to study while claiming JSA.

  Humanities Courses
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the proportion of males to females on humanities courses in British higher education. [24016]

  Mr. Forth
  The proportion of all female enrolments on humanities courses in UK higher education in 1994–95 was 52.2 per cent.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 485, about grant-maintained schools, what is or will be the cost for each case listed; what is the cost in total; and if she will make a statement. [23903]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The following amounts of annual maintenance grant paid to grant-maintained schools in 1995–96 have not been recouped from the local education authority named:
  29

  £

  Alder Coppice primary school, Dudley

  24,005

  The Arnewood school, Hampshire

  195,687

  Bourne Abbey primary school, Lincolnshire

  39,412

  The Burgate school, Hampshire

  117,765

  Chellaston school, Derbyshire

  150,765

  Costessey high school, Norfolk

  63,579

  The Ellowes Hall school, Dudley

  29,512

  The Greensward school, Essex

  233,206

  Greenwood Dale school, Nottinghamshire

  82,596

  Heanor Gate school, Derbyshire

  71,711

  Holy Trinity CE primary school, Kent

  19,688

  Katherine's primary school, Essex

  28,449

  Merrill college, Debyshire

  71,776

  Ringwood comprehensive school, Hampshire

  141,142

  St. Anselm's college and Upton Hall convent school, Wirral (in total)

  1,043,581

  St. Peter and St. Paul RC high school, Lincolnshire

  29,528

  Sheringham high school, Norfolk

  45,035

  Wold Newton primary school, Humberside

  20,194

  Woodnewton Way infant school, Northamptonshire

  40,894

  Amounts of non-recoupable annual maintenance grant for 1995–96 have not been finalised in respect of Appleby primary school, Cumbria, and Eaglesfield Paddle CE primary school, Cumbria.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what are the forecast savings to the Employment Service of closing down the afternoon session of the Liverpool and Wirral executive job club; [24144]

  (2) when the Liverpool and Wirral executive job club opened. [24145]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions 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 Mike Fogden to Mr. Frank Field, dated 1 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your two written questions concerning the forecast saving to the Employment Service (ES) by the closure of the afternoon session of the Liverpool and Wirral Executive Jobclub, and the date the Jobclub opened. I am responding to both questions in this reply.
  The ES continually monitors its network of programme providers to ensure the quality of provision, and that this network offers adequate coverage for its clients.
  With the continuing fall in eligible clients numbers throughout the Wirral and the region as a whole the ES has to ensure that its providers of services offer value for money.
  Forecasts of savings to the ES of the closure of any programme sites are not made. This is in part due to the financial system of payment agreed with the provider at the contracting stage. I can say that the total Jobclub budget allocation for the Wirral ES District for the 1995/96 financial year is £383,102.
  30
  Where a decision is made to close a particular programme site, every effort is made to find alternative programme provision, where possible, for the remaining clients.
  Wirral Executive Jobclub opened in October 1994 with both morning and afternoon sessions and it is planned to close the afternoon session from the 1 June. However the morning Jobclub session will remain open, thus maintaining an Executive Jobclub within the area.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what measures her Department is taking to fulfil its obligations to the unemployed as outlined in the jobseeker's charter in the Liverpool and Wirral area; [24143]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the minimum number of hours a job club should be open under the jobseeker's charter. [24142]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions 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 Mike Fogden to Mr. Frank Field, dated 1 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your two written questions concerning the minimum number of hours a Jobclub is required to remain open, and what steps the ES is taking to ensure its obligations are met under the Jobseeker's Charter in the Liverpool and Wirral area.
  As both questions relate to the Jobseekers Charter I am responding to both questions in this reply.
  The Jobseeker's Charter sets out obligations both of the Employment Service (ES) to deliver services, and of its clients. It informs jobseekers about the standards of service they can expect when visiting or calling ES offices or using its services, the help we provide, and what we expect from our clients. It is a valuable medium to demonstrate to jobseekers and others that we as an organisation are committed to looking at the services we provide, and that we actively seek to improve our standards, where possible. As part of this process, complaints about our services and suggestions for improving them are encouraged and welcomed.
  As well as recording suggestions and complaints, the ES currently monitors performance on a quarterly basis against five standards of service set out in its Jobseeker's Charter. These are:
  Telephone answering times (within 30 seconds);
  Waiting times (Clients to be seen within 10 minutes);
  Answering correspondence (replies to written correspondence within 5 working days);
  Currency of vacancies (during a sample week);
  Speed and accuracy of payments;
  There are no separate set of standards for ES programmes or the providers who run them. However, programme providers are obliged to accept the standards set out in the Jobseeker's Charter, and are monitored locally to see that the standards are adhered to and that the achievement of standards are publicised locally.
  Jobclubs are normally open for 12 hours per week, although they do not form part of the Jobseeker's Charter standards. However, these hours can be modified according to local circumstances and through the contractual agreement the ES has with the Jobclub provider.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Teachers' Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the future administration of the teachers' superannuation scheme in England and Wales. [24471]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided to let a seven-year contract for the administration of teachers' pensions in England and Wales to Capita Managed Services Ltd. This will give savings to the taxpayer of about £20 million over the life of the contract.

  We have consistently said that we will let a contract to the private sector only if it can be proved that it will give better value for money than keeping the administration of the teachers' superannuation scheme in the public sector. Capita Managed Services is committed to providing the high standards of service and performance that we have demanded, and has a record of doing so in other contracts. Capita will take over the administration of teachers' pensions on 1 October 1996.

  Capita has declared its intention to maintain the administration of the TSS in Darlington. It is committed to a business growth strategy on the Darlington site. This commitment to Darlington, together with the transfer of the staff of the Teachers' Pensions Agency under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 offers the staff of the agency good prospects for the future.

  The contract with Capita will concern only the administration of the TSS. The scheme itself will stay in the public sector, on its current statutory basis, and teachers' pensions will not be affected in any way. My right hon. Friend will remain responsible to Parliament for the scheme. Officials in the Department for Education and Employment will be responsible for advising Ministers on policy on teachers' pensions.

  Research
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what additional support has been given to research within higher education institutions in the areas of sensor, data fusion and data processing technology since the 1995 report from the technology foresight panel. [23692]

  Mr. Forth
  Higher Education Funding Council for England funding for research is not earmarked but distributed as part of block grant which higher education institutions allocate at their discretion. It is for institutions themselves to decide what additional support to give to research in sensor, data fusion and data processing technology in the light of technology foresight findings.

TRANSPORT

  New Roads
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new road are planned to be constructed using the design, build, finance and operate initiative under contracts(a) already let, (b) due to be let in 1996 and (c) forecast to be let by 2000. [19687]
  32
  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 1 April 1996:
  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Transport to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about how many miles of new road are planned to be constructed under the design, build, finance and operate initiative under contracts (a) already let, (b) due to be let in 1996 and (c) forecast to be let by 2000.
  Forty nine miles have already been let, thirty five miles are due to be let in 1996 and; the forecast for the year 2000 is sixty six miles.

  United Kingdom Fleet (British Ratings)
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial aid has been given to the United Kingdom fleet to encourage the employment of British ratings. [21748]

  Mr. Norris
  Government assistance for training—GAFT—is paid in respect both of ratings and cadets under 18 on approved training courses. GAFT s total budget, including youth training funding, is £3.4 million a year.

  The crew relief costs scheme makes grants towards the cost of flying British seafarers to and from distant ports. The scheme, which applies equally to British ratings and officers, has a budget of £2 million a year.

  More generally, Government policies are designed to improve the competitive position of British shipping, providing career opportunities for British ratings and officers.

  Rail Safety
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedures exist for staff of contractors to Railtrack to be designated as safety critical, as defined by the Hidden recommendations. [23117]

  Mr. Watts
  Sir Anthony Hidden QC, in his report on the investigation of the Clapham junction collision, made no recommendation defining safety critical staff.

  The Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994 place duties on employers relating to "safety critical work", which is defined as certain work which could affect the health and safety of persons on a transport system.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what basis compensation is paid to train operators for delays in safety certification of locomotives and rolling stock. [23115]

  Mr. Watts
  It is for the train operating companies to demonstrate to Railtrack that they are in compliance with railway group standards. Compensation is not an issue.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps Railtrack and the Health and Safety Executive are taking to ensure that infrastructure maintenance staff are not working on a series of contracts concurrently for different infrastructure owners for which the aggregate time worked exceeds the maximum number of permitted hours or days as stipulated by Sir Anthony Hidden QC in his report and inquiry into the Clapham rail disaster; [23121]
  33
  (2) what procedures exist to ensure that contractors of Railtrack comply with the Hidden recommendations on maximum working hours for safety critical staff; [23120]

  Mr. Watts
  Sir Anthony Hidden QC, in his report on the investigation of the Clapham junction collision, made no recommendations as to the maximum number of permitted hours or days to be worked by infrastructure maintenance staff.

  In the Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994, a duty is placed upon employers to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that no employee undertakes safety critical work for such number of hours as would be liable to cause fatigue which could endanger safety. This duty applies to the employer irrespective of the location of the work undertaken. Railtrack's railway safety case states that particular attention will be given to monitoring the safety performance of contractors including compliance with relevant standards of legislation.

  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate enforces the regulations by checking employer's safety management systems and records, in the course of certain inspections and accident investigations, and by investigating complaints of excessive hours by employees.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what targets he has set Railtrack for giving safety approval to train operators; and what sanctions are available in the event of unreasonable delay. [23116]

  Mr. Watts
  No targets have been set for Railtrack.

  As regards railway safety gases, a train operator may submit a safety case, or revision, for acceptance to the Secretary of State if Railtrack either refuses to accept it or fails to accept it within a reasonable time.

  As regards safety cases for rolling stock, defined procedures exist for new or revised railway group standards. Where proposals have been rejected, appeals can be made to the Rail Regulator, who will consult the Health and Safety Executive in reaching his decision.

  Under Railtrack's network licence, the primary safety purpose of the railway group standards code is subject to the need to promote business planning, efficiency, economy and competition, and the need to impose the minimum restrictions which are consistent with safe operation.

  Travelcards
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take action to ensure that the agreement reached by the London Committee on Accessible Transport, representing London boroughs and the relevant transport providers, for a seven-year contract for providing senior citizens travelcards in Greater London is approved by the British Railways Board.[23406]

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for the British Railways Board. The board has decided that it would be inappropriate for the board to commit, as yet unknown, private sector franchise operators to a seven-year concessionary fares scheme in London. A 12-month agreement, as suggested by the board, will ensure the continuation of this popular concessionary scheme on the 34
  same terms as before and allow franchise operators to take part in discussions about the arrangements for a long-term scheme.

  Four-wheel Drive Vehicles
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation banning the use of four-wheel drive vehicles on green roads; and if he will make a statement.[23542]

  Mr. Steven Norris
  The Government announced in the rural White Paper, Cm 3016, that, while they were not yet convinced of the case for general legislation to restrict the use of byways by motorised vehicles, they would discuss the situation with interested parties. I hope to issue a consultation document, jointly with the Department of the Environment, in late spring or early summer.

  Hydrographic Surveys (Welsh Estuaries)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that sand banks or barriers in the estuaries of Wales are recharted following the grounding of the Sea Empress. [23802]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department keeps the need for hydrographic surveys under review through the Marine Safety Agency's advisory committee on shipping hydrography, which comprises representatives of the shipping industry, the General Lighthouse Authorities, the port associations, and professional hydrographers from the Royal Navy. We will consider the need for any surveys or recharting off the coast of Wales if the marine accidents investigation branch investigation into the Sea Empress recommends that we should do so.

  Hop-on Hop-off Buses
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects a fiche d'impact on the EC bus and coach directive to be produced; and what other EU countries have hop-on hop-off buses in commission in their capital cities. [23604]

  Mr. Norris
  We are currently awaiting a proposal for the EC bus and coach directive, along with the fiche d'impact from the Commission, but the timing of this is not known.

  We are not aware of any other EU countries which operate open platform buses in their capital cities.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) deaths, (b) serious injuries and (c) minor injuries have resulted from passengers falling from open-platform double-decker buses in each of the last 10 years; how many complaints he has received in the last 10 years of the dangers of hop-on hop-off buses; and if he will make a statement. [23606]

  Mr. Norris
  The data available from the Department's Vehicle Inspectorate indicate that the number of fatalities arising from people falling from open platform double-decker buses for each of the 10 years from 1985 to 1994 were 2, 1, 1, 2, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1 respectively. Information collated by London Transport for 1995 is one fatality, 17 serious and 382 slight injuries. Corresponding information on serious and slight injuries for previous years is not available.
  35
  The Department receives representations on a variety of bus issues but the dangers of open platform buses have not featured highly in these.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many EU member states have invoked grandfather rights when implementing the second EC directive on driving licences 91/439/EEC; and if he will make a statement on his reasons for not doing so. [23699]

  Mr. Norris
  According to our current information, no member states have perpetuated or are proposing to perpetuate, "grandfather rights" in respect of eyesight requirements for lorry and bus drivers, but we are seeking detailed updated information from the relevant national authorities. The reason for proposing to discontinue grandfather rights is the need to ensure the highest sensible standards of road safety in the United Kingdom.

  M1-A1
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to award the design, build, finance and operate scheme for the Ml-Al link; and if he will make a statement. [23607]

  Mr. Watts
  The design, build, finance and operate—DBFO—contract for the M1-A1 Yorkshire link project was awarded to Yorkshire Link Ltd. on 26 March 1996.

  This is the largest and most complex DBFO the Department has awarded to date. This new motorway will take away from congested routes through Leeds and will improve access to industrial areas in the south-east of the city. Moreover, there is expected to be major reduction in road traffic accidents—more than 150 accidents a year should be prevented over the next 30 years.

  The Department is making excellent progress with DBFO, with contracts now awarded for each of the first four DBFO projects first announced back in August 1994. This success shows the DBFO offers advantages to the construction industry, the road user and the taxpayer.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the oral answer of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 26 February,Official Report, column 576, if he will list those statutory instruments and Acts of Parliament which have been gold plated in the past five years; and what steps he is taking to amend or repeal each piece of gold plating on existing legislation. [23632]

  Mr. Watts
  The Government's policy is not to add unnecessary burdens when implementing EC directives. Departments take every opportunity to review existing legislation in the light of this. Officials are currently working on revised guidance to enable Ministers to see where implementing legislation goes beyond the underlying EC directive.

  Appeals Mechanisms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many appeals mechanisms, as laid out in section 6 of 36
  the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, he expects to establish by the end of 1996; how many staff each appeals system will employ; and what their estimated annual running costs will be. [23620]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

SCOTLAND

  Public Bodies
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each executive non-departmental public body which will become operational in Scotland on 1 April; and if he will make a statement. [23795]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information is as follows:

  Scottish Children's Reporter Administration

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency

  Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council.

  The Scottish Environment Protection Agency replaced the seven existing river purification boards, each of which is an executive NDPB. As from today, 1 April, the number of executive NDPBs operational in Scotland is 40, as compared with 60 in 1979.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of the non-departmental bodies for which he is responsible(a) the number of board members, (b) the number of allowances being paid, (c) the total cost of these allowances, (d) the cost per board member and (e) the numbers of administrative and executive staff earning in excess of £42,000. [23974]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information requested in(a) to (d) is available in, or can be derived from, the Scottish Office section for the annual Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". The information at (e) is not held centrally.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those of his Department's advisory non-departmental public bodies which(a) the Government are required to consult prior to legislative proposals and (b) the Government are required to publish their response to advice supplied by them. [21863]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 21 March 1996]: The information requested is:

  (a) Scottish Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council

  Building Standards Advisory Committee

  Police Advisory Board for Scotland

  General Teaching Council for Scotland.

  (b) General Teaching Council for Scotland.

  Appeals Mechanisms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appeals mechanisms, as laid out in section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, he expects to establish by the end of 1996; how many staff each appeals system will employ; and what their estimated annual running costs will be. [23622]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

DEFENCE

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about defence agency status for the Ministry of Defence police. [24413]

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry of Defence police is to be established as an agency of the Ministry of Defence on 1 April 1996.

  The MDP is a fully constituted police force acting under the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. The headquarters and police and guard service training schools are at Wethersfield in the county of Essex. Detachments are employed throughout the United Kingdom, based primarily at Ministry of Defence establishments.

  The MDP provides a civil policing service where required throughout the Ministry of Defence. It also provides a security service, including armed guarding at important defence installations. Its activities cover the protection of life, prevention of crime, detection of offenders, and the maintenance of order on, or in connection with, defence property and personnel. In its policing role it operates entirely independently of political or departmental influence in the maintenance and operation of the law.

  As the first chief executive, the chief constable, Mr. W. E. E. Boreham OBE, will be offered new opportunities to build on the current organisation's professional expertise and high performance standards. Through the greater delegations and authority afforded by agency status, the chief constable will actively seek to improve the efficiency and value for money of his police force.

  The chief constable has been set the following key targets for the first year of operation:

  (1) By 1 April 1997 to have identified and implemented agreed performance measures of force activity.

  (2) To improve significantly upon the baseline achieved in the first customer satisfaction survey.

  (3) By 1 October 1996 to make proposals for funding arrangements for national, additional, or cross top-level budget boundary commitments.

  (4) By 1 July 1996 to complete the evaluation of the effectiveness of the new force structure introduced from 1 April 1995.

  (5) To achieve efficiency savings prescribed within the departmental management and efficiency plans.

  (6) To develop efficiency measurement systems in order to provide a coherent efficiency plan incorporating a detailed competing for quality programme and be innovative in the identification of opportunities afforded by co-operation with industry.

  Milestones:

  (a) To set up agreed mechanisms for medium to long-term manpower planning.

  (b) To implement the information systems strategy to time, quality and specification.

  The owner of the Ministry of Defence Police agency will be the second permanent under-secretary of state at the Ministry of Defence.
  38
  The chief constable will produce an annual report which, for financial year 1997–98, will contain accruals-based accounts. These will be presented to Parliament. I have also arranged for copies of the agency's framework document to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Trident
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money to date has been committed by his Department to the purchase of Trident D5 missiles from the United States of America. [23609]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department has, to date, committed £853 million, at outturn prices, toward the purchase of Trident D5 missiles from the United States of America.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the in-service dates of the Trident submarines. [23610]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  HMS Vanguard entered service in December 1994 and HMS Victorious in December 1995. Vigilant will enter service in 1998 and Vengeance around the turn of the century.

  Government Contracts (Review Report)
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the report by the review board for Government contracts on its 1996 general review of the profit formula for non-competitive Government contracts. [24470]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Government have accepted the overall target rate of return on capital employed as recommended by the review board in its report. The new rate will be 19.3 per cent. compared with the current rate of 18.5 per cent., both on the basis of historic costs. It will be effective from 1 April this year. The report has been printed and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Unoccupied Dwellings
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many dwellings are(a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Hertfordshire; [23900]

  (2) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Surrey; [23899]

  (3) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in East Sussex; [23897]

  (4) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Greater London; [23893]

  (5) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in the Isle of Man; [23901]

  (6) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Gwent; [23860]
  39
  (7) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Powys; [23865]

  (8) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Gwynedd; [23869]

  (9) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Durham; [23873]

  (10) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Merseyside; [23877]

  (11) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Staffordshire; [23881]

  (12) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Norfolk; [23885]

  (13) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Gloucestershire; [23889]

  (14) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Dorset; [23895]

  (15) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Central Scotland; [23852]

  (16) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in the Highlands; [23854]

  (17) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Fife; [23856]

  (18) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Galloway; [23858]

  (19) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Buckinghamshire; [23891]

  (20) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Mid Glamorgan; [23863]

  (21) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Clywd; [23867]

  (22) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Tyne and Wear; [23871]

  (23) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Lancashire; [23875]

  (24) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Nottinghamshire; [23879]

  (25) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Leicestershire; [23883]
  40
  (26) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Northamptonshire; [23887]

  (27) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in West Sussex; [23898]

  (28) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Somerset; [23894]

  (29) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Hereford and Worcester; [23902]

  (30) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in the Borders; [23859]

  (31) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in South Glamorgan; [23861]

  (32) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Dyfed; [23866]

  (33) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Northumberland; [23870]

  (34) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in North Yorkshire; [23874]

  (35) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in South Yorkshire; [23878]

  (36) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Shropshire; [23882]

  (37) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Suffolk; [23886]

  (38) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Warwickshire; [23890]

  (39) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Wiltshire; [23896]

  (40) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Strathclyde; [23851]

  (41) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Tayside; [23853]

  (42) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Grampian; [23855]

  (43) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Lothian; [23857]
  41
  (44) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Oxfordshire; [23888]

  (45) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Berkshire; [23892]

  (46) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in West Glamorgan; [23864]

  (47) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in West Yorkshire; [23868]

  (48) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Cumbria; [23872]

  (49) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Humberside; [23876]

  (50) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in Lincolnshire; [23880]

  (51) how many dwellings are (a) owned by his Department and (b) currently unoccupied in each parliamentary constituency in the West Midlands. [23884]

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

  Pembroke Dock (Staff)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many of the posts transferred to Pembroke Dock are currently filled by staff living in the(a) Devonport and (b) Clyde areas; [23597]

  (2) how many posts will be (a) transferred to Pembroke Dock, (b) transferred to Pembroke Dock, (b) transferred from Pembroke Dock and (c) made redundant at Pembroke Dock following his announcement on the market testing of ports and mooring work within his Department; and if he will list the Departments in which they will be employed;0[23599]

  (3) how many individuals are currently based at Pembroke Dock onshore or aboard vessels; and what grades they are and on which divisions of his Department they were employed prior to the announcement of the outcome of market testing in his Department; [23596]

  (4) how many mobile grades will be transferred to Pembroke Dock following his announcement on the market testing of the mooring and ports divisions of his Department. [23598]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 29 March 1996]: The current bearing for Pembroke Dock is 73 posts, broken down as follows:

  Ports undertaking

  Number

  MSO 2 D

  1

  MSO 2 E

  1

  MSO 3 D

  1

  MSO 3 E

  1

  42

  Ports undertaking

  Number

  Bosun in charge

  1

  Mechanician in charge

  2

  Leading seaman

  1

  Chief catering rating

  1

  Able seaman (cook)

  2

  Engineroom rating

  4

  Able seaman

  6

  Total

  21

  MSO = Marine services officer

  SOG = Stores officer grade

  P and GS = Process and general supervisory.

  Moorings work

  Number

  MSO 1 E

  1

  MSO 2 E

  1

  MSO 3 D

  1

  MSO 3 E

  1

  SOGC

  1

  Executive officer

  2

  P and GSD

  1

  Administrative officer

  2

  Administrative assistant

  2

  Fitter (L)

  2

  Fitter (M)

  2

  Rigger

  2

  Shipwright

  4

  Welder

  2

  Crane driver (Bd14)

  2

  Storekeeper

  3

  Mobile crane driver

  1

  Rigger trainee (Bd10)

  1

  Shotblaster

  1

  HGV driver

  1

  Stores assistant (Bd6)

  2

  Forklift truck driver

  1

  Rigger trainee

  1

  Craft auxiliary A

  7

  Slinger

  2

  Burner

  1

  General hand (Bd2)

  5

  Total

  52

  MSO = Marine services officer

  SOG = Stores officer grade

  P and GS = Process and general supervisory.

  The 21 posts in the ports undertaking will transfer to Devonport. Of the 52 posts on moorings work, 17 will become surplus to requirements.

  It is estimated that nine posts will be created at Pembroke Dock to undertake new tasks associated with the moorings operation. These posts will be eligible to be filled by mobile grade staff from Pembroke Dock, Clyde, Devonport, Portsmouth and Bath who have the requisite skills. An additional seven specialist posts may transfer to Pembroke Dock subject to further consideration.

  At present there are 90 afloat posts, as detailed in the following table, for the large mooring vessels currently operating out of Devonport and Clyde. The future requirement is estimated as in the region of 48 posts. These vessels will be administered from Pembroke Dock, as will a number of smaller vessels stationed at Devonport and Portsmouth.

  43

  Number

  MSO 2 D

  3

  MSO 2 E

  4

  MSO 3 D

  9

  MSO 3 E

  9

  Bosun

  4

  Chief catering rating

  4

  Radio operator

  2

  Leading seaman

  3

  Leading engineroom rating

  12

  Able seaman (Sp)

  9

  Engineroom rating

  2

  Able seaman

  29

  Total

  90

  Departmental Staff (Ethnic Minorities)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's failure in 1994–95 to achieve its target for staff who are from ethnic minorities; and for what reasons this target has been reduced for 1995–96. [23264]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: The Department's 1994–95 target for civilian staff from ethnic minority backgrounds was set at 1.9 per cent. A percentage of 1.6 per cent. was achieved and our 1995–96 target is to maintain this level. The target of 1.9 per cent. was set against high levels of recruitment in the early 1990s. Given lower levels of recruitment, reductions in staff numbers and relocations from London, maintenance of existing levels of ethnic minority representation is a more realistic expectation.

  Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defences
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what improvements he has made to Britain's nuclear, biological and chemical defences in the last five years. [23258]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: We have made a range of improvements to our nuclear biological and chemical defence in recent years, mainly as a result of lessons learnt during the Gulf war. These include: the development of a tri-service policy for our NBCD requirements in the post-cold war environment; an extensive research and equipment programme; and revised training programmes. A Territorial Army NBCD regiment is being formed which will combine new equipment and training and dedicated manpower in a single deployable unit.

  Women Executives
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reasons for his Department's failure in 1994–95 to achieve its target of total staff who are women at higher executive officer level; for what reasons the target has been reduced; and if he will make a statement. [23262]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: The Department's 1994–95 target for women at HEO level and above was set at 13.6 per cent. A percentage of 13.3 per cent. was achieved, matching the achievement in 1993–94. In retrospect, the target for 1994–95 was too optimistic, given the extent of organisational change at the
  44
  time. More realistic target setting, taking better account of major reorganisations and redeployments, overall reductions in staff numbers and promotion trends, caused the target to be set at 13.4 per cent for 1995–96.

HEALTH

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will now take to recover irregular payments in the cases detailed by the inquiry into the former Yorkshire regional health authority. [22737]

  Mr. Malone
  The successor authority is taking appropriate recovery action in the light of legal advice.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the advice which he has given to the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority about ensuring that the authority receives a fair share of any development gain in the sale of the former Yorkshire regional health authority headquarters at Harrogate; and if he will make a statement. [23608]

  Mr. Malone
  The sale of the headquarters of the former Yorkshire regional health authority was an integral part of the process of securing more appropriate and cost-effective accommodation for the NHS executive Northern and Yorkshire regional office. This will result in significant savings for reinvestment in patient care in the region.

  The offer to purchase the former headquarters building was made at a fixed price, in excess of the district valuer's valuation of the property. While there is no prospect of increasing receipts beyond this point, any alternative arrangements would have incorporated a lower guaranteed minimum sale price, and hence a risk of realising less than the present arrangement. Expert advice, based on the office market in Harrogate and the property itself, has confirmed that the authority obtained best value for money at lower risk through the fixed price arrangement.

  NHS Authorities (Payments)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on irregular, unauthorised and illegal payments to health service bodies. [22746]

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has received no reports of health service bodies receiving such payments.

  NHS Consultants
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are given to NHS trusts regarding the employment of management consultants for the training of their staff. [22540]

  Mr. Horam
  No guidelines relate specifically to the use of management consultants for training. However, in October 1994, the national health service executive issued guidance to the NHS on the use of consultants for all purposes; this includes those employed for all purposes;
  45
  this includes those employed for training purposes. A copy of the guidance, "The Procurement and Management of Consultants within the NHS", is available in the Library.

  Comptroller and Auditor General Report
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will break down the figure of £41.8 million in paragraph 40 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in the "NHS (England) Summarised Accounts 1994–95" to show the amount of money paid in each financial year between April 1990 and March 1995 by each family health services association to fund the employment of staff of types covered by the High Court judgment of March 1995, mentioned in paragraph 39 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report "NHS (England) Summarised Accounts 1994–95." [22990]

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

  Anti-smoking Publications
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many Government-funded publications produced by(a) the Health Education Authority and (b) other bodies, that warn of the dangers of smoking or that encourage smokers to quit, have been translated into other languages; [23236]

  (2) if he will list each anti-smoking publication publicly funded in the last five years with (a) its circulation, (b) its principal messages, (c) its target audience and (d) the languages it has been translated into and how many copies made per language. [23166]

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

  Organophosphate Information Network
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions his Department has had with the organophosphate information network; and if he will make a statement. [23176]

  Mr. Horam
  There have been no recent approaches to the Department from the network.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he was first advised of a possible new strain of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease; and if he was informed of any change in the assessment of health risks associated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle, arising out of this discovery. [23171]

  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend was informed of a previously unrecognised form of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease on 8 March 1996. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee advised him on 20 March that, if the existing and newly recommended control measures were carried out, the risk to humans from eating beef was now likely to be extremely small.
  46
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many confirmed cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease have been notified for people aged(a) under 20 years, (b) 20 to 30 years, (c) 31 to 40 years, (d) 41 to 50 years, (e) 51 to 60 years and (f) 60 years and over; and how many were (i) male and (ii) female in each year for which records are available. [23218]

  Mr. Horam
  Information showing the number of definite and probable cases of CJD by the age groups requested and by sex for the period 1970 to 1984—England and Wales—and 1985 to March 1996—United Kingdom—will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which organisations will receive funding for the proposed additional research into CJD; and if he will make a statement; [24021]

  (2) if future CJD research funded out of the NHS research budget will include transmission studies; and if he will make a statement. [24022]

  Mr. Horam
  As announced by my right hon. Friend to the House on 25 March,Official Report, columns 710–12, we have in preparation a directed programme of research in the BSE-CJD sector involving the Department of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Medical Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Council. The programme will include strain typing and transmission studies. Further details, including the organisations involved, will be announced as soon as possible.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the possibility of CJD carriers passing on the disease as blood donors; and if he will make a statement. [24092]

  Mr. Horam
  The safety of blood is kept under regular review by the expert Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation. There is no evidence of any risk of transmission of CJD through blood or blood products. However, as a precautionary measure, individuals with central nervous system diseases or risk factors for CJD, including a family history, are excluded from giving blood.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money his Department spent on research into CJD in each of the last five financial years. [24023]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is as follows:

  1991–92: £181,000

  1992–93: £148,000

  1993–94: £225,000

  1994–95: £387,000

  1995–96: £502,000.

  This includes the costs of the national Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease surveillance unit in Edinburgh.

  Total Government spending on bovine spongiform encephalopathy and CJD research is about £million this year, and, as my right hon. Friend announced on 20 March, Official Report, columns 375-86, the Department is making an additional £4.5 million available for further research.

  NHS Patients
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were admitted in the past year to NHS(a) intensive care and (b) other beds from independent sector (i) acute hospitals or clinics and (ii) long-stay hospitals or homes. [23298]

  Mr. Horam
  The information which is available centrally is the estimated number of admissions to NHS hospitals in England from non-NHS hospitals, nursing homes, health care or residential institutions. In 1993–94, the latest year for which data are available, there were estimated to be 28,940 such admissions.

  Organophosphate Poisoning
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken by his Department to educate doctors about organophosphate poisoning; and if he will make a statement. [23177]

  Mr. Horam
  Medical education is principally a matter for the medical profession. However, the Department is drawing the attention of the profession to the concerns over training of doctors in the recognition of organophosphate poisoning.

  The Department has published a book, "Pesticide Poisoning Notes for the Guidance of Medical Practitioners", which was sent to all general practitioners. A revised and enlarged edition is about to be published. It gives guidance on the clinical symptoms, first aid treatment, indications for referral to hospital, hospital management, and sources of further advice relevant to poisoning by pesticides and related veterinary medicines including those containing organophosphates. In addition, the chief medical officer wrote in 1991 and 1993 to all doctors in England to alert them to the possibility of exposure to pesticides and certain veterinary medicines and to remind them of the reporting schemes for cases of suspected poisoning. They were further reminded that advice on poisoning was available from the employment medical advisory service and the Department of Health book "Pesticide poisoning notes for the guidance of medical practitioners". Also, an article in the October 1995 edition of the chief medical officer's update which is sent to all doctors dealt with the problems related to the use of organophosphate sheep dips.

  Doctors (Educational Exchanges)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors from outside the European Economic Area visited the United Kingdom in each of the last five years as part of educational exchanges with British GPs. [23394]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the difficulties experienced by British GPs arranging educational exchanges with GPs from outside the European Economic Area. [23395]

  Mr. Malone
  Representations have been received from the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice 48
  the General Medical Services Committee of the British Medical Association, "Doctor" magazine and a number of individual GPs.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the proposal for a special licence for international exchanges that would permit a doctor from abroad to practice in the United Kingdom for a specific period, at a specific location, under the supervision of a named mentor, is compatible with a single standard of entry into general practice in the United Kingdom. [23396]

  Mr. Malone
  The standard of experience which a doctor requires for entry to general practice is set for the United Kingdom by the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice, which is the UK's competent authority in this area. Either a doctor meets this standard, and may practise in the UK, or he does not, and may not practise. We do not propose to introduce a special licence to allow doctors who do not meet the joint committee's standards to work in general practice.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he has taken to facilitate exchanges between British GPs and those from outside the European Economic Area. [23397]

  Mr. Malone
  Nothing in United Kingdom legislation prevents such exchanges taking place. We encourage exchanges between United Kingdom general practitioners and general practitioners from other countries. The incoming doctor must meet the standard for working in general practice in the United Kingdom which is set by the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice.

  Water Tower Mental Hospitals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the location, by health authority, of the water tower mental hospitals in England which are still open, (b) their planned date of closure and (c) the number of patients in each at the latest available date. [23546]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information is available on the closure of large mental illness hospitals in the report "Survey of English Mental Hospitals March 1994—Monitoring the Closure of the Water Towers", copies of which are available in the Library. The available information on the number of patients cared for in each of the hospitals named in table 2 of the report is given in the table. The continuing monitoring of the closure programme has been taken forward by the regional offices of the national health service executive.

  NHS Hospitals in table 2 of the Survey of English Mental Illness Hospitals March 1994 Monitoring the closure of the "Water Towers": Numbers of In-patients at 31 March 1994

  Hospital

  In-patients all ages

  Barnsley Hall

  57

  Clifton

  100

  Coney Hill

  168

  Hollymoor

  185

  Mapperley

  195

  St. Francis, Nottingham

  38

  St. George's, Stafford

  147

  49

  NHS Hospitals in table 2 of the Survey of English Mental Illness Hospitals March 1994 Monitoring the closure of the "Water Towers": Numbers of In-patients at 31 March 1994

  Hospital

  In-patients all ages

  St. Crispin

  121

  Scalebor Park

  35

  Central

  95

  Claybury

  361

  Countess of Chester

  179

  Hill End

  153

  Maidstone

  115

  Netherne

  57

  Princess Royal

  154

  Roundway

  99

  St. George's (Morpeth)

  312

  St. Mary's (Northumberland)

  247

  St. Matthew's

  157

  Stanley Royd

  277

  Tone Vale

  117

  Tooting Bec

  96

  Whittingham

  153

  St. Nicholas' (Newcastle)

  214

  Brookwood

  311

  Carlton Hayes

  249

  Littlemore

  172

  Middlewood

  116

  Napsbury

  419

  Shenley

  424

  The Royal London Hospital (St. Clements)

  99

  Warlingham Park

  143

  All Saints

  261

  Parkside

  249

  Knowle

  184

  Fair Mile

  212

  De la Pole

  246

  Fairfield

  415

  Fulbourn

  301

  Goodmayes

  401

  High Royds

  346

  Horton

  329

  Lancaster Moor and Ridge Lea

  314

  Park Prewett

  245

  Runwell

  320

  Severalls

  218

  St. Edward's

  254

  St. Lawrence's

  206

  Warley

  534

  Winterton

  375

  Bexley

  241

  Cherry Knowle

  320

  Garlands

  182

  Rauceby

  173

  Towers

  163

  Winwick

  398

  Graylingwell

  249

  St. Andrew's (Norwich)

  168

  Springfield

  429

  St. James'

  204

  St. Luke's

  140

  St. Clement's (Ipswich)

  190

  Stone House

  98

  Wonford House

  116

  Highcroft

  132

  West Park

  358

  Barrow

  212

  Bootham Park

  107

  Ealing

  327

  Hellesdon

  258

  Henderson

  24

  Kingsway

  285

  Lynfield Mount

  119

  Maudsley

  217

  Old Manor

  145

  Prestwich

  337

  50

  NHS Hospitals in table 2 of the Survey of English Mental Illness Hospitals March 1994 Monitoring the closure of the "Water Towers": Numbers of In-patients at 31 March 1994

  Hospital

  In-patients all ages

  Royal Shrewsbury (Shelton)

  197

  St. Martin's

  120

  Sundridge

  48

  The Bethlem Royal

  180

  Warneford

  70

  Universities (Health Services Management)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what(a) courses have been attended at the health services management unit of the university of Nottingham and (b) other resources of the unit have been used by (i) NHS management trainees and (ii) existing NHS staff; [23675]

  (2) what (a) courses have been attended at the health services management unit of the university of Manchester and (b) other resources of the unit have been used by (i) NHS management trainees and (ii) existing NHS staff; [23679]

  (3) which (a) courses have been attended at the health policy unit of the university of London and (b) other resources of the unit have been used by (i) NHS management trainees and (ii) existing NHS staff; [23671]

  (4) what (a) courses have been attended at the health services management centre of the university of Birmingham and (b) other resources of the centre have been used by (i) NHS management trainees and (ii) existing NHS staff; [23677]

  (5) what (a) courses have been attended at the health policy and practice unit of the university of East Anglia and (b) other resources of the unit have been used by (i) NHS management trainees and(ii) existing NHS staff. [23673]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many contracts have been awarded to the health services management unit of the university of Nottingham since 1994 by(a) his Department, (b) the NHS executive, (c) the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority, (d) the former Yorkshire RHA and (e) the Trent RHA; for what purposes these contracts were awarded; if they were awarded by competitive tender; and what was the value of each of these contracts. [23676]

  (2) how many contracts have been awarded to the health services management unit of the university of Manchester since 1994 by (a) his Department, (b) the NHS executive, (c) the Northern and Yorkshire regional helath authority, (d) the former Yorkshire RHA, and (e) the Trent RHA; for what purposes these contracts were awarded; if they were awarded by competitive tender; and what was the value of each of these contracts; [23680]

  (3) how many contracts have been awarded to the health policy unit of the university of London since 1994 by (a) his department, (b) the NHS executive, (c) the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority, (d) the

  51
  former Yorkshire regional health authority and (e) the Trent regional health authority; for what purposes these contracts were awarded; if they were awarded by competitive tender; and what was the value of each of these contracts; [23672]

  (4) how many contracts have been awarded to the health services management centre of the university of Birmingham since 1994 by (a) his Department, (b) the NHS executive, (c) the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority, (d) the former Yorkshire RHA and (e) the Trent RHA; for what purposes these contracts were awarded; if they were awarded by competitive tender; and what was the value of each of these contracts; [23678]

  (5) how many contracts have been awarded to the health policy and practice unit of the university of East Anglia since 1994 by (a) his Department, (b) the NHS executive, (c) the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority, (d) the former Yorkshire RHA and (e) the Trent RHA; for what purposes these contracts were awarded; if they were awarded by competitive tender; and what was the value of each of these contracts. [23674]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not available centrally.

  GP Purchasing
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to health authorities in respect of the funding of a GP commission. [23421]

  Mr. Malone
  EL(94)79 sets out Government policy on involving general practitioners in purchasing. HSG(96)14 sets out details of management allowances for fundholding practices. Other arrangements are for local agreement. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Public Health Management (Salaries)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health what was the salary of the(a) chief medical officer, (b) deputy chief medical officer and (c) regional directors of public health in each of the last two years; and if he will indicate the planned salaries for the next two years. [23423]

  Mr. Horam
  Details of individual civil servants' salaries are not made public. The chief medical officer is a grade 1A civil servant. In 1994–95 the salary of that grade was £87,435, in 1995–96 it is in the range of £90,000 to £94,999. There are two deputy chief medical officer posts in the Department. The pay range for those posts was £69,990 to £79,396 in 1994–95, and £67,500 to £ 98,000 in 1995–96. Regional directors of public health were paid on a scale from £59,715 to £63,375 in 199495, and £61,205 to £65,160 in 1995–96. Like all national health service consultants, regional directors of public health are eligible for distinction awards for meritorious service in the NHS, which were worth between £2,098 and £49,820 per annum in 1995–96, depending on the level of award. Regional directors of public health joined the Department of Health on 1 April. All salary increases in the Department are now determined by performance, so future salaries for all the grades mentioned will depend on the achievement of objectives.

  Hospital Readmissions
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the quarterly monitoring of mental health information by the NHS executive in the coming year will include readmission rates for individual patients. [23550]

  Mr. Bowis
  No. The national health service executive will be collecting information on the total number of patients aged 16 to 64, who are readmitted as an emergency within 90 days of discharge to the care of a psychiatric specialist; and the total number of patients aged 16 to 64 who have been discharged in the previous 90 days from the care of a psychiatric specialist.

  NHS Management (Salaries)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Rother Valley of 25 March,Official Report, column 427, if he will list all cases in which remuneration has not been paid directly to chairmen of national health service bodies. [23720]

  Mr. Malone
  It is for individual national health service bodies to ensure that remuneration of chairmen and non-executives is paid direct, and in accordance with Inland Revenue requirements. We are not aware of any cases where this does not happen.

  Paracetamol
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he will take to prevent deaths of young people arising from the use of paracetamol. [23422]

  Mr. Malone
  No immediate measures additional to those already in place are proposed. Paracetamol is an effective pain killer which is safe at the dosage recommended on the labelling. The Medicines Control Agency carefully evaluates all new information on the safety of paracetamol, particularly in relation to the controls on its availability.

  Cancer (Vaccinations)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list vaccinations currently available on the NHS assessed by his Department as helping to prevent cancer. [23424]

  Mr. Horam
  In protecting people from acquiring hepatitis B infection, hepatitis B vaccine will also serve to prevent that proportion of cases of hepatocellular carcinoma—primary liver cancer—that is associated with the long-term carriage of hepatitis B virus.

  Mental Health
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer on 12 March,Official Report, column 587, if the 68 health authorities whose plans anticipate the development of comprehensive mental health services before the end of 1996–97 included in those plans the provision of 24-hour nurse care for those residents needing it, within that time scale; and if he will list those authorities which all achieved adequate 24-hour nursed care provision for their residents before the end of 1996–97 and those that will not. [23545]
  53
  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not yet available. Progress on the plans will be assessed at the end of 1996–97.

  Care in the Community
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has received from the chief medical officer on the full implementation of the care programme approach for patients with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia discharged from hospital since 1992–93 or expected to be discharged. [24010]

  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly receives advice from the chief medical officer or from other medical advisors on his behalf. Information on the implementation of the care programme approach does not, however, differentiate between patients with schizophrenia and other severely mentally ill patients.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for the calendar year 1995, for each member of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the number of meetings at which they were present and the number of meetings from which they were absent. [22085]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 28 March,Official Report, column 748.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 1995,Official Report, columns 520-–21, what steps he took to establish that no member of the Committee on Safety of Medicines received the papers dispatched on 11 October after 10.30 am on 12 October 1995. [22086]

  Mr. Malone
  Delivery times are guaranteed by the courier service used. No member complained that the papers were not received on time.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answers of 11 December 1995,Official Report, column 521, and 14 December 1995, Official Report, column 811, on what basis expenditure on travel and subsistence during the period 1990 to 1995 was made; and if the expenditure was approved by the National Audit Office. [22088]

  Mr. Malone
  The expenditure on travel and subsistence was incurred in the performance of the normal duties of the committees.

  The expenditure referred to in the reply I gave the hon. Member on 11 December 1995, columns 521–22, has been included in the accounts of the Medicines Control Agency, which since 1 April 1992 have been subject to audit by the National Audit Office.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 December 1995,Official Report, column 523, what limitations section 4(2) of the Medicines Act 1968 imposes on the scope of activity and advice of committees, set up under section 4 of the Act. [22089]

  Mr. Malone
  Section 4(2) of the Medicines Act 1968 provides that committees may be established under 54
  section 4(1) of that Act for any purpose, or combination of purposes, connected with the execution of that Act or the exercise of any power conferred by it, either generally or in relation to any particular class of substances or articles to which any provision of that Act is applicable. The implication is that such committees cannot be established for other purposes and that their activities and advice may not relate to other purposes.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1995,Official Report, column 811, to the hon. Member for Gordon Mr. Bruce), what factors justify the appointment of members of the Committees on Safety of Medicines or other section 4 committees for a period in excess of the prescribed maximum of six years.[22090]

  Mr. Malone
  Members are normally appointed for a three-year period and may be reappointed for further terms of office. Members are appointed and reappointed for their individual expertise in the fields of medicine, pharmacy or science. Their specialist knowledge and judgment contribute to the advice given by the committee to the Licensing Authority.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1995,Official Report, column 810, to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), what quality assurance proceedings relating to pharmacovigilance are in place in the Medicines Control Agency. [22091]

  Mr. Malone
  The Medicines Control Agency's performance in pharmacovigilance is measured against a number of high-level targets, set to protect pubic health in the field of medical products. These are published in the agency's business plan and its accomplishments against them in its annual report, copies of which are available in the Library. The agency has in place a large number of rigorous standard operating procedures relating to its many pharmacovigilance functions in order to ensure that good pharmacovigilance practice is carried out. Assessment reports on important safety issues relating to licensed medicines are subject to peer review both with the agency and by independent experts on the relevant advisory committees.

  All agency procedures are subject to audit by the National Audit Office and internal Department of Health auditors.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answers of 11 December 1995,Official Report, columns 520–21, and 8 February 1995, Official Report, column 344, what factors prevented consideration of the safety issues relating to combined oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene by the pharmacovigilance subcommittee at its meetings on 5 September or 3 October. [22087]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1151.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been undertaken to establish whether potentially BSE contaminated material can enter human blood systems via tooth cavities when children are losing their milk teeth. [23219]

  Mr. Horam
  None. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee has considered this issue and accepts that this could be a route of BSE infection, if this occurs, as could dental disease in adults.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the oral answer of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 26 January,Official Report, column 576, if he will list those statutory instruments and Acts of Parliament which have been gold plated in the past five years; and what steps he is taking to amend or repeal each piece of gold plating on existing legislation. [23633]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government's policy is not to add unnecessary burdens when implementing EC directives. Departments take every opportunity to review existing legislation in the light of this. Officials are currently working on revised guidance to enable Ministers to see where implementing legislation goes beyond the underlying EC directive.

  Appeals Mechanisms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appeals mechanisms, as laid out in section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, he expects to establish by the end of 1996; how many staff each appeals system will employ; and what their estimated annual running costs will be. [23619]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave him today.

  National Blood Authority
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff were employed at the National Blood Authority headquarters at 1 March 1996; and what was the total budgetary allowance for operating the National Blood Authority headquarters for 1996–97. [23433]

  Mr. Horam
  Some 24 staff were employed at the National Blood Authority headquarters at 1 March 1996. The National Blood Authority's estimates for 1996–97 include some £1.8 million for the costs of its headquarters. This includes costs such as rental, administrative and equipment costs, as well as staff salaries.

  Incontinence
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to promote continence care and services, and if he will make a statement; [23456]
  56
  (2) what guidance he has issued to health authorities on the provision of incontinence services; [23458]

  (3) if he will draw up and publish national criteria for the provision of incontinence services through a Department of Health guideline; [23459]

  (4) what measures he has taken to monitor incontinence services provided by health authorities. [23462]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on 27 February,Official Report, columns 463–64.

  We have issued the following guidance to the NHS:
  An Agenda for Action on Continence Services (Department of Health) issued in 1991;
  The Role of the Continence Adviser in England and Wales (Social Policy Research Unit, University of York) issued in 1994;
  Incontinence (Patient Perception Leaflet—NHS Executive) issued in 1994;
  Incontinence—Causes, Management and Provision of Services (Royal College of Physicians) issued on 28 March 1996;
  Commissioning Comprehensive Continence Services—Guidance for Purchasers (The Continence Foundation) issued on 28 March 1996.

  Copies of these publications will be placed in the Library.

  Work is continuing on a nursing-led clinical guideline on the management of incontinence.

  The organisation of continence services locally and the manner in which they are delivered are matters for district health authorities and hospital and community trusts.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the long-term saving in residential care costs from providing support services in their own homes to patients who suffer from incontinence. [23457]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have made no such estimate.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the amount spent on incontinence products by each health authority in each of the last five years; [24083]

  (2) what was the amount spent on incontinence products for residents of private nursing homes who have been placed there by the health authority, by authority, in each of the last five years. [24084]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are currently affected by incontinence in the United Kingdom. [24085]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Food Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the amount spent per patient on food by NHS hospitals and trusts in each year since 1979. [24028]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Renal Dialysis
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will publish estimates which have been provided to him of the numbers of people per million of population who need renal dialysis treatment for each regional health authority area for each year since 1986; [24088]

  (2) if he will publish the estimates which have been provided to him of the numbers of people per million of population who have received renal dialysis treatment for each regional health authority area for each year since 1986; [24089]

  (3) when he intends to publish the renal service review report. [24087]

  Mr. Horam
  We are still considering the best way to take forward the report of the renal review, and intend to issue guidance on purchasing renal services to health authorities in due course. This would include information on the numbers of people who received renal dialysis in each region. Information on the numbers of people who need renal dialysis is not available centrally; however, guidance has been issued to health authorities on how to carry out a needs assessment of their populations for renal disease.

  Cancer Research
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into links between the operations of Menwith Hill station in North Yorkshire and local incidence of cancer. [23776]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department has neither commissioned nor evaluated any research specifically into the local incidence of cancer near Menwith Hill station. However, I understand that the North Yorkshire health authority is aware of speculative suggestions of a raised incidence of cancer in the area, is currently examining relevant health statistics that are routinely maintained for the area, and is in contact with local community representatives.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ban the import of tobacco on Health grounds. [23990]

  Mr. Horam
  No. While determined to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use, we believe that the provision of all relevant information on the dangers of smoking allows people to make their own decision.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in the care of the local authority have taken up a training place from age 16 years in each of the last five years. [24027]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Rendering Industry
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial support will be provided to the rendering industry and knackers yards in the financial year 1996–97. [24467]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Rendering plants and associated trades are vital service industries, without which UK animal production cannot take place. In the absence of these industries, it is likely that animal waste would be unlawfully buried or dumped, leading to unacceptable health and environmental risks.

  In view both of the ban on the use of mammalian meat-and-bone meal in feed for all farm animals and of current market conditions, it is proposed to provide temporary financial assistance to rendering plants of up to £118 million in the financial year 1996– 97. My officials are preparing detailed proposals on the operation of this support.

  Parliamentary approval to this new service will be sought in a supplementary estimate for class III, vote 2 (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: operational expenditure, agencies and departmental administration). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £40 million will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Channel Islands
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what rights United Kingdom citizens have to live and work in Jersey; [22711]

  (2) if citizens of the Channel Islands have the right to live and work anywhere within the European Union. [22710]

  Mr. Sackville
  Channel Islanders benefit from European Union provisions relating to the free movement of persons or services only if they have close ties with the United Kingdom— for example, if they, a parent or grandparent were born, adopted, naturalised or registered in the United Kingdom—or they have been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for a period of five years. The traditional right of abode in the United Kingdom for Channel islanders is, however, unaffected by these provisions.

  There are no restrictions on British citizens travelling to Jersey, which, together with Guernsey, the Isle of Man, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom forms part of the common travel area.

  However, in view of the serious shortage of dwelling space on the island, there are restrictions under Jersey law on the acquisition of dwelling accommodation, whether by purchase or by lease.

  KGB Agent
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to identify the KGB agent codenamed Iogann. [23049]
  59
  Mr. Howard
  It is long-standing Government policy not to comment on operational matters relating to security and intelligence.

  Artyom M. Tarasov
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate the antecedents of Artyom M. Tarasov, born in Moscow on 4 July 1950. [23050]

  Mr. Howard
  No.

  Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many contracts for goods or services have been awarded by his Department and its executive agencies on the basis of single negotiated contracts in each of the last three years; if he will list the companies involved and the value of the contract in each case; what percentage this represented of contracts awarded by his Department and its agencies after competitive tendering; and, in each case, why the contracts were awarded on the basis of a single negotiated tender. [22875]

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines are currently in force in his Department and its executive agencies relating to competitive tendering and the use of single negotiated tenders; on what grounds single negotiated tenders can be used; and what procedures are in place within his Department to ensure that the use of single negotiated tenders in competitive tendering processes is justified in all cases. [22859]

  Mr. Howard
  Detailed Home Office guidance on competitive tendering procedures has been very widely circulated in the Home Office and its agencies. This incorporates the Government's public purchasing policy consolidated guidelines requiring goods and services to be obtained by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. In addition, the European Community procurement directives and World Trade Organisation Government procurement agreement require most contracts above specified thresholds to be awarded following competition, subject to certain specified exceptions. The central unit on procurement's guidance note No. 40 has also been circulated within the Home Office and provides an overview of best practice in competitive tendering.

  Except for very low-value items, all proposals to buy goods and services by single tender are required to be refer to a specialist procurement unit within the Home. Office. Single tender will be approved only in exceptional circumstances; for example, when for reasons of security, or compatibility with existing equipment or the protection of intellectual property rights, goods or services may be provided by only one supplier.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases of detained asylum seekers since 4 July 1995 there was a dispute as to the individual's true age; and in how many of these cases a special adjudicator's assessment of the age of the person concerned supported(a) the immigration service opinion or (b) the age claimed by the individual concerned. [23511]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examining individual local case files.

  EDS Software
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what outsourcing contracts his agencies have with the EDS software computer system; what is the current cost; when the contract ends; what are the penalties involved should we seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [23737]

  Mr. Howard
  My agencies do not have any outsourcing contracts with the EDS software computer system.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what savings to date have been made by his Department as a result of outsourcing arrangements made with the EDS computer system; what assessment he has made of the equivalent costs for carrying out this work in house; and if he will make a statement. [24229]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department does not have any outsourcing contracts with the EDS software computer system.

  Police Information Technology
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on future arrangements for the delivery of police information technology. [24468]

  Mr. Howard
  With the agreement of the police service and police authorities the Government have decided to establish a new body—the Police Information Technology Organisation —to deliver information technology more efficiently and effectively to the police service in England, Wales and Scotland. PITO will initially be set up on a non-statutory basis, as part of the Home Office, with effect from 1 April. The new organisation will take over many of the functions and staff of the former police department science and technology group.

  PITO will be responsible for promoting the delivery of national police information technology services, such as the police national computer and the police national network, and taking forward the national strategy for police information systems by co-ordinating the development of local information technology systems where common standards and systems are needed.

  PITO will operate on a partnership basis between the Home and Scottish Offices, chief offices and police authorities. To reflect this tripartite approach, a council will be appointed to advise me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on the discharge of PITO' s functions.
  61
  It is proposed to place PITO on a statutory footing as soon as the Government's legislative programme allows. Following legislation, the advisory council will be replaced by an executive board responsible for the strategic management of the organisation.

  Director General of the Prison Service
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the appointment of the Director General of the Prison Service; and if he will make a statement. [24469]

  Mr. Howard
  With the approval of the Prime Minister, I have today appointed Richard Tilt as Director General of the Prison Service.

  I also propose to establish a Prison Service Advisory Board to advise me on the performance and plans of the Prison Service, including the key performance indicators, and on policy matters relating to the Prison Service. The advisory board will have a part-time non-executive chairman and the other members will include the director general, other senior Home Office and Prison Service officials and other non-executives.
  62
  I have concluded that the terms of the framework document which established the Prison Service as an executive agency of the Home Office in 1993 would benefit from some clarification. I propose to ask the advisory board further to consider the need for such clarification and to make recommendations.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a list of all overseas visits made by all Ministers of his Department since 1990, including(a) details of the places visited and brief reasons for the visit, (b) details of the size, composition and cost to public funds of the delegation and (c) the names of non-ministerial members of each delegation and the capacity in which each was present. [17482]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: I have placed a note in the Library setting out the readily available information on ministerial visits sought by the hon. Member. The list of visits includes the details requested for the period since 1 January 1995. The details requested for the period prior to that date are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what co-operative arrangements are in place between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland to prevent the importing of bovine spongiform encephalopathy into the United Kingdom; and what measures are taken to prevent its importation from the Republic of Ireland. [22937]

  Mr. Ancram
  Officials from the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland regularly meet counterparts from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the Republic of Ireland to discuss all aspects of animal health and there is local co-operation with official veterinarians on both sides of the border. EU legislation requires all bovine animals imported from another member state, including the Republic of Ireland, to be accompanied by documentation and their importation to be notified in advance. Department of Agriculture veterinarians carry out random checks on such animals at their point of destination, including checks for any visible signs of BSE. Veterinary staff also inspect all animals presented for slaughter at meat plants to ensure that they show no signs of BSE. Any that show such signs are slaughtered separately and their carcases incinerated.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cattle in Northern Ireland have contracted bovine spongiform encephalopathy in each of the past five years; and how many have died. [22940]

  Mr. Ancram
  All animals affected or suspected of being affected with BSE are slaughtered and their carcases incinerated. The number of cattle in Northern Ireland that have contracted —that is, been confirmed as having—BSE in each of the last five years is:

  March 1991—February 1992: 179

  March 1992—February 1993: 398

  March 1993—February 1994: 477

  March 1994—February 1995: 309

  March 1995—February 1996: 153.

  In some cases, affected animals die before slaughter. The number of cattle that have contracted bovine spongiform encephalopathy over the last five years and have died is:

  March 1991—February 1992: 7

  March 1992—February 1993:15

  March 1993—February 1994: 8

  March 1994—February 1995: 2

  March 1995—February 1996: 3.

  Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State For Northern how many contracts for goods or services have been awarded by his Department and its 64
  executive agencies on the basis of single negotiated contracts in each of the last three years; if he will list the companies involved and the value of the contract in each case; what percentage this represented of contracts awarded by his Department and its agencies after competitive tendering; and, in each case, why the contracts were awarded on the basis of a single negotiated tender. [22870]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Within the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments the information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidelines are currently in force in his Department and its executive agencies relating to competitive tendering and the use of single negotiated tenders; on what grounds single negotiated tenders can be used; and what procedures are in place within his Department to ensure that the use of single negotiated tenders in competitive tendering processes is justified in all cases. [22855]

  Sir John Wheeler
  In relation to competitive tendering and the use of single negotiated tenders the Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Office and their executive agencies operate under the principles of Government accounting as set out in "Government Accounting" and "Government Accounting Northern Ireland"; the provisions of the following procurement legislation:

  The Public Supply Contracts Regulations 1995—SI 1995 No. 201

  The Public Services Contracts Regulations 1993—SI 1993 No. 3228

  The Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991—SI 1991 No. 2680;

  and the series of supplementary guidance notes on purchasing and supply procedures issued by the central unit on procurement HM Treasury.

  These publications set out the grounds on which single negotiated tenders may be used and the procedures to justify their use.

  Pensioners and Disabled People
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many (i) men, (ii) women and (iii) young people of each sex are(a) pensioners and (b) registered disabled in each council area in Northern Ireland; and if he will express these figures as a percentage of the total population. [21982]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The 1991 census of population provides the most recent information on the number of people of pensionable age in each district council area in Northern Ireland broken down by sex. This information is as follows.
  65

  District council

  Total Population

  Total males

  Total females

  Total Persons aged 60-65+Years

  Total males aged 65+years

  Total females aged 60+years

  Persons aged 60-65+ as percentage of total population

  Males aged 65+as Percentage of total males

  Females aged 60+as Percentage of total females

  Antrim

  44,516

  22,135

  22,381

  5,220

  1,794

  3,426

  11.73

  8.1

  15.31

  Ards

  64,764

  31,527

  33,237

  10,178

  3,437

  6,741

  15.72

  10.9

  20.28

  Armagh

  51,817

  25,741

  26,076

  7,241

  2,513

  4,728

  13.97

  9.76

  18.13

  Ballymena

  56,641

  27,830

  28,811

  8,654

  2,994

  5,660

  15.28

  10.76

  19.65

  Ballymoney

  24,198

  12,022

  12,176

  3,590

  1,274

  2,316

  14.84

  10.6

  19.02

  Banbridge

  33,482

  16,568

  16,914

  4,870

  1,722

  3,148

  14.55

  10.39

  18.61

  Belfast

  279,237

  130,820

  148,417

  52,308

  16,375

  35,933

  18.73

  12.52

  24.21

  Carrickfergus

  32,750

  15,371

  16,879

  4,620

  1,493

  3,127

  14.11

  9.41

  18.53

  Castlereagh

  60,799

  28,946

  31,853

  11,436

  3,789

  7,647

  18.81

  13.09

  24.01

  Cookstown

  31,082

  15,503

  15,579

  4,033

  1,473

  2,560

  12.98

  9.5

  16.43

  Coleraine

  50,438

  24,369

  26,069

  7,955

  2,674

  5,281

  15.77

  10.97

  20.26

  Craigavon

  74,986

  36,511

  38,475

  10,142

  3,308

  6,834

  13.53

  9.06

  17.76

  Derry

  95,371

  46,708

  48,663

  10,215

  3,222

  6,993

  10.71

  6.9

  14.37

  Down

  58,008

  28,835

  29,173

  8,402

  2,878

  5,524

  14.48

  9.98

  18.94

  Dungannon

  45,428

  22,556

  22,872

  6,204

  2,201

  4,003

  13.66

  9.76

  17.5

  Fermanagh

  54,033

  27,095

  26,938

  8,504

  3,299

  5,205

  15.74

  12.18

  19.32

  Larne

  29,419

  14,318

  15,101

  4,808

  1,590

  3,218

  16.34

  11.1

  21.31

  Limavady

  29,567

  15,042

  14,525

  3,181

  1,180

  2,001

  10.76

  7.84

  13.78

  Lisburn

  99,458

  48,653

  50,805

  12,627

  4,084

  8,543

  12.7

  8.39

  16.82

  Magherafelt

  36,293

  18,177

  18,116

  4,680

  1,770

  2,910

  12.9

  9.74

  16.06

  Moyle

  14,789

  7,355

  7,434

  2,468

  899

  1,569

  16.69

  12.22

  21.11

  Newry and Mourne

  82,943

  41,307

  41,636

  10,777

  3,768

  7,009

  12.99

  9.12

  16.83

  Newtownabbey

  74,035

  35,760

  38,275

  10,698

  3,398

  7,300

  14.45

  9.5

  19.07

  North Down

  71,832

  34,284

  37,548

  12,867

  4,149

  8,718

  17.91

  12.1

  23.22

  Omagh

  45,809

  23,022

  22,787

  6,061

  2,305

  3,756

  13.23

  10.01

  16.48

  Strabane

  36,141

  18,116

  18,025

  4,662

  1,699

  2,963

  12.9

  9.38

  16.44

  Comprehensive information on the registered disabled, as a percentage of the total population —male and female is not available at district council level. Information for Northern Ireland as a whole is as follows:

  Total registered disabled in Northern Ireland as a percentage of the total population

  Area

  Northern Ireland

  Total population1

  1,654,000

  Total males1

  809,000

  Total females1

  845,000

  Total registered disabled

  9,565

  Total male registered disabled

  6,892

  Total female registered disabled

  2,673

  Total registered disabled as a percentage of total Population

  0.58

  Male registered disabled as a percentage of total male population

  0.85

  Female registered disabled as a percentage of total female population

  0.32

  1 Government Actuary's Department Population Projections for 1996.

  Total registered disabled in Northern Ireland as a percentage of the total population

  Area

  Northern Ireland

  1Total population

  1,654,000

  1Total males

  809,000

  1Total females

  845,000

  Total young registered disabled

  134

  Young male registered disabled

  85

  Young female registered disabled

  49

  66

  Total registered disabled in Northern Ireland as a percentage of a total population

  Area

  Northern Ireland

  Total young registered disabled as a percentage of total population

  0.01

  Young male registered disabled as a percentage of total male population

  0.01

  Young female registered disabled as a percentage of total female population

  0.01

  1 Government Actuary's Department Population Projections for 1996.

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 525, what assessment he has made of how many of the ponds comply with (a) the fishery protection measures of the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 and (b) the provisions governing the installation of grids, grills and lattices. [21807]

  Mr. Ancram
  All the ponds have been assessed for compliance with the fishery protection measures of the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. Compliance with the requirement for the installation of grids, grills and lattices is monitored by staff of the Fisheries Conservancy Board for Northern Ireland during routine river patrols, but as this requirement applies only in situations where water is abstracted and returned to a river very few of the ponds would be subject to it. The Fisheries Conservancy Board does not require access to pond sites to undertake this monitoring nor does it have statutory responsibility for fish culture requiring such access.

  Cultural Bodies
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the(a) Irish and (b) Ulster Scots cultural bodies which received funding from the central community relations unit in 1995–96; how much funding was awarded to each body; and what assessment he has made of the equity of distribution between (a) and (b). [22412]

  Mr. Ancram
  Further to my answer of 14 March 1996,Official Report, columns 743–44, the following Irish language and Ulster Scots cultural bodies have received funding from the budget of the central community relations unit in the current financial year.

  (a) Irish language cultural bodies:

  CCRU has directly funded the following bodies:

  £

  Ultach Trust

  93,757

  Gael Linn

  43,000

  Comhaltas Uladh

  27,125

  Preas an Phobail

  25,258

  Oideas Gad Uladh

  5,000

  The cultural traditions group has funded the following groups, drawing on grant provided by CCRU:

  £

  Comhchoiste na Gaeilge Aontroim Thuaidh

  21,000

  Condradh na Gaeilge

  1,200

  Small grants of less than £1,000 were made by the cultural traditions group to:
  An Cumann Gaelach; Cairdeas na Teanga; Coiste na Bealtaine; Comhaltas an Chreagain; Culturlann Mac Adam—O Fiaich; and Radio an Iuir.

  b. Ulster Scots Cultural Groups

  The cultural traditions group made the following grants to Ulster Scots cultural groups, drawing on grant provided by CCRU:

  £

  Ulster Scots Heritage Council

  12,470

  Ulster Scots Academic Press

  1,500

  The distribution of these resources reflects the numbers of Irish language and Ulster Scots cultural groups in Northern Ireland, and the relative stage of development of the Irish language and Ulster Scots cultural movements. All applications for grant assistance are assessed on their merits.

  Beef Industry
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to promote the beef industry in Northern Ireland; what measures he will take to inform the public of the health safety of beef consumption; and if he will make a statement. [22939]
  68
  Mr. Ancram
  The recent statement made by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food cover comprehensively the health safety of beef consumption. We continue to work to ensure that the situation of the industry in Northern Ireland and its needs are registered on all occasions.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland have contracted Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in each of the past five years; and how many have died. [22938]

  Mr. Moss
  There have been three cases, all fatal, resulting in one death in each of the years 1992, 1993 and 1995.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total cost of answering parliamentary questions in each Session since 1989–90. [22904]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The NIO and Northern Ireland Departments do not calculate the data requested, and they could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Schoolteachers
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Irish schoolteacher qualifications were recognised under EU rules in 1993–94 in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) Great Britain; how many United Kingdom schoolteacher qualifications were recognised in the Republic of Ireland; and what assessment he has made of the desirability of making a submission to the European Commission requesting enforcement proceedings in the European Court of Justice against the Republic's Irish language requirements for such recognition. [23233]

  Mr. Ancram
  Two such qualifications are recognised in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. The number of United Kingdom qualifications recognised in the Republic of Ireland is a matter for the Irish Government. The European Court of Justice has already considered the compatibility of the requirement of linguistic knowledge with EU law.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to ensure that indoor/outdoor powered wheelchairs are made freely available in Northern Ireland on the same lines as the Department of Health has announced for England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [23234]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 29 March 1996): The Department of Health announcement referred only to England. In Northern Ireland the Department of Health and Social Services is currently exploring with the four health and social services boards how the wheelchair service might be improved. In this context they will be considering the provision of indoor/outdoor powered

  69
  wheelchairs for severely disabled people and the implications for Northern Ireland of the proposals for a voucher scheme.

  NHS (Residual Liabilities) Bill
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he made of the possibility of extending the NHS (Residual Liabilities) Bill to Northern Ireland; and what were the reasons for choosing the negative resolution procedure. [23230]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 29 March 1996]: This is a transferred matter and it is accepted practice to amend the existing Northern Ireland legislation by means of an Order in Council rather than extension of a Bill. The negative resolution procedure was chosen to maintain the integrity of the NI statute book and because there is some urgency to ensure consistency throughout the United Kingdom.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Internet
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information from her Department is made available over the Internet. [21907]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage uses its Internet site to provide information on the work of the Department; guidance on issues such as the care, preservation and management of records; press notices through the Central Office of Information; and links to those sponsored bodies which have an Internet presence.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what research has been conducted by her Department on the effect on the finances of households of investing in the national lottery. [21908]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has commissioned surveys of spending on the national lottery and is also analysing other relevant surveys, such as the Central Statistical Office's family expenditure survey 1994–95. These surveys provide a breakdown of the total spending on the national lottery, which from the sales figures can be seen to be equivalent to around £2 a household a week, net of prizes.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement about the development of policy on the distribution of lottery proceeds. [24290]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have today issued to the chairman of the lottery distributing bodies changes to policy directions I intend to make under section 26 (1) and (2) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993.

  These changes will allow the arts councils to consider applications for revenue funding to help to develop talents, skills and creative abilities, particularly of young people; and to consider applications for lottery grants to fund access to and participation in the arts. They will allow the sports councils likewise to consider applications for revenue funding to help to develop sporting talent and skills, particularly of young people; and to consider
  70
  applications for the funding of one-off major international sporting events. Finally, they will allow the national heritage memorial fund to consider applications for grants from building preservation trusts.

  None of these directions is intended to promote awards which might substitute for existing funding through grant in aid. The Millennium Commission and the National Lottery Charities Board are already able to make revenue awards and are not affected by these proposals. My colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be writing today in similar terms to the distributing bodies for which they are responsible.

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultation she has had with east London boroughs subsequent to the announcement of the proposed site of the millennium exhibition. [21909]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Millennium Commission makes all decisions entirely independently of Government, and it is for the commission to determine the arrangements for a millennium exhibition. The commission has selected the ideas and concepts for an exhibition submitted by Imagination Group Ltd., and announced on 28 February its preference for the event to be located on the Greenwich peninsula site. It is for the commission to consult as it feels is necessary in order to determine whether to award a grant to a project.

  The commission has stated that it will need to be fully satisfied as to the firm commitment of the private sector support and viability of the whole project before a final grant decision will be taken. Work is currently in progress to develop the proposals submitted, and this work may include consultation by the commission with the bodies that it feels are appropriate before taking its decision. Although much of the current work is focusing on the development of the business plan and commitment of finance, substantial other work is also under way, including a detailed traffic impact assessment, and consultation with boroughs adjacent to Greenwich that may be affected by the exhibition will most likely be needed at the appropriate point of work in progress.

  British Tourist Authority
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the timetable for the appointment of a new chairman of the British Tourist Authority and English tourist board. [21910]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The new chairman will take up appointment after Ms Biss's term of office ends on 31 May.

  Tourism
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what analysis she has made of the latest figures on spending by tourists. [21911]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Overseas visitors to the UK spent £11.7 billion in 1995. That is an increase of 18 per cent. on 1994, and a record in real terms. The latest figure for spending by all tourists in the UK is £34 billion in 1994, equivalent to over 5 per cent. of gross domestic product.

  Arts, Sport and Heritage Funding
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on overall funding provision for(a) sport, (b) the arts and (c) heritage. [21913]

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold).

  Digital Terrestrial Television
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to ensure that there is universal access to digital terrestrial television services.[21914]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Broadcasting Bill creates the conditions for maximising viewers' access to digital terrestrial television. Multiplex licences will be awarded to those applicants whose proposals are best calculated to promote the development of digital terrestrial broadcasting. Two of the most important criteria will be applicants' plans for maximising coverage and for encouraging the take-up of digital receivers.

  British Film Industry
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations she has received about the future of the British film industry. [21915]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I receive regular representations from members of the film industry on a wide range of film-related issues.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the British film industry. [21918]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  The British film industry is currently in a buoyant state and the Government are committed to boosting it further. I congratulate Emma Thompson, Nick Park, James Acheson and John Blair on their recent success in winning academy awards, and also all those who were nominated. Over the past 20 years, British talent has won around 30 per cent. of all Oscars. A number of initiatives have recently been announced which will take forward the proposals set out in the policy paper published last year. Principal among these is confirmation that the national lottery will make more than £100 million available to film-related projects over the next five years—some £19.5 million has already been allocated. We have also set up an Advisory Committee on Film Finance, which is looking at obstacles to investment in the film industry and I look forward to receiving its report in July. I have also recently announced further allocations of money to Cinema 100, which is co-ordinating the celebrations of the centenary of the cinema, to the British Film Institute and to the European Film Studio. My Department has now started a feasibility study into the viability of a west end showcase for British films and I await the outcome of that study with great interest.

  As well as these new initiatives, the Government are also, of course, committed to the continued funding of the British Film Institute, the National Film and Television School, British Screen Finance, the European Co-production Fund and the British Film Commission.

  Satellite Television
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many representations she has received during the past six months on the exclusive televising of sporting events by satellite television; and if she will make a statement. [21916]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has received representations from a wide range of interests, including over 250 letters from hon. Members in the last six months. My Department also held formal discussions with organisations representing consumers, broadcasters, sports bodies and regulatory authorities. Many representations were promoted by the publication of our discussion paper "Informing the Debate".

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to increase the percentage of British made programmes on satellite television; and if she will make a statement. [21917]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since 1991, there has been a steady improvement in the proportion of British-made programming on satellite channels uplinked from the United Kingdom. I am pressing channels which do not yet meet the majority proportion of European programme content required to be achieved over time by the EU broadcasting directive to agree further targets for increasing such content where practicable.

  Public Library Service
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the future of the public library service. [21919]

  Mr. Sproat
  As indicated in my right hon. Friend's written statement to the House on 18 December 1995, columns 852-54, I will report further on the public library service in a policy paper addressing the issues raised by the public library review. I intend to publish this paper in the near future.

  Safety at Sports Grounds
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to review the operation of the safety at sports grounds legislation. [21920]

  Mr. Sproat
  The safety at sports grounds legislation is kept under regular review.

  Locally Funded Theatres
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will make a statement on the future of locally funded theatres. [21921]

  Mr. Sproat
  Government funding in support of local theatres is channelled through the Arts Council and the regional arts boards. The funding of individual theatres is a matter for these bodies in conjunction with the local authorities and other funding partners.

  Deregulation
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is her policy on deregulation; and if she will make a statement. [21895]
  73
  Mr. Sproat
  I am taking forward the Government's campaign against red tape in the sectors for which I am responsible. In particular, my Department aims to remove obstacles to the competitiveness of the tourism industry, which is worth over £36 billion annually to the national economy. Many deregulatory measures beneficial to tourism have already been taken. We will work with other Departments to secure further deregulatory gains for the industry.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which(a) NHS hospital trusts and organisations

  Year

  Agency

  Organisation

  Nature

  Number of individuals

  Value of Contract

  1992–93

  —

  None

  —

  —

  —

  1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96

  War Pensions Agency

  General Healthcare Group PLC

  Provision of audiology Services. Contract expires 31 October 1996

  Varies according to the number of War Pension Claims and appeals involing hearing loss

  Varies according to the number and War Pension type of tests required

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines are currently in force in his Department and its executive agencies relating to competitive tendering and the use of single negotiated tenders; on what grounds single negotiated tenders can be used; and what procedures are in place within his Department to ensure that the use of single negotiated tenders in competitive tendering processes is justified in all cases. [22851]

  Mr. Burt
  Officials in this Department follow the guidance and instructions in the departmental purchasing and supply manual and the relevant domestic and EC legislation.

  The Government's public purchasing policy consolidated guidelines require goods and services to be acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. In addition, the EC procurement directives and World Trade Organisation Government procurement agreement require most contracts above specified thresholds to be awarded following competition, subject to certain specified exceptions. The central unit on procurement's guidance note No. 40 provides an overview of best practice in the competitive tendering process.

  Casual Workers (National Insurance)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will clarify the guidance given to those operating the national insurance contributions system, within his Department, with regard to the position of the self-employed status of casual workers in the film and television industry, with particular reference to the equivalent guidance given for taxation purposes. [20053]

  Mr. Heald
  Since 1987 the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue have adopted a common approach with the aim of minimising employment status differences. Where one Department has made a full 74
  and (b) private hospitals and medical organisations his Department has entered into contracts with for the purpose of testing of applicants for benefits administered by his Department in the current financial year and each of the three previous years; and if he will list the organisations involved, the nature of the contracts, the number of individuals covered by each contract, which agencies entered into these contracts and the monetary value of the contracts in each case. [22845]

  Mr. Burt
  This Department has not entered into contracts for this purpose with any NHS hospital trusts or organisations. Information about contracts with private hospitals and medical organisations is in the table.

  examination of an individual case and issued a ruling, the other Department will normally adhere to it provided the circumstances remain the same.

  General guidance on employment status is provided in a joint leaflet which applies for tax and national insurance purposes. In addition, within the film and TV industry, the Inland Revenue publishes grading lists to help employers determine which workers should be self-employed and which not. The Contributions Agency has also used these lists since 1992. These lists are reviewed annually.

  Currently, the Contributions Agency is co-operating with the Inland Revenue to provide guidance for 1996–97. The intention is to simplify the lists both Departments use by providing a combined list including all parts of the industry which cover television, film, video and radio work.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 13 March,Official Report, column 646, when he intends to establish the threshold levels for grants to local authorities in respect of costs that they face from measures to remove benefit from serious asylum seekers; and what consultations he has had with local authorities in seeking to establish the level. [22461]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 28 March,Official Report, column 717.

  Housing and Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to redesign or modify the procedure or forms which new income support claimants are given by the Benefits Agency to claims housing and council tax benefit. [22598]
  75
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The content and design of the housing benefit and council tax benefit claim forms provided by the Benefits Agency are reviewed annually by the Department in consultation with the local authority associations and the Benefits Agency. A review is under way to identify the changes required in preparation for the implementation of jobseeker's allowance in October. Housing benefit and council tax benefit claims procedures are monitored continually.

  Pensions
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of commencing payment of a retirement pension on the day of a pensioner's 65th birthday. [18300]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 19 March,Official Report, column 181.

  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of pensioners who do not take up their entitlement to income support who also do not take up their entitlement to(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit. [23967]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 11 January,Official Report, column 325.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will assess the advantage of extending to married couples in divorce proceedings the same rules for division of pension rights as apply in the case of civil servants wishing to allocate part of their pension to their wives; and if he will list the rules applying to civil servants. [22957]

  Mr. Heald
  The provisions governing the allocation of civil service pensions are contained in section 5 of, and appendix 8 to, the rules of the principal civil service pension scheme.

  The Government have announced their commitment to the principle of pension splitting on divorce. Options for dealing with the treatment of pensions on divorce will be dealt with in the Green Paper that we intend publishing in the summer.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has, in what time scale, to make regulations under section 149 of the Pensions Act 1995 to extend to occupational pension schemes his proposals for contracted-out money purchase payment schemes;[23128]

  (2) by what date he will make regulations under section 149 of the Pensions Act 1995 to enable occupational pension schemes to be used for contracting out on a contracted out mixed benefits scheme. [23129]

  Mr. Heald
  We aim to lay regulations under section 149 of the Pensions Act 1995 before the summer parliamentary recess. From 6 April 1997 the intention is that newly contracted-out schemes will be able to contract out on a salary-related basis in respect of some members and a money purchase basis in respect of others. Existing contracted-out salary-related schemes will be able to change to contracted-out money purchase status without having to discharge their liabilities to provide salary-related benefits in respect of members' accrued rights. They will also be able to provide contracted-out 76
  money purchase benefits for some members and salary-related rights for others. Existing contracted-out money purchase schemes will be able to take advantage of the new flexibilities from April 1998. All these schemes will be known as contracted-out mixed benefit schemes or COMBS.

  Family Credit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what percentage of those lone parents who were in receipt of family credit in(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94 received family credit for (i) 26 weeks only, (ii) 52 weeks only and (iii) more than 52 weeks; [22187]

  (2) how many lone parents claimed family credit in (a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94; [22189]

  (3) how many couples claimed family credit in (a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94; [22190]

  (4) what was the total number of family credit claimants in (a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94; [22191]

  (5) of those couples in receipt of family credit in (a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94 what percentage received family credit for (i) 26 weeks only, (ii) 52 weeks only and (iii) more than 52 weeks. [22192]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table. To provide data on a comparable basis, it refers to recipients of family credit at the end of each financial year. This excludes awards beginning and ending during the year and therefore significantly underestimates the number and proportion of awards that last for 26 weeks only. The proportion with longer spells on family credit is thus over-estimated.

  Caseload (000)

  Percentage of Caseload With Family Credit in Payment For 26 Weeks

  Percentage of Caseload With Family Credit in Payment For 52 Weeks

  Percentage of Caseload With Family Credit in Payment For More than 52 Weeks

  1992–93

  All families

  485

  42.1

  23.2

  34.6

  All lone Parents

  280

  48.0

  21.2

  30.8

  All Couples

  204

  34.1

  25.9

  40.0

  1993–94

  All families

  536

  38.9

  21.1

  39.9

  All lone Parents

  303

  45.2

  21.0

  33.8

  All Couples

  233

  30.7

  21.3

  48.0

  Notes:

  1. Figures refer to awards in payment at the end of the financial year; and may exclude those who ceased have ceased to claim during the year.

  2. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Percentages have been expressed to one decimal place, and therefore may not tally.

  Source:

  Family Credit Computer System: 5 per cent. sample of all awards.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of children in Scotland aged(a) under five years and (b) five to 15 years living with lone parents were in receipt of family credit in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94. [22188]
  77
  Mr. Evans
  The available information is set out in the table:

  Child aged

  Number of children in families receiving family credit

  Number as a percentage of children in Scotland

  As at 31 March 1993

  Under five years

  11,000

  3.5

  Five to 15 years

  37,000

  5.2

  As at 31 March 1994

  Under five years

  12,000

  3.7

  Five to 15 years

  41,000

  5.7

  1. Figures refer to awards in payment at the end of the financial year and may exclude those who have ceased to claim during the year.

  2. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Percentages have been expressed to one decimal place and therefore may not tally.

  4. The number of children has been calculated by reference to a 5 per cent. sample of the family credit computer system and the number of children in Scotland by reference to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys mid-term estimates 1993 and 1994.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what percentage of children in Scotland aged(a) under five years and (b) five to 15 years from two-parent families were in receipt of family credit in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94. [22193]

  Mr. Evans
  The available information is set out in the table:

  Child aged

  Number of children in families receiving family credit

  Number as a percentage of children in Scotland

  As at 31 March 1993

  Under five years

  17,000

  5.4

  Five to 15 years

  37,000

  5.2

  As at 31 March 1994

  Under five years

  18,000

  5.4

  Five to 15 years

  37,000

  5.1

  1. Figures refer to awards in payment at the end of the financial year; and may exclude those who have ceased to claim during the year.

  2. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Percentages have been expressed to one decimal place and therefore may not tally.

  4. The number of children has been calculated by reference to a 5 per cent. sample of the family credit computer system and the number of children in Scotland by reference to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys mid-term estimates 1993 and 1994.

  War Pensions Disregard
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what are (i) the arrangements and (ii) the formulae for compensating local authorities for the mandatory £10 disregard of(a) war disablement and (b) war widows' pensions when assessing eligibility for council tax and housing benefit; [23209]

  (2) how much his Department has paid in each of the last five years (i) in total and (ii) by local authority, to compensate local authorities for the mandatory £10 disregard of (a) war disablement and (b) war widows' pensions when assessing eligibility for council tax and housing benefit. [23210]
  78
  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 14 February,Official Report, column 654.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the oral answer of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 26 February,Official Report, column 576, if he will list those statutory instruments and Acts of Parliament which have been gold plated in the past five years; and what steps he is taking to amend or repeal each piece of gold plating on existing legislation.[23636]

  Mr. Burt
  The Government's policy is not to add unnecessary burdens when implementing EC directives. We take every opportunity to review existing legislation in the light of this. Revised guidance to enable Ministers to see where implementing legislation goes beyond the underlying EC directive is in the course of preparation.

  Appeals Mechanisms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how may appeals mechanisms, as laid out in section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, he expects to establish by the end of 1996; how many staff each appeals system will employ; and what their estimated annual running costs will be. [23616]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Performing Artists (National Insurance)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on living standards of actors of the proposal to take actors out of eligibility for class 1 national insurance contributions; [24018]

  (2) what consultations he has had with (a) theatre employers, (b) television employers and (c) actors' organisations on proposals to change actors' eligibility for class 1 national insurance contributions; [24019]

  (3) if he will delay a decision on changes to eligibility rules concerning actors and class 1 national insurance contributions pending consultations with (a) theatre employers, (b) televisions employers and (c) actors' organisations. [24017]

  Mr. Heald
  In reviewing the national insurance position of actors, departmental officials have consulted the following organisations:

  The Theatres' National Committee,

  The British Broadcasting Corporation,

  The ITV Network Centre,

  The Producers' Alliance for Cinema and Television,

  The British Actors' Equity Association.

  In common with other occupations and professions, liability for the contributions paid by actors depends on the contractual nature of the engagement: that is, whether, under the law, it is employed earner's employment or self-employment. Employment status is decided without reference to any potential impact on the living standards of the individual concerned.
  79
  I am meeting representatives of Equity today, 1 April, and I am prepared to have further consultations with the industry if it seeks them.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the grounds for removing the right of performing artists to pay class 1 national insurance contributions; what external advice he took before making this decision; and what estimate he has made of the financial impact this move will have on(a) the national insurance fund and (b) the income support budget for the next five years. [23850]

  Mr. Heald
  This Department has generally regarded performers as employed earners. However, as a result of two tax cases before the special commissioners, the Inland Revenue now generally regards performers as self-employed and we are reviewing our position in the light of this change.

  In reviewing the position, departmental officials have sought views from representatives both of performers and of the broadcasting, film, theatre and video industries.

  Performing artists have no special rights to pay class 1 national insurance contributions: like other contributors, they are legally liable to pay the appropriate class of contribution depending on their employment status.

  No reliable estimate is available of the effects on public funds of any widespread shift away from the payment of class 1 contributions by performers.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefit payment cards will be introduced for claimants of JSA; and what transitional arrangements will apply. [24150]

  Mr. Heald
  Jobseeker's allowance claimants will be issued with the same benefit payment card as other social security customers. Claimants of jobseeker's allowance will be paid by girocheque until they are converted to the benefit payment card which, on current planning assumptions, will commence in October 1997.

WALES

  Morriston Hospital, Swansea
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the length of the delay in the start-up date for work on the accident and emergency department at Morriston hospital, Swansea; and to what extent this is due to the work being subject to the private finance initiative. [22963]

  Mr. Richards
  The start date for work in the accident and emergency department is dependent upon Morriston Hospital NHS trust completing its business case for a range of capital investments and securing approval from Lechyd Morgannwg health authority and the Welsh Office. Once the business case is approved, the trust will explore the opportunities for private sector investment, in line with all public sector capital developments. Any delay to the start can be quickly made up through speedy implementation of the works by a private sector partner.

  Contracts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what guidelines are currently in force in his department and its executive agencies relating to competitive tendering and the use of single negotiated tenders; on what grounds single negotiated tenders can be used; and what procedures are in place within his Department to ensure that the use of single negotiated tenders in competitive tendering processes is justified in all cases; [22856]

  (2) how many contracts for goods or services have been awarded by his Department and its executive agencies on the basis of single negotiated contracts in each of the last three years; if he will list the companies involved and the value of the contract in each case; what percentage this represented of contracts awarded by his Department and its agencies after competitive tendering; and, in each case, why the contracts were awarded on the basis of a single negotiated tender. [22871]

  Mr. Hague
  The Government's public purchasing policy consolidated guidelines require goods and services to be acquired by competition unless there are convincing reasons to the contrary. In addition, the EC procurement regulations and World Trade Organisation Government procurement agreement require most contracts above specified thresholds to be awarded following competition, subject to certain specified exceptions. the Treasury's central unit on procurement's guidance note No. 40 provides an overview of best practice in the competitive tendering process.

  My Department requires senior officers to obtain written approval for single negotiated contracts valued above £1,000 from the head of finance programmes division, who is advised by the head of procurement. The Department's executive agency, Cadw, requires the agreement of its chief executive for single negotiated contracts valued above £10,000 and the agreement of the appropriate head of branch for those valued below £10,000.

  Information on the number, value and percentage of single negotiated contracts awarded, the companies involved and the reasons why such contracts were awarded is not available in the form requested, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Wetlands
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations his Department has recently received from Friends of the Earth, Cymru concerning wetland areas in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [23183]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No such representation has been received.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the representations which he has received on the 1996–97 revenue support grant settlement. [23746]
  81
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend took account of all the representations made to the Welsh Office in making decisions on the 1996–97 local government revenue settlement. The decisions were approved by the House of Commons on 8 February.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new measures he will take to tackle homelessness; and if he will make a statement. [23744]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is a comprehensive range of measures in Wales to tackle homelessness and encourage the provision of suitable housing, especially for those least able to help themselves.

  Our approach is working: homelessness in Wales is falling. In the nine months to 30 September 1995—latest figures available—the number of cases of homelessness accepted by Welsh local authorities fell by 13.9 per cent. compared to the same period in 1994. There was also a large reduction—44.6 per cent.—in the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation at 30 September 1995 compared to the same point in 1994.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's work in energy conservation. [23748]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Welsh Office's energy and environment office provides businesses and other organisations with a wide range of support services on the efficient use of energy. These comprise free on-site visits; seminars; conferences and workshops; and availability of extensive best practice material and guides. The Office also supports the development of local energy and environment business action groups. Membership gives those concerned with energy management the opportunity to learn from others and broaden their knowledge and skills.

  EDS Software
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what outsourcing contracts his agencies have with the EDS software computer system; what is the current cost; when the contract ends; what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [23741]

  Mr. Hague
  My agency—Cadw—does not have any outsourcing contracts with EDS.

  Unmet Housing Need
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the backlog of unmet housing need. [23743]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Over 80 per cent. of households in Wales have expressed the wish to own their own home. Most housing needs are being met through the private market and I estimate that the completion of over 3,500 housing association homes in 1996–97 will go a considerable way towards meeting the need for subsidised housing.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that the nursery voucher scheme shall not apply in Wales. [23755]

  Mr. Richards
  No. The schemes will give parents in Wales a greater choice in the type of education they want for their four-year-olds, will stimulate diversity of provision and will act as a lever to raise standards.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all those in his Department authorised to issue public interest immunity certificates; and if he will make a statement. [23820]

  Mr. Hague
  A claim to public interest immunity relating to departmental documents or information is usually made by the appropriate Minister.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the oral answer of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 26 February,Official Report, column 576, if he will list those statutory instruments and Acts of Parliament which have been gold plated in the past five years; and what steps he is taking to amend or repeal each piece of gold plating on existing legislation. [23638]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Appeals Mechanisms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many appeals mechanisms, as laid out in section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, he expects to establish by the end of 1996; how many staff each appeals system will employ; and what their estimated costs will be. [23623]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to table 3.17 of his departmental report, if he will set out the principal reasons for the difference between the target and the forecast outturn for completion of the Cardiff bay barrage construction contract at the end of the 1995–96 financial year. [23559]

  Mr. Hague
  The Cardiff Bay development corporation is reporting good progress on the barrage project. Expenditure in 1995–96 is now expected to be over £40 million, which is within 5 per cent. of the target figure set at the start of the year. I have asked the chief executive to provide the hon. Member with the principal reasons for the variations from the target figures set at the start of the year, once the final outturn figures are known. I will arrange for a copy of his response to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the reasons for the time taken to direct the Local Government Boundary Commission to review the boundary between the Bridgend and Vale of Glamorgan county boroughs in the area from Coychurch to Ewenny. [24086]
  84
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The direction was issued on 6 February 1995, enabling the Local Government Boundary Commission, in preparing its initial draft proposals, to consult and take account of the views of the new unitary authorisation which were not elected until 4 May 1995.

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

Rwanda: Multi-Donor Evaluation
Lord Desai Lord Desai asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response, in terms of bilateral and multilateral humanitarian and overseas aid policies, to the recent multi-donor evaluation of the handling of the conflict in Rwanda and its aftermath.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we supported preparation of the study and we expect to discuss the recommendations from the evaluation report with other donors, UN agencies and non-governmental organisations.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Can she tell the House what Her Majesty's Government are doing about the problem?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we supported the study on the Rwanda evaluation to see what lessons we could learn from it. One of the good things to come out of the study is that the input by British non-governmental organisations has obviously been extremely well respected there. We also closely monitored the humanitarian effort throughout the emergency phase and shall continue to do so. We are sharing with others the lessons that we learnt in order to try to achieve better co-ordination of the efforts when such ghastly tragedies occur.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the lessons of that dreadful story is that humanitarian operations can never be a substitute for
2
timely political action and proactive diplomacy? Does she further agree that timely political action was needed most in April 1994 and is it not timely political action that is needed most now in the Great Lakes region as a whole? What lessons have the Minister and the Government drawn from the role of the Security Council in 1994 in failing to respond and to recognise genocide? What are they promoting as positive diplomacy now to deal with the overall situation in the region?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I, for one, am glad that this is the only time that we have seen something quite so horrendous as the genocide in Rwanda. One of the difficulties back in April 1994 was that no one could envisage what was building up, even those who knew the country. From it, we have learnt the need for pre-conflict action, as the noble Lord said. That is why this country has been engaged on a major programme of conflict prevention, working particularly in Africa. So far there have been four seminars in different parts of Africa with military and civilian personnel, to try to find out the key issues that turn a country away from normal civilized behaviour and towards such total uncivilized behaviour.
With regard to Burundi, where there is most concern at the moment, we have been visiting regularly. There is the Great Lakes Conference, and we had the Tunis Conference a couple of weeks ago, when many of the key players were brought together. I believe that the whole world has learnt a lesson from the genocide in Rwanda and everyone is determined that it shall never happen again. That is why we are now much more proactive across the world—not just the few of us who were involved right at the beginning in Rwanda—in trying to prevent it.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, if the situation in Burundi becomes worse, what action, taken from the lessons of Rwanda, will the Minister consider undertaking?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, first, the situation in Burundi was linked with Rwanda, but is by no means identical. Certainly, it is an over-simplification to

3
suggest that the lessons we learnt from Rwanda have a direct application in Burundi. We are playing our full part already in the international preventive diplomacy. We are bolstering the standing of moderates within the power-sharing government. By individual visits to Burundi (which I shall visit again in August) we are putting a whole series of pressures on those people. Past President Nyerere of Tanzania is spearheading the peace-making process. We are offering him every support and we have constant contact. In addition, there is the European Union Special Representative, Aldo Ajello, whom I saw last Thursday. He is on his way to work on all the problems of the Great Lakes but doing so from a base in Addis Ababa, so that he connects up with the Organisation of African Unity. So I can assure the noble Lord that we are all involved in trying to prevent further tragedy.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give us a progress report on the reintegration of the large number of refugees from Rwanda back into the economy of that country, in such a way that they do not need to have continuous outside aid from now onwards?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the return of refugees is slow, as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said. But the trilateral talks with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and neighbouring governments succeeded in agreeing a means of safe and voluntary return, and the Tunis and Addis Ababa meetings are taking that forward. Those who have returned need to be enabled to take up their old occupations and start to live a steady life. Britain has put resources into helping that to happen and to get people back to normality.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the chief problems is that the countries concerned have infrastructures which, such as they were, collapsed? It is extremely difficult to help a country to get on its feet if it has no infrastructure of its own with which to do it.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right. That was why, in Rwanda, one of the first things we did was to try to get the health service, such as it is, and the basic education service going again. Without those there was nothing to stabilise the community. We have also given help for the building up of civilian administration in Rwanda. The Government of Rwanda have come a long way, though there is much to be done to have anything like an infrastructure as we would know it and as Rwanda once had, which is the sadness of the situation. All that has been destroyed and it will take us a fair time to put it back on its feet. I believe that relations between us and Rwanda are very good. They are prepared to accept civilian help even though, understandably, they do not want military help.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, are the Government considering financial assistance to past President Nyerere's initiative as a regional honest broker?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that may be necessary. We have given a lot of help to Rwanda
4
and continue to help through the NGOs. The Carter Centre initiative, which has encouraged the dialogue, does not need our funding. If there should be any special need for funding for past President Nyerere, I shall look at it. He certainly has not asked for any at the present time.

Civil Service Recruitment
2.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking in the light of the rejection by this House of their plans for the privatisation of the system for recruitment to the Civil Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, the Government are still considering their response to the opinions expressed by the House on this matter. We have also noted the recommendation that a Select Committee on the public service be established which might consider as its first report the Government's plan for the future of Recruitment and Assessment Services.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he say when we are likely to hear what the Government's decision is, given the clear view of this House as expressed and related in the Question?
Earl Howe: My Lords, at the conclusion of our debate on 8th March, my noble friend the Leader of the House gave an assurance that the Government would come back to the House once our conclusions on the way forward are finalised. As my noble friend will understand, they are important and complex issues to which we shall need to give full and careful consideration. That process is still continuing. Clearly, we hope to report to the House as soon as we can.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister will recall the debate on 8th March; he took part in it and I listened to it. Can he go this far and say that, until the Select Committee has reported on this aspect of the public service—I understand that the committee is to be set up shortly and this is to be the first matter that it will consider—the Government will take no further action towards the privatisation of the service?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I note carefully the suggestion of the noble Lord. It is one that we shall consider in preparing our response to your Lordships.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that there are two distinct issues in this Question: onė is the merits of privatising the selection of the Civil Service, with which some of us may well have sympathy; the other, which some of us see as far more

5
important, is that no temporary government should have the right unilaterally to interfere with the selection of the Civil Service?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord will recall from the debate that selection for the Civil Service will remain with the Civil Service Commissioners. That was one of the central points that I stressed in the debate. The Government's proposals for RAS do not have any bearing on the noble Lord's anxieties.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that it would be slightly surprising were we to appoint a Select Committee of this House to consider this issue without receiving an undertaking from the noble Earl that the Government will not announce their final decision on the matter until the committee has made its recommendation to the House?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I note the anxiety expressed on that score. Clearly it is one that we shall need to bear in mind.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, whatever changes may be considered within the structure of the Civil Service, can the Minister say that, before they are finalised, all staff associations involved will be consulted?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the staff of RAS and the staff associations are being kept fully informed of progress as we go along.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, when is the report of the Liaison Committee likely to be considered by this House?
Earl Howe: My Lords, unfortunately I am not in a position to say. We hope that the Select Committee will be established very soon. I understand that, if it is, its terms of reference are likely to be approved tomorrow. Its membership should then follow on from that in a week or two. It will be for members of the committee to decide what their programme of work should be.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is understood that he may be inhibited from giving any formal undertaking, but that, pending the report of the Select Committee, it would be desirable that there should be a moratorium? It would be inconsistent with the setting up of such a committee that any further positive action should be taken.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I can only repeat to him that this is clearly a concern which we shall need to take fully into account.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, simply for the avoidance of doubt and as a superfluous postscript to the many questions that have been asked on this subject, perhaps I may ask the noble Earl whether, in addition to postponing action until after the Select Committee has
6
made its interim report, any action will be postponed until after this House has had an opportunity to debate that report.
Earl Howe: My Lords, a further debate on the future of RAS is a matter for the usual channels, but I note the noble Lord's suggestion.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who know the Civil Service well—I had some responsibility for it both as a Minister in the Civil Service Department and in the Treasury—and who were very concerned when they first learnt of this privatisation proposal would welcome the careful consideration which a Select Committee would give to it? Certainly, speaking for myself, I hope that at the end of the day this proposal will be dropped.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am only too well aware that on 8th March I was in a minority of—I shall say no more than a very small minority. So my noble friend's opinion does not altogether surprise me. However, I am sure that your Lordships will accept that the Government will give careful consideration to this matter in the light of the opinion expressed by your Lordships. We shall hope to report to the House as soon as we can.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, for the record, the Minister was in a minority of one on that occasion.
Noble Lords: Two.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg the noble Earl's pardon. At whatever time the Government come back to fulfil the undertaking given by the Leader of the House on 8th March, will the Minister give an assurance that it will not be in the non-debatable form of a Written Answer or an answer to an Unstarred Question but in a form which enables the House not only to debate the matter but to express a view on it?
Earl Howe: My Lords, no decisions have been taken. I note the noble Lord's wish. Whether we have a further debate is, of course, something for the usual channels to decide.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Molloy asked about consultation with the staff representatives but the Minister referred to information being given to them. Can he give an undertaking that there will be genuine consultation?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Civil Service, as a customer of RAS, has been consulted all along because clearly it is the one which needs to ensure that the contract with a privatised body, should this occur, is satisfactory. However, following the Government's decision, I can reassure the noble Baroness that staff have been kept informed of progress through regular staff meetings, information bulletins and things of that kind. The acting chief executive and senior managers

7
will work closely with the Cabinet Office to ensure that the sale is presented in the most favourable light possible.

Artists' Resale Rights Proposal
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they will take at the next meeting of the Council of Culture Ministers to counteract the European Commission's proposals to harmonise the droit de suite (artists' resale rights) levy which will greatly affect public sales of works of art in Britain and Europe as a whole.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, we shall need to consider the Commission's proposal on droit de suite—that is, artists' right to share in the proceeds of the resale of their works—and intend consulting all interested parties in the United Kingdom about it. However, the Government are not persuaded that there is a case for the introduction of droit de suite into the United Kingdom.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that satisfactory Answer. However, as the Minister knows, the new rules on the introduction of VAT on works of art which came into force last year are already having a damaging effect on the UK trade. This is because there is no import tax into Switzerland or the United States. Are the Government aware of the serious economic consequences of this provision?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Very much so, my Lords. We are conscious that one of the consequences of introducing this provision into the United Kingdom could be the displacement of art sales from the United Kingdom to other countries where there is no such suite. I imagine that New York is likely to be the most prominent beneficiary were such a change to be introduced. The potential impact on the London art market is clearly of utmost concern and it is for that very reason that we wish to consult all interested parties in the United Kingdom.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this droit de suite levy, rising from only 2 per cent., will do little to help young artists but could amount to as much as £30,000 on a major work of art and in consequence, as the noble and learned Lord said, sales of important 20th century art are likely to move from London, which is at present the centre of this art market, to New York?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Yes, my Lords. My understanding is that the Commission has not yet put forward its final set of proposals before the matter goes to the Council and others for consideration. However, the idea is that there should be a sliding scale with the levy going from 2 per cent. to as much as 4 per
8
cent. In some circumstances, for the cheaper works of artists, clearly that would not be a very significant addition to the income of an artist or his heirs, but it could be an extremely expensive item and it could have a serious deterrent effect on those who wish to use the London market. It would be a very serious consideration if London were to lose its pre-eminence.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the result of his consultation exercise may well be a foregone conclusion in this country but that it will not do him much good when he comes to negotiate the matter in Brussels? Does he agree that with this piece of legislation, as with the common fisheries policy, the common agricultural policy, the fruit and vegetable regime and many other pieces of damaging legislation from Brussels, the Government will be up against a qualified majority vote within the terms of the treaty which was unfortunately signed and that there will not be anything they can do about it?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it is my understanding that the Commission intends to bring this proposal forward under Article 100a which would mean that qualified majority voting would be the order of the day. It is nevertheless right that we should go forward with the consultation I have indicated. I am already very much aware of the strong representations that has come from the major auction houses in London setting forward their opposition to it. I understand that there are others who would purport to act, or may indeed act, for artists and their representatives who might take up a different point of view. I think it only right that we should carry forward that consultation.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the opposition to droit de suite comes exclusively from the fat cats? So far as concerns the artists, this is right and is supported by all right thinking people as being a means whereby the artist is able to have a small share in the increasing value of his work. Therefore, it is my hope that the noble and learned Lord will not be influenced by the opposition that has been expressed, from wherever it has come, and will consider the matter on its merits. If he does that, he will accept it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I have indicated in my previous answers, I am well aware of the strong representations from major auction houses in London. I do not think that their views are to be set aside. London enjoys a worthwhile pre-eminence and I very much hope that that can be maintained. The noble Lord makes my point for me. I indicated that it was right that on the proposal coming from the Commission there should be proper consultation. It is a rather extraordinary position that in some countries in Europe where this droit is already allowed it is nonetheless not implemented. That seems to be the least satisfactory of all positions.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of an auction house. Will my noble and learned friend reiterate to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins

9
of Putney, and others that this is not an issue that is going to affect the auction houses themselves, simply the locations in which they conduct their business? Is my noble friend aware that it is not universally accepted by artists that this programme is in their interests? In the very unfortunate event of there being a qualified majority vote on this issue, can we for once copy our European partners and ignore it?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend will not be surprised if I do not answer directly his last point. The substance of what he has to say is right. It is not that artists or their heirs may receive something that they would not otherwise have received. The greater likelihood is rather that the sale of those works will not be undertaken in London or within the European Union, but the sales will be displaced either to the United States, other than to California, where no such right exists or, alternatively, they may take place in Switzerland.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are other differences apart from the 3 per cent. droit de suite levy in the art market between France and the United Kingdom? For instance, is the Minister aware that in the United Kingdom there is 2.5 per cent. VAT, but in France it is 5 per cent.? Is he further aware that in France dealer commissions are limited to 9 per cent. by law, and in the United Kingdom dealers can charge up to 15 per cent.? Will the Minister take these matters into account when conducting his consultations? Does he agree that harmonisation would bring real competition to the art market in the European Union?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am not clear that I understand from the noble Lord's question whether he is in favour of the introduction of this measure into the United Kingdom. I am sure that in a supplementary question he will make it clear from the Opposition Front Bench where exactly he stands on this issue. I would have thought that there was little within the operations of the commercial auctioneering firms in France that we wish to copy. The only good news that has come out of that is the announcement by the French Government that, after considerable pressure, its market will be opened up on 1st January 1998. That is a welcome development; but we should like that date brought forward.

Hong Kong and Taiwan
3.2 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, or to what extent, the recent actions of the Chinese Government in respect of Taiwan have altered their expectations of what will happen in Hong Kong when it is transferred to China next year.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the positions of Taiwan and Hong Kong are very different. Under the terms of the 1984 Sino-British Joint
10
Declaration, Hong Kong will return to China in 1997, and China has guaranteed the continuation of Hong Kong's way of life for 50 years.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does my noble friend agree with me that China's recent bullying of Taiwan and its determination to scrap the recently elected LegCo, to replace it with an appointed body and to extract a pledge of loyalty to that body from Hong Kong's senior civil servants raise serious doubts about its commitment to freedom and democracy? I ask my noble friend specifically what steps, if any, the Government intend to take to protect the existing LegCo and the electoral arrangements which created it, beyond the date of the handover of Hong Kong to China next year.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are all well aware that the Chinese exercises against Taiwan were intended to influence the Taiwanese electorate in the run-up to the presidential election on 23rd March and to try to condition the approach of the victor to the China-Taiwan contacts. I believe that the scale of the exercises discredited once and for all China's earlier emphasis on peaceful reunification. Certainly, the bullying did not work. I understand my noble friend's serious doubts, but it is perfectly clear, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said to the Chinese Prime Minister at their meeting in Bangkok on 29th February, that our view is that the members of LegCo, elected last year, should be allowed to serve their full four-year term. We have told the Chinese that there is no justification for the establishment of a provisional legislature. We shall continue to urge them to reconsider this. Meanwhile, we stand by our commitment to work with the legitimate legislature, which is LegCo. We shall certainly continue to keep the interest in this matter, which has been expressed by many friendly countries, and we shall watch very carefully what is happening.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may pursue the question of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, a little further with the Minister. Can she say what the British Government's response is to the latest move by the Chinese Government in demanding that Hong Kong civil servants support the Peking-appointed provisional legislative council after takeover? Have any representations been made to the Chinese Government since the Prime Ministers' meeting in Bangkok at the end of February?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Yes, my Lords, we have made it quite clear that any move to create a conflict of loyalties would be damaging to the confidence of the Civil Service and for Hong Kong. We have made inquiries of the Chinese. We continue to find out exactly what they are seeking to say. As soon as we have a better understanding of what they are saying, apart from their threats, I shall be able to say a little more. We are well aware of the very serious implications of their remarks should they be carried through.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the recent missile tests and military exercises in the neighbourhood of the Taiwanese coast by the Chinese authorities constitute a breach of the United Nations Charter which prohibits the threat of the use of force? Can she say what mechanism exists within the United Nations' system for countering these threats of aggression where the aggressor itself is a permanent member of the Security Council?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, goes a little wide of the Question. All I can say to him is that these matters have not gone unnoticed. They are being discussed in New York, as I heard last week. No doubt the Security Council will, in its wisdom, come up with one of its famous answers.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, does the Minister agree that despite some anxieties in Hong Kong which are understandable, and a good deal of friction with China, the development of Hong Kong remains remarkable? Does she further agree that there are many people in Hong Kong who are determined to make a success of the arrangements which come into force next year and the new relationship with China that that implies, and that this is an attitude which deserves support?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn. He knows better than anyone how determined the Hong Kong people are to make a success of the economy which they have built up. When one meets businessmen, and even those from China, they too want to share in a similar success in the Special Administrative Region. Therefore, these people are to be praised and encouraged. We must carry on doing that. It is quite remarkable how confident people are. I saw that for myself last year. We should do everything we can to encourage that confidence and do nothing to undermine it.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the Minister agree—

Business
3.8 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on the European Council in Turin.

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
12
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
On Question, Whether Clause 111, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We resume the debate which this Committee had on Thursday evening on the Question of Clause 111 standing part of the Bill. At that time there were not many noble Lords opposite who were prepared to support the Government in their legislation and, regrettably, noble Lords were not available, with the enthusiasm that one would normally expect, to support the noble Earl in his honest and capable endeavours in trying to get this legislation through the Committee. It was perfectly understandable because the fact is that Clause 111 should not stand part of the Bill. It is no wonder that noble Lords opposite felt that they could not possibly support it. Indeed, even now the noble Lord the Leader of the House is demonstrating his confidence in the noble Earl's case by standing at the Bar. That is perfectly understandable for the simple reason that the scheme that has been produced in draft by the Department of the Environment is not a scheme for adjudication; it is a scheme for arbitration. Indeed, the Chief Whip is now deserting the Government.
I am certain that over the weekend the noble Earl received many representations stating that the industry, in the broadest sense of the word, simply does not agree with the thrust of the draft proposals. We debated that at some length on Thursday evening and I am sorry that noble Lords opposite were not available to hear the arguments.
I shall make just one point now. As both I and my noble friend Lord Howie said on Thursday, at one point we were proposing to table the scheme as a schedule to the Bill. Under the procedures of the House, that would have allowed us not only to discuss it substantively, but to amend those provisions if any noble Lord had chosen to table a further amendment. We could therefore have had discussions on different parts of the scheme. As my noble friend Lord Howie pointed out, after consideration we decided not to do that.
Nevertheless, I very much hope that when he comes to argue the case, the noble Earl will agree that the scheme as it stands is not acceptable either to this Committee or—this is much more important—to the industry at large. If the noble Earl can say to me today that he is producing new draft proposals for a scheme for adjudication rather than for arbitration, I should be perfectly happy, as I am sure would my noble friend, to cease our opposition to Clause 111. If, on the other hand, the scheme proceeds along the lines of the draft proposals, I am bound to advise the noble Earl that although we have decided not to table the provisions as a schedule in Committee, our view may well be different on Report.
Lord Berkeley: I, too, have received a number of representations from the industry over the weekend about the scheme. As one who has worked in the industry for much of my life, it hurts me that although the Latham Report had the almost universal support of the industry, we now have a Bill which has been questioned by many of us and a scheme which I do not believe that anybody supports. I wonder whether the Minister received any representations over the weekend and which of the original supporters of the Latham Report are now with us even in general terms, apart from the process workers who do not want to be part of it anyway.
Perhaps I may quote from one or two comments that I have received. I refer first to the Institution of Civil Engineers and to its chief conciliation and arbitration advisory panel, which has stated:
"It is a sad reflection upon our means of communication that the outcome has been this dismal Bill".
That is not a great compliment for the Bill.
The Building Employers Confederation has said:
"We have given it the thumbs down and we will be looking for significant amendments".
That was referring to the scheme, not to the Bill.
The subcontractors group, the Constructors Liaison Group, describes it as "quite appalling". Lastly and perhaps most importantly, the solicitors who have to work on arbitration and adjudication for the industry and the Official Referees Solicitors Association say that they believe that the whole scheme is "misconceived" and that the Government appear to be muddling adjudication with arbitration. What has happened between the publication of the Latham Report and the introduction of the provisions of this scheme? Do those who have had to turn the report into the Bill understand what they are trying to do? Even in its early draft form, the scheme seems to muddle arbitration with adjudication.
I hope that the Minister will agree to consult urgently with the industry and that he will either come up with an alternative solution, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, suggested, or delay the introduction of the scheme until we have a new version; otherwise the industry will continue to complain about the scheme which will remain unworkable. I believe that it will cause us much more trouble in the future, both here and in another place.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: During the proceedings on Thursday, my concern about the scheme's shortcomings increased almost by the minute. Noble Lords who have already spoken have referred to the lack of clarity as to whether it is an adjudication scheme. We approached the question rather crabwise on Thursday. The more questions that we asked, the more concerns noble Lords both on these Benches and the Labour Benches had about the scheme and about the final resolution to be proposed; about the Bill's relationship with the Arbitration Bill; and, returning to broader questions, about just which construction contracts would be subject to the scheme.
14
I have just read a report from a newspaper which is published for the construction industry, stating that the Constructors Liaison Group believes that the scheme,
"demonstrates a crucial misunderstanding in the mind of the DoE of the difference between adjudication and arbitration … We regard adjudication as the key to solving a lot of the problems in the industry.
If that is spoiled, we will be getting rid of the key part of this whole process".
The article concludes—I believe that this is very telling:
"Indeed, if we go down the road proposed by the DoE, we could end up increasing litigation rather than reducing it".
That would go entirely against the objectives of the Latham Committee and, I believe, of the Government.
Lord Howie of Troon: Surprising as it may seem, I was greatly encouraged by the events of last Thursday evening. Because so few noble Lords stayed behind to oppose my Motion that Clause 111 should not stand part of the Bill, I took it that they agreed with me by abstention, if not by their actual presence. I must be right in that because if those noble Lords had thought that I was wrong, I am sure that they would certainly have stayed behind to support the Government and to oppose me.
I do not want to repeat the speech that I made on Thursday although many noble Lords who are present now missed it then, but I am sure that they will have studied it closely in the Official Report. Your Lordships will be glad to learn that I should like to make just two brief general points. First, the draft scheme is closer to arbitration than it is to adjudication. It is clear that parts of the draft scheme have been lifted more or less in their entirety from the Arbitration Bill, and that they have been slotted into the scheme as though arbitration were a species of adjudication which, as we all know, it is not.
My only other point, which I made on Thursday also, is that by its very nature the scheme will apply only to small contracts because most contracts in the construction industry are based on standard conditions of contract which have been laid down and agreed over many years. They are well understood on all sides of the industry. It is obvious that contracts of any substantial size will be laid under the umbrella of those standard conditions of contract. It is also true that at the moment those standard conditions do not wholly comply with the Bill, but there is no doubt that they will be amended or altered in such a way that they meet the conditions of Clause 105. That leaves out the lesser, smaller contracts which are not usually made under the standard conditions. The problem is that the scheme is more draconian than the standard conditions. The effect is that the scheme, which is more severe, will bear more heavily on small contracts than on big ones. That is unfair. The Government's strategy is that if the scheme is draconian, small contractors will be obliged to adopt the standard conditions; but, in my experience, life is not like that.
A moment or two ago my noble friend Lord Berkeley wondered whether there was an alternative to 'the scheme. I believe there is. If the Government are acquainted, as they must be, with the sixth edition of the standard conditions of contract published by the

15
Institution of Civil Engineers, they will be aware that the conditions contain a procedure for conciliation. In this context, conciliation is almost the same as adjudication. The civil engineers' procedure for conciliation is much shorter and less complicated than the proposed scheme. Therefore, it is much more likely to be understood and used. It is also much less ambiguous than the scheme. The scheme is replete with ambiguities. I believe that many in the construction industry would prefer that the standard procedure in the sixth edition were used instead of the scheme.
My noble friend Lord Williams has already said that thought was given to putting down the scheme as a new schedule at Committee stage so that it could be debated and perhaps understood by your Lordships. In the end that was not done. I will take advice on whether it is possible to put down the civil engineers' procedure for conciliation as a schedule to the Bill at Report stage. If that can be done procedurally, I shall certainly consider doing so. It will be a great improvement on the scheme. I suggest that a much better idea would be for the Government to have a look at it—if they have not already done so—and replace this ambiguous, tortuous and too lengthy scheme with something of the kind that I have suggested.
Viscount Ullswater: I oppose the suggestion of the noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Howie of Troon, in part because of a whole series of logistics. If Clause 111 is deleted, it will remove any further opportunity that the House might have to make comments on the scheme at Report stage and on Third Reading. All of us have difficulties with some of the words of the scheme. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, indicated that the more it was looked at the more there was to consider. The scheme has only just come before us and there has been only a relatively short time in which to look at it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may intervene with the leave of the noble Viscount. The scheme is referred to in Clause 105(3), so even if this clause is removed from the Bill, there will still be an opportunity to refer to the scheme for construction contracts when we come to discuss that clause on Report.
Viscount Ullswater: I understand what the noble Lord says. However, Clause 111 gives it a statutory base. A scheme without a statutory base is not worth discussing in your Lordships' House. We need to make certain that it has that statutory base. I was about to tell the Committee that my noble friend the Minister has already indicated that the scheme is out for consultation. The Government and the industry will have plenty of opportunity to look at it. The Government will hear what noble Lords say in the discussions to date and will have an opportunity to hear what noble Lords say on the next two stages of the Bill.
The right course of action is not to remove the scheme from the Bill at this moment but to make known our views on whether what is in the scheme is right, whether it is too close to arbitration and not close enough to adjudication, and so forth. All those considerations will
16
be taken into account by my noble friend. I believe that the course of action proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Howie of Troon, is wrong.
Lord Howie of Troon: Can the noble Viscount tell the Committee at which stage the Government should remove the scheme, if it should not be removed now?
Viscount Ullswater: As my noble friend has already indicated, it is a draft scheme. The word "draft" is written all over it. It will have to be put before Parliament before it becomes "the" scheme.
Earl Ferrers: I have a certain amount of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I commiserate with him. I do not wish to take advantage of him. Whenever he gets up to speak the Chamber seems to evacuate itself (as the scientists would say). That happens because the noble Lord always seems to get up just after Question Time. I do not think he should worry that it is anything to do with him. The Chamber probably feels that there are other things to deal with which are of more pressing importance than the noble Lord's speech. The noble Lord should not become too depressed by it.
He began his speech this afternoon by saying that we did not have enough people here last Thursday night to support the Government. That is perfectly true. If I may say so without impertinence, I do not believe that the noble Lord had too many people to listen to his erudite speeches. There were only eight on his side. Of course, it is the job of the Government to keep a House. When this side was in opposition and I was a young fellow with dark hair, it was thought to be rather good fun to ambush people. However, when in government one regards it as rather childish. One takes a different point of view depending on where one is. The noble Lord had his fun last Thursday. There was not a House. We were counted out and therefore had to come back to the same matter today.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, said that there were so few people in the Chamber to listen on that occasion that he believed everyone must be in favour of his amendment. He was quite sure that everyone had studied his speech. I know that most noble Lords make a point of studying the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, rather than anyone else's. Whether that happened on this occasion, I am not certain; but there are more people here to make up for it today than there were the other day.
Lord Howie of Troon: I wonder whether the noble Earl would tempt me into repeating the whole of my speech last Thursday, lest noble Lords have not had the advantage of reading it in Hansard. They may enjoy it all the more.
Earl Ferrers: I would not wish to weary the intellectual capacity of your Lordships by doing that.
The fact is that we are trying to deal with a difficult matter. There is a difference between arbitration and adjudication. Put simply, in arbitration one waits until the end of the contract. One has a full-blown argument about it, perhaps in the courts with barristers and heaven

17
knows what. It may take a year or two years to get to the end of it. Adjudication is an attempt to resolve the matter forthwith. On too many occasions in the past contracts have been made with adjudication clauses in them; but they have been cut out because the big boys believe it is easier not to have such clauses. Therefore, any matter that arises falls to be dealt with by arbitration. That can be adverse for the small contractor.
All that we have tried to do here is to ensure that if the process proposed in the Bill is adhered to, there should be an adjudication process which will end up in a decision. If the two parties to the contract do not want to make that decision binding, they have to say so before they go to adjudication. If they do not say so, then they agree that it should be binding. The adjudicator makes his decision, and it is binding.
If one were to accept that that was a pity and that there was cause for complaint or appeal, it means that the adjudication process is almost meaningless because it can be rehashed at the end of the contract by going to arbitration. The whole point of the clause is to try to avoid that. All I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, is that if they do not want to do that, most contractors would have their own contracts setting out the terms and conditions of the contract; the terms and conditions of adjudication; and the terms of arbitration. It is only if the parties do not do that that the clause falls to operate. If Clause 111 is a little more harsh than most contracts, so be it. That may encourage people to include a more modest clause in their contracts.
One must remember that the whole point of Clause 111 is to provide something which has not been provided for in the contract between the two parties. If they want to avoid Clause 111, all they have to do is to set out their own requirements in their own contract. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said that this is arbitration and adjudication muddled up, and that we should ask the industry. That is precisely what we are doing. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said on Second Reading that they wanted to see what the Government had in mind. So we tried to produce a draft scheme—my noble friend Lord Ullswater was right; it is a draft scheme—to show the kind of things that we have in mind. We tried to be helpful. It is always fatal to try to be helpful when in government because if one is the Tower of Babel falls down upon one, and everyone says, "You should not do that."
We tried to be helpful. We produced the draft scheme to show what we have in mind. The draft scheme has gone out not just to Members of this place, but to members of the industry. When we have heard the results of that consultation—of which, if I may say so with respect, this Committee stage is one aspect—we shall decide what shall be put into the draft proposals. They will go out for statutory consultation once the Bill becomes law. There has been a considerable amount of consultation over this point.
I do not for one moment suggest that we have the thing 100 per cent. right. But Members of the Committee asked what it is that the Government intend to do, so we have produced a draft scheme to show what
18
it is we intend to do. Some Members of the Committee have said, "Let us take it away and produce another one". I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I think that that was a churlish suggestion. How can we take something away that we have just issued to other people to consider, and produce another one? We want to get the preliminary consultation over. We want to find out what people say and what the Committee says. We shall produce a further document in due course.
I come back to the original point. So much time in the past has been wasted by people arguing about construction contracts, and so forth, and there has been no method of conciliation. We have put into the Bill a fall-back position which means that if contracts do not have within them a method of arbitration or adjudication, then the parties can fall back to Clause 111. If they do not want to fall back to Clause 111, all they have to do is to put it in their own contracts. That is why I believe that Clause 111 is important.
Lord Howie of Troon: There is no point the Minister saying that adjudication should be introduced, because it has been there since time immemorial. The ideas he has put forward are the common currency of construction contracts, and he knows that. I am greatly encouraged by the speech the Minister has just made. It is clear that he is now beginning to understand the difference between arbitration and adjudication. That was not clear on Second Reading. It is clear that he has now grasped that distinction. It is a distinction which is extremely important in the construction industry.
I have just one last thing to say. Although the Minister now grasps that distinction, the scheme does not grasp that distinction. As I said, the scheme is largely lifted, holus-bolus, from the Arbitration Bill, which is a different thing, and deals with different matters. That has now to be thought about.
Now that the Minister has reconstructed his attitude towards the distinction that I have been making for some time, will he make that same distinction in the scheme? When I suggested that the scheme should be replaced by the scheme for conciliation from the Institution of Civil Engineers, their sixth edition scheme, I was proposing something with which the industry is already well acquainted, and with which it is already comfortable. It is much more significant since the whole point of this part of the Bill is to reduce costs, conflict, and dispute, and to put in propositions which the industry already understands and with which it is already comfortable.
I am, as I say, greatly pleased by the Minister's movement in thinking. I urge him to continue that progress just a little further. Then he and I are in some kind of asymptotic condition—coming closer together—although I should say that the problem here is that asymptotes never actually meet. I am hoping that we achieve a readjustment of geometry, and that on this occasion the asymptotes actually meet.
Lord Williams of Elvel: All the points that I could make have been made. The Minister has made his point. There is one fundamental point about the jurisdiction of the adjudicator under the scheme. When it comes to the end, the scheme says:
"The right of appeal from the decision of the court on the substantial jurisdiction of an adjudicator shall be governed by the same rules as if the adjudicator were an arbitrator".
That is our basic problem. Either it is a scheme for adjudication or it is a scheme for arbitration. In the Bill, in the Government's view, and in the Latham Report, it should be a scheme for adjudication, which is quite different from arbitration.
Earl Ferrers: I could say, but I shall not say it because it is not totally true, that adjudication and arbitration are matters of semantics. They are not. They are different, but they are confusing words.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said that adjudication has always been there. It is true that it has. There is no doubt that what we are trying to do is to have a system of adjudication which speeds the process of arbitration. It is a difficult balance to strike, because under the old system of adjudication one could have a contract going ahead. There is then a row and someone says, "I am owed £50,000." The adjudicator comes along and says, "No, you are owed only £40,000". That is accepted and the work goes on. Then about two years later everything is blown apart, and the matter goes to arbitration. All that adjudication can be too easily lost. Then the parties become involved with the enormous expense of arbitration.
Although it is not easy, we have tried to stop that exercise being protracted so far down the line and being enormously expensive by saying, "Let us have an adjudication principle which is quick, simple and cheaper and which is binding upon the two people unless in advance they say that they do not want it to be binding". If they do not say that in advance, it is reasonable to say that it is binding.
That is where there is a difficulty between arbitration and adjudication. There will be no simple answer but we believe that our proposal is good because it provides clarity, expediency, and reasonable justice. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said that I was an asymptote. I am sure that I am, but I am not certain what I am supposed to do—
Lord Howie of Troon: The Minister is not an asymptote; he is pursuing an asymptotic path. However, he would make an excellent asymptote if he were one.
Earl Ferrers: I am not an asymptote and neither am I a butterfly. That is good because I am following an asymptote's path. That is interesting because I did not know that I had done so. We are using the mechanism of arbitration—
Baroness Seear: Would it be unreasonable to ask the noble Lord, Lord Howie, to explain what the curious creature is because I am sure that nine-tenths of us do not have a clue?
Lord Howie of Troon: I shall try to help because I am a helpful kind of fellow. I am sure that nine-tenths
20
of the Committee know perfectly well what it is. It is a term of geometry. It consists of two geometric paths which approach each other but never actually reach. It is a little like trying to convince the Government of anything at all.
Earl Ferrers: As usual, I am deeply indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, because she had the temerity to ask the question that I did not dare ask for fear of being considered by the Committee far too ignorant. Of course, I am because I had not the slightest idea of what an asymptote was nor what its path was. I thought that it was some kind of animal, but I discover that it is a geometric path. I am sure that the noble Baroness always walks down geometric paths and knows exactly where she is when she does so. I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, for the total and gross distraction from our consideration of Clause 111.
We are trying to use the mechanism of arbitration, which is conveniently set out in the Arbitration Bill. The mechanism will be guided by the principles of adjudication and not of arbitration. I return to a point that I made once or twice and I ask the indulgence of the Committee in making it again. This is not an easy matter. We are trying to stop an elongated process and to make it shorter, simpler and more concise. We are trying to introduce a process which, in the end, will cost the industry a great deal less and will give satisfaction to the whole of industry.
That is what we have suggested in the draft scheme and it remains for us to hear what those involved think about it. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked what we had heard about it during the weekend. We have heard some sympathetic remarks about our draft scheme. Some people have contacted us saying that they believe it to be a good idea. That is the beginning of the consultation. We have put it out for Members and those in the various parts of industry to consider before we get too far. I hope that members of the Committee will consider that we have been understanding and have produced a scheme which they can criticise—regrettably they have criticised it—and we can take that into account before we produce the next scheme.
3.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 111, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 126; Not-Contents, 71.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare.L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Abinger, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Addison, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Blaker, L.

Ailsa, M.

Blatch, B.

Aldington, L.

Blyth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V

Boardman, L.

Alport, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Broughshane, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Butterworth, L.

21

Cadman, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lyell,L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lytton, E.

Chalfont, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

McConnell, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Clanwilliam, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Manton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Marsh, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Merrivale, L.

Courtown, E.

Mersey, V.

Craig of Radley, L.

Milverton, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cuckney, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Nelson, E.

Denham,L

Norrie, L.

Dundonald, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elles, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ferrers, E.

peyton of yeovil, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rawlings, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Renton, L.

Gainford, L.

Rodney, L.

Romney, E.

Goschen, V.

St Davids, V.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Sandford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Savile, L.

Halsbury, E.

Seccombe, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Sharpies, B.

Harlech, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Hayter, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hemphill, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Sudeley, L.

Howe, E.

Swansea, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Swinfen, L.

Inglewood, L.

Terrington,L

Ironside, L.

Teynham, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kimball, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kintore, E.

Trumpington, B.

Kitchener, E.

Ullswater, V.

Knollys, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wynford, L.

Liverpool, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Annan, L.

Fitt, L.

Barnett, L.

Gallacher, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Berkeley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Blackstone, B.

Gregson, L.

Borrie, L.

Grey, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hamwee, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Haskel, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hayman, B.

David, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Desai, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Donoughue, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ezra, L.

Judd, L.

Falkland, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Lockwood, B.

22

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Seear, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

McNally, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Shepherd, L.

Monkswell, L.

Simon, V.

Nicol, B.

Stallard, L.

Ogmore, L.

Stedman, B.

Peston, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Rea, L. [Teller.]

Taverne, L.

Redesdale, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Richard, L.

Tordoff, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Vernon, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Scanlon, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause III, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
Earl Ferrers: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

European Council, Turin
3.53 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the meeting of the European Council in Turin on 29th March. The Statement is as follows:
"The purpose of the meeting was to launch the Inter-Governmental Conference aimed at preparing the European Union for the next phase of enlargement. The Council conclusions, which I have placed in the Library, set out the main areas of the IGC's agenda.
"We have ensured that the conclusions do not prejudice the actual negotiations in any way; nor do they contain an exhaustive list of the issues for negotiation. We shall pursue our objectives for the development of Europe as a partnership of nations, as set out in the Government's recent White Paper.
"The negotiations themselves will now begin. They may well last for a year or longer. Foreign Ministers will meet every month. Their personal representatives will meet every week.
"I outlined to the European Council the Government's approach to the IGC. I made clear that our vision of Europe is built around the bedrock of the nation state. I also set out some of the areas where the UK will be putting forward proposals, and those where we have strong views.
"For example, I underlined the need for the principle of subsidiarity to be enshrined in the treaty; the value of a greater role for national parliaments; our desire to see Europe's common foreign and security policy work better, while preserving its basis of unanimity; the need for further progress in

23
co-operation in justice and home affairs, without undermining its essential intergovernmental nature; our opposition to any further extension of qualified majority voting; and our insistence on reforms for the working of the European Court of Justice.
"I also made clear to the European Council my particular concern about the recent opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice on the Working Time Directive, and its implications for the IGC. I said that I was not prepared to see our Social Chapter opt-out undermined as a result of an expansive and unreasonable interpretation of the health and safety article of the treaty. I made clear that I would be looking in the IGC for changes to that article, to reflect our earlier understanding of its limited scope.
"The European Council also held a brief discussion on employment and competitiveness. This subject will rightly be high on the agenda of its meeting in Florence in June. I set out this Government's views.
"Europe has to be globally competitive. Jobs are not created by governments, still less by the European Union. They come from the decisions of businesses in the marketplace. Job creation needs less regulation, not more; lower financial and other burdens on business, not extra impositions arising from ill-conceived European directives.
"There is increasing understanding of these realities among some of our European partners. I was encouraged by the discussion. But I will continue to resist strongly any suggestion that the treaty be amended to cover employment issues. Action in those areas is overwhelmingly for individual countries, not for the EU collectively.
"All the heads of state and government in Turin were acutely conscious of the Europe-wide crisis in the beef market. This is, and was treated as, an entirely separate issue from the IGC agenda. There was no question in anyone's mind of trading help in one area against co-operation in the other.
"I told my colleagues of the impact in this country of the ban on British beef decided in Brussels last week; particularly as it was taken on the basis of considerations other than the scientific advice.
"I suggested to my colleagues that three things were now needed. First, the conditions should be created as speedily as possible to allow the ban on British beef exports to be lifted. Second, the specific problems of the UK beef market had to be addressed. I looked to the Community for sympathetic and speedy support for the measures necessary to return confidence and stability to the market. Third, it should be recognised that this was a European, not just a British, problem.
"The response of my European colleagues was, without exception, one of support. There was universal agreement that this was a Europe-wide problem, and that a European solution was required. All heads of state and government who spoke
24
expressed readiness to see the EU bear a share of the financial burden and recalled the EU help in the swine fever epidemic a few years ago.
"This was a welcome response, in tone as well as substance. But we still have some way to go. Negotiations continue with the Commission on the measures needed to restore confidence. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is in Luxembourg today to take this forward and to attend a meeting of European Ministers of Agriculture.
"I emphasised to my European colleagues that, with the measures we have taken, British beef is, on any normal definition of the term, safe. No one disputed this. Everyone recognised that the present crisis came not from a real health risk but from unnecessary hysteria across Europe.
"At Turin the IGC was launched with an agenda which enables us to pursue our objectives in a non-prejudicial climate. I was able to make clear to my European colleagues our strong views on certain key issues, including what is needed to tackle unemployment across Europe as well as in Britain. And we achieved a notable measure of understanding and support over the beef crisis that we and our European partners now face together.
"The need now is to turn this support into action, particularly the lifting of the export ban on British beef and beef products. That is our immediate objective. It is important; and we are pursuing it urgently".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement that his right honourable friend the Prime Minister made in another place. I shall begin by saying a few words about beef. I do not want to spend too much time on that subject, because I believe that the rest of the report is extremely important. We welcome the support that the Prime Minister received from his colleagues in Turin; indeed, he was at one time reported as having said:
"I wish the Euro-sceptics back in Britain could be in this room now to see how European solidarity works in practice".
I wonder whether the noble Viscount the Leader of the House could confirm whether or not his right honourable friend the Prime Minister actually uttered those words and tell us whether they remain his view.
Today is perhaps not the time to discuss the Government's responsibility for the crisis in the beef industry. However, perhaps I may be forgiven for noting in passing that the Government seemed to spend an awful lot of time this weekend trying to persuade the country that it was anyone's fault except their own. Nevertheless, we can debate that issue in more detail on April 17th when the House will consider the problem.
Can the noble Viscount tell the House, first, when the Government expect the package of measures on beef to emerge from the various discussions that are now taking place? Clearly it is in everyone's interests that that

25
should be sooner rather than later. Secondly, can the noble Viscount say whether or not any compensation which comes from Brussels in respect of what we may have to pay to resolve the crisis in this country is to come out of Britain's budget rebate? There have been reports in the press to that effect. Therefore, a certain amount of clarity from the Government on the matter would be helpful.
I turn now to the IGC. I do not suggest that noble Lords should ignore the Statement but, as is well known, I have said on a number of occasions when dealing with such Statements that it is most important that one looks at the communiqué and not at the gloss that any national leader or national Minister puts upon what was actually agreed and the document to which the Prime Minister put his hand. I shall, therefore, concentrate on the communiqué.
Although it was clearly overshadowed by beef, I believe that it is worth while spending a moment or two on the contents of the communiqué. The communiqué expresses and welcomes the fact that the intergovernmental conference is the first step towards,
"creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
Does that remain the policy of Her Majesty's Government? The communiqué also states that the
"Union [is] firmly committed to the full implementation of the Treaties, including … economic and monetary union".
I know that the Government negotiated an opt-out, but is it their policy—and, indeed, does it remain their policy—that the Union is firmly committed to economic and monetary union?
The communiqué also sets out an agenda for the IGC and, indeed, points the direction very clearly as regards the areas in which the IGC is to work. A number of issues are, therefore, highlighted. First, how to strengthen human rights. That is firmly in the communiqué. I assume that that is to be within the framework of the existing institutions. I should like to know how the Government see a drive at the IGC in order to strengthen human rights and reinforce and buttress them. We have not heard very much about that recently, and a little clarity in that respect might be helpful.
Secondly, the communiqué calls for an examination and,
"strengthened control of the Union's external frontiers … [including] coherent and effective asylum, immigration and visa policies".
Is that the Government's policy? Is that the direction in which we wish the IGC to go and which we hope it will eventually recommend? Then, after those words about asylum and immigration policies it says, "clearing"—that is a strange word—
"divergent views on jurisdictional and parliamentary control of EU decisions in the field of justice and home affairs.
What on earth does that mean? I do not know, but the Prime Minister presumably does because he signed the document and pointed the IGC in that direction.
On unemployment, the communiqué calls for the completion of the single market and,
"the implementation of the convergence criteria",
26
together with "supplementary coordinated action". Again, I am not quite sure what that means and I would be most grateful if the noble Viscount could tell us what the Prime Minister intended the IGC to be considering when he agreed that that is what it should consider.
On the institutions, the communiqué calls for examination of a number of things and for,
"simplifying legislative procedures and … widening … codecision".
Are we, or are we not, in favour of that? If we are in favour of simplifying legislative procedures, how would we like to simplify them within the European Union? If we are in favour of widening codecision, how and in what areas do we propose that it should be widened? Presumably the Prime Minister has some idea of what he wants otherwise he would not have signed the communiqué pointing the IGC firmly in that direction.
The communiqué talks about "the role" and composition of the European Parliament and a,
"uniform procedure for its election".
Are we in favour of such a Europe-wide procedure in terms of the European Parliament election? Again, I assume that the Prime Minister knew what it was that he had in mind when he signed the communiqué pointing the IGC in that direction. It would be nice if someone could let us in on the secret. There is also reference to qualified "majority voting", "the weighting of votes" and,
"the threshold for qualified majority decisions".
The Government say that they are very much against qualified majority voting, although I have recently detected what is perhaps a slight, and to be encouraged, tendency on the part of the Prime Minister to resile somewhat from the starkness of the undertaking that he gave on the David Frost television programme in February.
I turn now to a very strange and difficult paragraph which appears on page 5 of the communiqué and which talks of introducing,
"rules [to enable] a certain number of Member States to develop a strengthened cooperation".
What does that mean? I assume that someone on the Government's side knows what it means. However, I wonder whether that is pointing the IGC in the direction of creating a two-stage Europe; namely, one in which a number of states go in one direction and a number of other states go in another direction. If the Government consider that that is what the IGC should be spending its time doing, perhaps they had better tell us which of the two stages it wants the United Kingdom to be in.
Finally, there is a plea in the communiqué for,
"a greater capacity … [and coherence in] foreign policy",
and the possibility of the European Union,
"expressing itself in a more visible and coherent way and with a more perceptible face and voice".
Yet again, I assume that the Prime Minister had something in his mind when he agreed that the IGC should consider that and pointed it in that direction. If we are in favour of European foreign policy being

27
more visible and coherent and having a more perceptible face and voice, I should be grateful to be told so today by the Government.
The points that I have made are not nit-picking points; indeed, they are fundamental points. They are points on which the British Government, through the voice and pen of the Prime Minister, have said that the intergovernmental conference (which is sitting for a year) should be beavering away to try to produce answers to such problems. I cannot believe the Government agreed that they should all go to the IGC, thinking that, perhaps, they had no view on the matter and would not take part in any discussions.
The question raised is: how much of all that is United Kingdom Government policy? How can the Prime Minister sign up in Turin to this and then pretend that it does not, and would not, involve greater integration? Of course it would. If carried into practice, it would be bound to involve greater majority voting in the Council, an enhanced role for the European Parliament, a common immigration and asylum policy and a much more co-ordinated European foreign policy.
Coupled with the agreements we made at Maastricht, this document, and the direction in which the IGC was pointed by the Prime Minister when he signed it, amounts to a significant step towards the creation of a European Union and a further curtailment of the United Kingdom's right of independent action. I am not necessarily against some of this, speaking personally, but a policy of signing up to one thing in Europe and then pretending otherwise at home is both disingenuous, and in the end it will be self-defeating. The truth is that if we believe what they say, they have agreed to virtually nothing; if we believe what they have signed up to as the agenda for the IGC, they have agreed to a lot. Just for once it would be pleasant to know the Government's true position. One can, of course, understand the limitations on governmental transparency imposed by the current situation inside the Conservative Party, but the time has surely come when this open Government should be a little more open with the country as to where they really stand.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. The report, of course, is about the preparations for the beginning of the IGC, but judging from the press and judging from much comment that has been made, it is somewhat overwhelmed by the subject of beef, which is a subject on which we have perhaps heard rather a little too much over the past fortnight.
The Prime Minister must be glad to realise that the beef issue is recognised as a European issue. Perhaps he and the Government also accept that it is a good thing that it is recognised as a European issue. If we were not—I would not say at the heart of Europe—at least inside the European Union, we should have a great deal more trouble in dealing with our beef problem than we have at the present time. It is certainly welcome that our partners in the European Union are prepared to help with the financial implications. Incidentally, has anyone
28
ever discovered how much BSE there is among our European partners? I know nothing about agriculture but I find it extremely difficult to believe that this unpleasant germ or condition—who knows what it is?—is confined to these islands. The fact that we are not told of the numbers of cases in other countries does not necessarily mean that they do not exist. Did we extract any information about the extent of the beef problem, or rather the potential for a beef problem, in these other countries, if that information were more widely available? Perhaps the noble Viscount can enlighten us about that.
On the subject of beef, it is good that there were negotiations and discussions about it, but surely the most important thing is to achieve a settlement of some kind as fast as possible. There can be no doubt whatever that there are a great many people in this country at the moment who think that they are likely to be broke by the end of next week unless the Government make a clear decision. As we are operating in what I humbly suggest is almost Cloud-cuckoo-town in regard to beef—the whole matter is in a realm of unreality—can we not just cut through it all, regardless of what comes out from Europe, and get on with it? That is what is urgently needed as regards the rural areas of this country. We need a decision to be made quickly so that people know where they stand. I hope we can be told how much help we shall receive and how quickly it will be given, but we need to come to a decision, whatever else there is to be done about the beef issue in the future.
Listening to the noble Viscount repeating the Statement I tried again to ascertain what the meeting was supposed to be about. I understand from the first page of the document that it is supposed primarily to be about enlargement. However, I see remarkably little within the Statement that tells us what will happen in relation to enlargement, and yet a great many of the issues that are raised should be very much about enlargement. The Statement refers to the problem of unemployment in the Union. The reference to enlargement is on the first page of the document if the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has overlooked it. The question of enlargement is surely at the heart of what is going on in relation to the IGC.
Unemployment is an extremely important issue in the European Union, and we all recognise that. For the Government to harp on about the effect of the social chapter really is to be straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Surely the most important issue in connection with enlargement is what its effect will be on employment in the better off countries with high standards of living inside the European Union when enlargement will bring in countries whose labour costs are so much lower. Yet, if we do not accept their goods, that makes extreme nonsense of any talk about enlargement. I am astonished that nowhere in the document is there any reference to what we will do about the problems arising from enlargement both in relation to the CAP and in relation to unemployment. To talk about the unemployment question and not to discuss it in relation to those countries with low costs which are to come into the Union seems to me to be missing the point in a most spectacular way.

29
The first two pages of the document are almost entirely devoted to stating that the Government are in fact Gaullists and that they believe in a union des patries, and not in any sense in a federal Europe. They use the word "federal"—as I would—in the sense in which it is understood in every country except Great Britain. Great Britain manages to create a bogey of federalism by misinterpreting the use of the word. Those of us who are strongly federal in the European sense are totally in support of subsidiarity. In fact in many ways we are more in support of subsidiarity than are Her Majesty's Government. However, that does not emerge.
The Government seem to think that they can go ahead with enlargement and yet maintain in every possible way national control over all the issues. Yet another inevitable consequence of enlargement is that we have to look at qualified majority voting. Again, in the Statement, the Government refer to qualified majority voting but they do not refer to the effect that enlargement will have on the whole question of voting. How can one possibly contemplate enlargement without saying how on earth one will make decisions when there are 17 or 25 countries who do not have the opportunity for qualified majority voting? It is "Hamlet" without the prince to have an IGC on the subject of enlargement and to leave those questions totally unanswered.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I shall try to answer both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness as succinctly as I can. However, it will be a challenge in view of the number of questions that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked me. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked me two questions about beef. The first concerned when the Government package of measures would emerge. If I may, I shall link that to my response to the entirely justified urging of the noble Baroness that speed was of the essence in the restoration of confidence in the beef market. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is in Luxembourg today discussing this issue with the Commission with the absolute endorsement of Her Majesty's Government, aiming to agree a package of measures to help restore confidence in beef right across Europe as swiftly as possible. The Government are all too well aware—as the noble Baroness pointed out—of the large number of jobs which depend directly and indirectly on the beef industry. The number of beef products spreads almost throughout the economic endeavour in this country. So it is essential that this period of uncertainty should be brought to a close as swiftly as possible. I hope that the eradication of BSE and the market support measures which my right honourable friend has discussed, and is discussing today, will be a welcome step towards getting the EU ban lifted, which I think is a prerequisite to the restoration of confidence.
The noble Lord's second question concerned compensation and whether it would come out of the rebate. It is not clear as yet what level of compensation will be payable to various interested parties. It will depend entirely on what measures emerge. It is important that when the measures emerge we should make it perfectly clear as swiftly as possible how they are to be applied and how they will operate. A broad declaration will not in itself restore confidence. What
30
will restore confidence is the clarity with which Her Majesty's Government set out their proposals; and I hope that that will be possible in a very few days.
The question of compensation will have to be addressed at that point. However, I remind the noble Lord that measures on calves and a number of market support measures have been announced by my right honourable friend. The question of intervention is one to which the rules apply. A broadening of the rules and categories of intervention may emerge from my right honourable friend's discussions.
I turn to matters of the IGC. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, as always—he drew our attention to this fact—looked at the communiqué. I make no complaint about that. However, he forgot one thing, if I may so suggest, in his clear indication that the Government had not taken any trouble to set out their own policy. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has not forgotten the recent White Paper which published the negotiating objectives of Her Majesty's Government in the IGC. I am sure that what was set out in the White Paper has been part of the noble Lord's daily reading. However, I remind him that among our objectives set out clearly in that document has been the further entrenchment of subsidiarity in the treaty and action to ensure that the treaty articles are not misused. Indeed, my right honourable friend made it clear in his Statement that we feel that Article 118a, on health and safety, has been misused by the Commission, an issue on which we hope to get action during the course of the IGC. We hope to achieve improvements in the quality of legislation through better consultation and the automatic withdrawal of proposals not adopted within a given period. We do not want any more powers for the European Parliament at the expense of national parliaments or governments. We believe that the foreign and defence policy must remain the responsibility of national governments and that NATO should remain the bedrock of western security.
That is all fairly well ploughed ground; I could go on. However, there are some signs that our European partners are beginning at least to move in the direction that we have set out. I draw the noble Lord's attention in particular to the French Prime Minister's recent speech in which he underlined the central role in the European Union of the nation state and the supremacy of the Council of Ministers over the Commission.
In his reference to the final document, the noble Lord asked a number of questions. I believe that an ever closer union among peoples is clearly an objective which the Government can sign up to. After all, as set out in the White Paper, we fully support a strengthened co-operation and friendship across the whole of Europe. I suggest to your Lordships that that is not the same as an ever closer federal union of states—"federal" in the sense that we understand it in this country rather than as it is understood abroad, as the noble Baroness said.
As regards the strengthening of human rights, I believe that our position is perfectly clear. The fundamental human rights are already protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. All member states and the European Union are bound to respect that

31
convention. As your Lordships know, the ECHR is already enforceable through its commission and through the court. The Government see no need for duplication of the ECHR in the EU treaty. I believe that there has been an Advocate-General's opinion supporting that view in the past few days.
I also point out to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that unemployment, the institutions, the widening of co-decision, simplifying procedures, the extension of QMV, rules to strengthen co-operation, and so on, are already well on the agenda so far as concerns European meetings. It seems perfectly sensible that those matters should be discussed. I am sure the noble Lord will realise that the fact they are discussed does not necessarily mean that Her Majesty's Government feel able to sign up to all of them. Indeed, they may not feel able to sign up to many of them—but that could be said also of a number of our European partners. However, if some of our partners wish to see those issues on the agenda, it is much better in the tradition of representative government to discuss whether they are to be accepted or rejected rather than that they should be swept under the carpet and not explored.
Rather than weary your Lordships with a long exposition on the common foreign and security policy, perhaps I may refer the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to the speech which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary delivered recently in Paris. It set out our views very clearly indeed. In particular, my right honourable friend made it perfectly clear that it would be sensible for us to develop a common policy; and that it would be very much better if that policy were developed by consensus rather than by majority voting in the sense that it is much easier to ensure that there are no divisive votes on anything which can be of critical importance to individual countries.
It must be fair to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that a number of those areas, in particular as regards qualified majority voting, are integral to the question of enlargement. For reasons greater than the question of internal government of the European Union, I think that all noble Lords will agree that we must pursue enlargement with the utmost vigour. I am sure that the noble Baroness would agree with that. Nevertheless, unless we are able to find practical mechanics to enable enlargement to occur, that very desirable objective will be kicked further into the distance with considerable malign consequences for the future stability not only of central and eastern Europe but, I suspect, of western Europe, too. Therefore it is important that we should examine the matters to which the noble Baroness drew attention.
Finally, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the social chapter, to which the noble Baroness referred. It was perfectly right, in my view, for so much of the time of those who prepared for this European Council, and the conversation during the course of the European Council to concentrate on unemployment. It has become perhaps the greatest scourge for the membership of the European Union. Her Majesty's Government are clear that the way to address the scourge is broadly through the economic policies we have been endeavouring to
32
pursue in this country for some years. It is a matter of deregulation, of supply side reforms, rather than the more prescriptive and expensive methods which have increasingly come to dominate attempted solutions by our European partners.
With the greatest diffidence, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the statistics are beginning to give a hint, at the least, that we may have had a point all along. Our unemployment statistics, from far too a high a peak, have fallen since 1992 by 0.75 million. In the past three years we have created over 0.5 million new jobs. Our European partners have not had the same experience: they have high non-wage employment costs which we have managed increasingly to shed. The inward investment record of this country compared with that of our partners in Europe seems to show that many investors from outside western Europe agree with us. Therefore, I hope that in the run-up to the next general election the noble Lord will consider whether he feels that it is sensible—I put the point to him in the spirit of delightful amity and partnership which I hope he will agree we have developed during the past two years—to continue to advocate adherence to the social chapter and other matters which seem to obsess his party. Perhaps he will consider whether there are any votes in it from his point of view.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Rome Treaty was designed about 40 years ago for five nations of western Europe whose legal systems and constitutions had much in common? Even as amended, it is now quite unsuitable for an enlarged Community of 15 nations which may be further enlarged by several nations in the fairly near future. Is he aware that in the course of the IGC negotiations, attempts should therefore be made by Her Majesty's Government to persuade the other European countries to have a system based not on the Rome Treaty but on consolidation and amendment of the treaties which followed it in order to avoid the present confusion which arises in law making?
Is my noble friend aware that in the enlarged Community, with 11 different languages and a number of different constitutions, law making has become dilatory and cumbersome and the outcome is sometimes confusing? If the Community is to succeed in the years to come, as an enlarged Community of many different countries, we must get the constitutional position put right.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, everyone will sympathise with my noble friend. For that reason, we must look at streamlining the procedures and also take seriously the issue of subsidiarity which can make a great contribution towards the direction in which my noble friend wishes us to go.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I will allow the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, to speak, since he is bigger than I.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I did not mean size to count! The Minister must be aware that his statement that in a few days we hope to be able to come to an agreement and announce the action that we shall take on beef will strike despair into many hearts in this country. We have already had the Government announcing a serious danger which might arise and then a wait while disaster struck all over Europe until the committee reported. Now, apparently, we must wait until agreement is reached in Europe. Is the noble Viscount aware that intervention will be absolutely necessary? All over Britain, particularly in Scotland, fat cattle ready for market are piling up. However big the recovery is, it will not be sufficient to take the cattle off the market. Therefore, we must have intervention buying. It must come anyhow. If it is announced now at least we can start to employ slaughtermen and ancillary trades who are at present being put out of work.
Will the noble Viscount agree that a policy of selective slaughter, advocated by most people in this country who have thought about it, would speed the process which is already going on to reduce by at least half every year and eventually eliminate the big epidemic of BSE in this country? An announcement, without waiting to see what cash we shall receive, would contribute a great deal to the rest of the country having confidence in the Government.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have already mentioned the importance of intervention, so I am happy to agree that it will play an important part in the resolution of the crisis. Intervention exists, and there is the possibility of widening the intervention categories.
The noble Lord was extremely clear. I agree that it is important now to restore confidence in the consumption of beef. In Turin, my right honourable friend and his colleagues agreed that it is not only a matter for this country. I understand that the scare is beginning to have an effect on continental European beef markets as well as ours. The problem must be tackled on a European basis. That is why the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was right when she emphasised that it was essential for Europe to move fast. That is what I hope my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture will have begun to secure today. The noble Lord is right; today will not be too soon.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I agree with the Prime Minister that British beef is safe? It is probably safer than most of the beef now being imported. On the other hand, presumably the Government should ask themselves why, in that case, they plan to burn it. After all, it is someone's fault that that may happen; it could be the fault of the Opposition, the Cross Benches, I do not know. But apparently that is what will happen.
We are told that Ministers at the conference were in agreement with,
"an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
We are told, "We welcome it". Is it just the Prime Minister or the whole of the Cabinet who welcome it? In the next paragraph, we are told:
34
"In a Union firmly committed to the full implementation of the Treaties, including provisions on economic and monetary union, the Conference will provide the opportunity for dealing more effectively with the internal and external challenges of the coming years".
I am glad to hear it. But is the noble Viscount aware that, when the Reflection Group considered the matter for many months, it submitted and recommended an agenda which did not include anything to do with economic and monetary union? Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether it is now thought or intended that the IGC will consider the whole issue of economic and monetary union?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the question of economic and monetary union is not on the agenda of the IGC. Nevertheless, the presidency conclusions from which the noble Lord quotes make clear at the top of page 3:
"The Heads of State or Government consider that the Conference should, in the light of the Reflection Group's Report and without prejudice to other questions which might be raised during the Conference, mainly focus its work on the areas described hereafter".
It is open to consensus among the negotiators to broaden the matters under discussion. Nevertheless, matters of economic and monetary union are not for this discussion, as the noble Lord well knows.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Viscount Cranborne: With regard to beef, it is important that your Lordships should be given the opportunity to express—the nods of approval, particularly from my noble friend Lord Ferrers, underline the importance that your Lordships attach to this matter—the fact that British beef is safe. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, emphasised that fact. My right honourable friend made it clear at Turin that the over-hasty European reaction in imposing a ban, which was not supported by scientific evidence, as was admitted, had merely succeeded in deepening the crisis. I wish that more people would follow the excellent example not only of the customers of Sainsbury's over the weekend but also of your Lordships' House. I am reliably informed by my noble friend Lord Lindsay that one evening last week when, as a result of undertaking his ministerial duties, he came into the Barry Room rather late and quite rightly demanded beef, he was told that unfortunately it had run out.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. When I rose to speak, I thought that he had finished speaking.
The abrogation of the Rome Treaty was mentioned a moment ago by my noble friend. Can the noble Viscount confirm that that was never on the table or discussed at the conference? Can he also confirm that if that were to happen, the whole substructure of the jurisprudence of the Court would collapse and one would have to create some new fundamental treaty? Does he agree that the problems that this country faces are not with the decisions of the Court on the Rome Treaty as such but on the implementing regulations and, therefore, there

35
would be no useful purpose to be served, irrespective of enlargement or not, in abrogating, as has been suggested, the Rome Treaty?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can reassure my noble friend. There is no question of abrogating the Rome Treaty. It is perfectly clear that, if certain measures are agreed as a result of negotiations during the course of the IGC, treaty amendment may be necessary. But that is rather different from wholesale abrogation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I gathered the impression that the Statement made in another place is somewhat softer and limper than the conclusions reached in the Government's White Paper. But I prefer to leave an assessment in greater detail for the debate which is to take place on the 15th of this month. It will also be necessary to assess the Statement in conjunction with the conclusions of the Italian presidency on 29th March. Those conclusions, for some reason, were not available until comparatively recently to me as a Member of your Lordships' House. However, they were available to the Conservative Party house magazine—the Daily Telegraph—in time for a detailed editorial to appear on the conclusions reached by the presidency. Incidentally, it was able to quote copiously from them. For the avoidance of doubt, I checked the quotations in the editorial in today's Daily Telegraph with the statements made by the presidency. They coincide. I do not like an embargo being imposed upon us that is not imposed upon other people in relation to these matters. After all, we have a fairly considerable interest in them. I should be glad if the noble Viscount would cause investigations to be made.
There are just three matters of comparatively topical interest on which I should like to touch. From the Statement made in another place, I am not at all sure about the financial impact on the United Kingdom of any arrangements under consideration for aid to be given by the European Community to the United Kingdom. I noticed the observations made by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place. The right honourable Member for Kingston-Upon-Thames indicated that we should, after all, only be getting back some of our own money. I draw attention to the fact that at the moment we contribute some £2½ billion net to the Community. Although any contribution from our own money would be extremely welcome, we should not welcome the occasion, proposed by the European Parliament itself, to revise or abolish the existing arrangements relating to the United Kingdom's rebate.
Other matters dealt with in the Statement relate to the beef issue upon which I am no expert other than as a very avid consumer of the product. What bothers me a little—my understanding of the position may be wrong—is that the European Community arrogated to itself the right to instruct us not to send our beef to countries outside the European Union; in other words, there was an embargo against our exporting to anyone at all, let alone to the European Community. I should be glad to be corrected on that point. If it were true that the Community sought to ban British exports from here to,
36
say, the United States or any other country outside the Community, I should strongly dissent. I shall be glad if the noble Viscount will say whether or not that is true. If it is true, it should be resisted.
Finally, in the communiqué there is inserted—according to the Daily Telegraph—at the express behest of the French Government, the suggestion that the IGC could also address the question of the compatibility between competition and the principles of universal access to essential services in the citizens' interest. I shall be glad if the noble Viscount can elucidate exactly what is meant by that suggestion in the presidency conclusions because many might think that it is in contradiction of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome.
I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to give some enlightenment on those matters.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, first, I shall certainly investigate the noble Lord's complaint about the availability of the conclusions to a certain newspaper before either he or I had seen them. Perhaps I may write to him. It is perfectly clear that draft conclusions have been floating about the European ether for some weeks if not months. I am not entirely clear whether, in fact, a certain newspaper had access to a final version of the conclusions before the noble Lord or I saw them.
So far as the legality of the European ban on British beef exports is concerned, I am advised that there is a reasonable legal basis for what the Commission has done. However, as your Lordships will be aware, different lawyers often have different views on these matters. Her Majesty's Government are examining the true worth of that legal basis with some expedition. I do not want to raise the hopes of the noble Lord too high because the advice we received comes from eminent sources.
In relation to the access to universal services, it is no secret that there are some countries among our European partners who feel that there should be a social and national element involved in the provision of services from utilities. It is perfectly clear from the record of Her Majesty's Government in that respect that the standard of services provided by utilities and, indeed, the price of those services in the first instant has gone up and in the second has gone down as a result of the policies we pursued which have had rather more of a commercial edge. It seems to us that—how can I put it without offending the noble Lord too much?—the rather more socialist traditions of some partners is not always in the best interests of the consumer, which is what we are pursuing.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I can draw out my noble friend on one matter which he mentioned; that is, enlargement. That is generally regarded to be a good thing. My noble friend referred to practical mechanics being necessary. Do the Government accept that for enlargement, reform of the common agricultural policy will be necessary? If so, are they mindful of the fact that of the 87 votes which exist in the Council, only 26 constitute a blocking minority? Further, in relation to the mechanics of the treaty, the communiqué says that,

37
"the implementation of the convergence criteria for the achievement of the economic and monetary union [is necessary]. However, supplementary coordinated action is necessary".
Does my noble friend agree that if the convergence criteria slip, that will give Her Majesty's Government the opportunity to use Article N of the treaty and prevent any further monetary union unless we get back most of the things that we want from our European partners?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am conscious that our time is up. However, we feel strongly that CAP reform should lie high on the agenda, not only for reasons allied to our hope for enlargement of the Community, but also for reasons of good sense in relation to the administration of the CAP. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture issued a glossy document some months ago which set out some of our initial thoughts on the subject.
With regard to the second point of my noble friend, he is pursuing a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I refer him to the answer I gave.

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [H.L.]
4.53 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 112 agreed to.
Clause 113 [Reckoning periods of time]:
Lord Howie of Troon Lord Howie of Troon moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 64, line 6, at end insert ("together with all days forming part of a customary holiday period within the industry in question").
The noble Lord said: We can move from the general and important to the particular and no less important. We have almost reached the end of Part II of the Bill which deals with the construction industry, a part with which I felt, from time to time, that the Government were not entirely comfortable, though many others found the whole thing plain sailing. Amendment No. 198 is a simple amendment and I hope that the Government accept it without any undue alarm or despondency. It is a detailed contractual matter relating to periods of time and calculation.
As the Bill stands, it allows for the period of time to exclude such days as Christmas Day, Good Friday or Bank Holidays in England and Wales and, indeed, Scotland. The amendment seeks to extend that exclusion to include what are the natural and usual customary holidays in the area where the contract is carried out. By that I mean such things as Wakes Week in the north of England, the Glasgow Fair in the west of Scotland or similar traditional holidays. I have nothing further to say on the matter except that I expect the Government to agree with what I say and I hope that in his reply the noble Earl will make that clear. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My noble friend Lord Howie has a point. It is difficult in timetabling simply to concentrate on what is statutory time rather than what is conventional time within the industry with which we are dealing. Though I accept that it may be difficult to
38
include my noble friend's amendment in the Bill immediately, I hope that the Government will accept that there are arrangements within the industry which are generally acknowledged and which would make the timetable specified in the Bill difficult for them to meet on certain occasions.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Howie, says that this is a simple amendment and he is sure that the Government will be able to accept it. But the noble Lord, Lord Williams, sees a difficulty. In fact, so do I.
I have a lot of sympathy with the suggestion that customary holidays should be discounted from the time periods mentioned in the Bill. But I wonder how practical that would be. It may vary from place to place or even from site to site. The last thing we want to create is a source of dispute about the precise timing of deadlines.
It may be that some builders take two weeks off over Christmas or during the summer so that everyone can go on holiday at the same time. It would be difficult and, indeed, unfair to take that into account in that the payee may have to wait an extra two weeks for his money. Many of the time periods mentioned in the Bill concern payment or the transmission of information. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, that, so long as the banks are operating and postal services are working, there is little justification in discounting certain special days. It would not be fair that a small businessman had to wait for his money because his employer had gone on holiday.
As it is written in the Bill, obvious days such as Bank Holidays, Good Friday, Christmas Day and Easter Day are all taken account of. It would be inappropriate to widen that scope.
Lord Howie of Troon: I have known the noble Earl for the best part of 30 years and I notice that he has an unerring aim for difficulties which nobody else can see. Of course, that is part of his job.
As I read the Bill—I may be mistaken and no doubt the noble Earl will correct me in due course—"reckoning periods of time" relates to a variety of things. There are periods of time for payment to any contract involving extensions of time and things of that nature. But there are traditions with which the noble Earl may not be wholly aware.
I can remember when my father worked in Troon Shipyard. They had a local custom which was continual and traditional. They had two days off at new year—the 1st and 2nd January—and then on 3rd January the workers congregated near the shipyard and threw a brick into the air. If the brick stayed up, they went into work; if it came down again, they had a third day off. This was a traditional holiday and I have no doubt that others have similar traditions. More seriously, there are certain traditional holidays. I mentioned Wakes weeks and the Glasgow fair, both of which last two weeks or so and have great significance, especially in relation to extensions of time.
If the noble Earl can convince me that this part of the Bill relates entirely to time in relation to payments, I may well be satisfied that he is right. But if, on the

39
other hand, he does not do that and leaves hanging in the air, as it were, such matters as extensions of time—I shall try to keep talking until the noble Earl's colleague returns from his advisers—which are rather more important because they have knock-on effects in terms of such operations as follow after the extensions of time, I shall not be satisfied. An extension of time, which extends the whole contract period and impinges upon the operations of sub-contractors, other contractors and ancillary contractors, is totally different from something which is merely a matter of accountancy. I think I can probably stop now because I see that the noble Earl's colleague has returned. I should like a reply from the noble Earl.
5 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Howie, said that he has known me for 30 years. He has indeed; he is a very lucky chap. He said that I have an erring aim for difficulties.
Lord Howie of Troon: An unerring aim.
Earl Ferrers: That is even worse. The curious thing is that, as far as I can see, the encroaches of senility make me seem to find everything simple. I would not want to pick an argument with anyone—least of all the noble Lord, Lord Howie. The noble Lord gave as a reason for his argument the fact that up in Scotland when they want a day off they throw a brick into the air and if it comes down they take it. That is a curious analogy to use in support of one's argument, because I do not suppose many of the bricks stay up in the air, unless it happens in Scotland where they do have very curious habits.
The time limits in the Bill refer to payment. They also refer to other things as well. I really do not think it possible to take these other curious, if I may so describe them, occasions, which are not national occasions or statutory occasions, and build them into the Bill because they will have different effects in different parts of the country. It seems unreasonable to tell people who are expecting money, and may be expecting some money on, say, 15th August, that everyone has gone on holiday for two weeks and they have to wait for two weeks for their money. After all, this is a case of making payments when payments are known to be expected and payments are due. I should have thought that it is perfectly reasonable to say in those circumstances that only the statutory holidays should be taken into account.
I hope that I have been able to persuade the noble Lord because, very curiously, he said that he was open to persuasion. That is an unusual facet of the noble Lord's character. I hope that I have managed to persuade him that it is better to leave the provision as it is.
Lord Howie of Troon: I find the noble Earl's argument persuasive but only up to a point. If I heard him correctly, he said that these time matters refer to payments and other things as well. But it was the "other things as well" that I was bothered about. I said that in so far as it was a matter of payment I accepted his proposition—and I do—but matters such as extensions
40
of time on a contract with the consequential knock-on effects are totally different. I am not sure that he has convinced me. He has half persuaded me, as I thought he would, but he has not persuaded me wholly, because he did not apply himself to what I actually said. I think the correct thing for the noble Earl to say is that he will look at what I have said and ask me to withdraw my amendment. If he says that, I shall happily comply.
Earl Ferrers: It is a remarkable thing when the noble Lord says to me that if he were me I would say what the noble Lord thought I should say. But, as I am myself, and as I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Howie, I shall do what the noble Lord says. I shall ask him to withdraw the amendment. I shall certainly have a look at what he has said and if I have either misdirected myself or, even worse, misdirected the noble Lord, I shall certainly get in touch with him. I shall certainly look at what he has said to see whether there is anything we can do to meet that point.
Lord Howie of Troon: Since we seem to have changed our places in some curious way I am happy to comply with what the noble Earl suggests. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 113 agreed to.
Clause 114 [The Board and its committees]:
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 64, line 23, after ("committees") insert ("(which must have a majority of Board members)").
The noble Lord said: In the course of our debate in Committee on Clause 111 stand part both the noble Lord, Lord Elvel, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about representations over the weekend. Not to be outdone, the noble Earl talked in the same spirit.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. He referred to the noble Lord, Lord Elvel. I think he actually meant the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. It is only a small point.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I am most grateful. I was being economical with my language in order to shorten the remarks which I propose to make. I am grateful for the correction. I have made that mistake before and I apologise to the Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
The noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Berkeley, talked about representations over the weekend. All I would say is that I have had many representations on behalf of 30,000 registered architects who hoped very much that Part III of the Bill, which is so important to them, would be considered last Thursday but for reasons we all know, though sunshine turned to twilight and twilight eventually turned to darkness, the House rose for unusual reasons before that part of the Bill could be reached.
It is a most important part of the Bill and it is for that reason very significant legislation for the profession. For more than 60 years it has depended very largely for its

41
status and therefore its livelihood on the 1931 legislation. Part III of the Bill effectively amends, but in a very important and significant way, the legislation of more than 60 years ago and some subsequent amending legislation. However, there is a significant difference between the 1931 Act and Part III of the Bill which reflects our changing times. The 1931 Act was certainly seen as protecting the profession from imposters—those who claimed to be architects when they were not—and from others and, despite the support, as I shall explain, that has been given by the great majority of architects to Part III of the Bill, the Bill and Part III ought to be considered primarily as protecting the public. For that reason it is important for the Committee to look at the detail of the proposals in that spirit.
Equally, if it is a sea change of the kind which I suggest—indeed it is as regards the further amendments to which we shall come—it is not surprising that architects have been caused some anxiety, not necessarily by what the Bill says but by details which, for one reason or another, have been omitted. My amendments are all probing amendments. At present I do not intend to press them to a Division at this stage of the Bill. The amendments are all intended to enable Ministers to place beyond all reasonable doubt what the new registration body will be like and how it will be expected to function. If, as I anticipate, helpful replies are given today of a robust and emollient kind—those two things can go together—I shall certainly not expect to press the matters further at a different stage of the Bill.
I shall be on my feet on a number of occasions in the next hour so I shall say what I said at Second Reading. I was the director-general of the RIBA from 1987 to 1994, and a consultant for a short period afterwards. I am an honorary Fellow now. I was very much involved in the discussion of the contents of the Bill, in the first place with Sir George Young when he was a Minister, and also with the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, and officials. All the amendments that I am putting before the Committee today have the support of the Royal Institute of British Architects though it would not necessarily agree with the way in which I shall address them.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord has referred on a number of occasions to all the amendments. I take it that the noble Lord is speaking to a number of them at the moment. Can he tell us what the others are?
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: The noble Lord anticipates by about 10 seconds what I intended to say. I thought it was important to make my position clear so that there would be no misunderstanding. The amendments stand in my name and nobody, in accordance with the proper procedures of this House, can be committed to them. Now that the Committee is preliminarily apprised of the amendments to which I shall later be speaking, I am now speaking, as the Marshalled List suggests, to Amendments Nos. 199 and 200, which go together. Amendments Nos. 212 and 213 are essentially belt and braces amendments. I do not intend to make any particular reference to them.
42
My remarks will now be quite short in addressing Amendments Nos. 199 and 200 together. They make clear my anxiety and the area as regards which I hope the Minister will be able to help. As the Minister and the Committee may know, the Government originally had in mind to end altogether the registration of architects, but then they had a very wise change of mind. At that stage there were alternatives about how the problem of future registration might be dealt with. One possibility was that responsibility for maintaining a register of architects should be passed to the RIBA itself. Indeed, in John Warne's report to Ministers, he recommended the ending of registration. He said that were registration to continue, he thought that the best option was to pass responsibility for maintaining the register to the professional body. That was one option and most favoured by John Warne and at that time by the RIBA itself.
The second option, which was developed both among the professional bodies and in ARCUK itself, the existing registration body, which embraces registered architects who are not members of a professional body like the RIBA or its equivalent in Scotland or Northern Ireland, was called a "minimalist organisation". I am very glad to say that that being the alternative which was most widely favoured in the end, both by the architects themselves and by Her Majesty's Government, the Bill embodies in its detail the essentials of such a minimalist organisation.
For example, there is a board of 15 people instead of a council of 77. It is a board shorn of the unnecessary committees which have created some problems in the past, particularly the Board of Architectural Education. I hope that the new organisation, being minimalist, is the cheapest to run although I make it clear to the Members of the Committee, if they are in doubt, that the present organisation for registration and its successor set out in the Bill, will be paid for by the profession itself. No cost falls on the public purse.
As I say, the direction of the Bill, as printed, is towards a minimalist organisation. I move principally these two amendments, and the others which follow from it, to make clear to the Committee that my understanding of the organisation is its understanding, too. It believes in a minimalist organisation, which will not attempt in any way to grow beyond the bounds set in statute in order to avoid any unnecessary conflict with the professional bodies which will very properly continue to represent those architects who join. The organisation will be kept as economical as possible in order, quite reasonably, to conserve the resources of a profession which, among all professions, is not a very well rewarded one. I hope that the Minister will be able to give those assurances. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: Do I understand correctly that the noble Lord is not speaking to Amendments Nos. 212 and 213 at this stage?
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: That is correct.
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps I may first apologise to the House for not being here on earlier occasions. My work takes up a lot of time in the afternoons and evenings. Although I would have wished to take part in the debates on the Bill, so far, I have been unable to do so. I have come to the House particularly for Part III of the Bill. I declare to the Committee my interests. I am a chartered surveyor. I started life as a land agent. I then became a commercial agent and then a developer. I have now set up a business as an estate agent. During those times I have used the services of architects and I wish that I had not had to bother with them.
This is the most bizarre part of the Bill. How this Government, which I support, can have changed their mind after receiving an independent report from Mr. John Warne that we should get rid of this dreadful legislation, beggars belief. I cannot follow my noble friends' thought processes. However, we have this dreadful Part III of the Bill. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, only serve to make it even worse.
However, I support the noble Lord on Amendment No. 200, which is reducing and minimising the cost of the board to the profession. The best way of doing that is to scrap the board and to take away the rather unique position in which architects find themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said that the reason why architects wanted this board so much was that it protected their profession. He went on to say that it protects the public. What a load of rubbish! The public certainly do not need protection from architects. They need the greatest ability there is to seek competitive positions in this profession and from other people who can provide just the same services as architects, but much more efficiently, effectively and at a cheaper price.
I wonder who needs protecting from a profession that can produce a calendar for this year of 12 pretty pictures showing the designs of buildings. Five of those buildings have never been built and they are never going to be built. The great majority of the rest have been modified extensively from the original concept. Many of my own designs have had to be rescued from the hands of architects by quantity surveyors and others in the profession. There are too many buildings in this country, too many ideas and too much money has been lost as a result of bad workmanship by architects that others have luckily been able to rescue or, in many cases, not. I cannot support the thrust of Part III of the Bill. I shall argue most strongly against the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers.
Lord Monkswell: I was going to say that I have been driven to speak by the last speaker, but I had intended to contribute anyway, so perhaps I should say—this may come as a surprise—that I am driven with alacrity to defend architects. Perhaps I should say first that I am a member of MSF, the Manufacturing, Science and Finance trades union, which currently has some difficulties with the Royal Institute of British Architects.
Secondly, and probably more importantly, I have used the services of architects and I have friends in the architectural profession. Furthermore, because of my
44
involvement directly and indirectly with the civil engineering and building industry over a period of 30 years, I can testify to the professional competence of architects. The professional way in which they go about their business extends not only to their professional competence in a technical sense but also, generally speaking and in my experience, to the way in which they treat other professionals as well as people involved in their own business.
I shall concentrate my remarks on Amendment No. 200, which is grouped with Amendment No. 199. Part of my reason for speaking is that I fear that the concentration on the minimisation of costs and administrative burdens addresses only one side of the equation. We have had 17 years of this Government, whose constant cry is that they are keen on reducing taxation. We need to recognise, however, that all that they have done is to reduce the taxation levels of the very rich; the taxation burdens for the rest of us have increased. That is the first point. By concentrating on arguments about reducing taxation, the Government have lost track of the other side of the equation, which is the fact that we must be aware of the need for the provision of adequate and decent levels of service. By concentrating on just one side of the equation, the Government have effectively lost their way in terms of being a government of the country. Judging from the opinion polls, my view is shared by the vast majority of the British people.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, will not take it amiss if I say that if he were to press Amendment No. 200, he would in effect be going down the same kind of road as the Government, because by concentrating on one side of the equation, if I may put it like that, there is a risk of losing sight of the other side of the equation. I hope that the noble Lord will think again about Amendment No. 200 and take on board the need to look at both sides of the equation.
Lord Elton: I, too, am tempted to my feet by the intervention of my noble friend Lord Caithness. I had expected to say that it was a great pity that my noble friend had not been here for our earlier consideration of the Bill, but having heard his speech I am not quite sure whether that is what I want to say.
I am puzzled by what my noble friend said. The burden of his message was that architects are to be mistrusted and done down at every possible turn because he has had such a bad experience with them and so, he says, has everybody else. How strange, therefore, that he should object to the constitution of a body which determines who may be allowed to practise as architects, when the majority of that body is appointed to protect the public interest while only a minority is elected by the profession. I should have thought that my noble friend would argue for exactly that. I hope that he will repent of his intervention.
Lord Ezra: I, too, was a little puzzled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I have come over the years to respect his views on things. However, not being a member of any of the professions about which we are speaking and not belonging to any of their organisations,

45
but speaking as somebody who may potentially employ the services of an architect, I would take it amiss if there were not a register of those eminent people so that I could be assured that the architect I selected had the normal, required professional qualifications. I strongly support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. A simple register, administered with minimum cost, is what we require. I very much hope that my noble friend's amendments to that effect will be accepted.
Lord Lucas: I am delighted that at last we have had the opportunity to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, whom I had hoped to see on Thursday. He is here now, however, and in prime time and I am sure that achieving that was the real intention behind the Division on Clause 111 stand part which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, called. I can find no other reason for that action.
I am rather taken by the thought that 30,000 architects are all standing up, crying out for the Bill. One wonders what would happen if one were to pile them all on top of each other. One asks oneself whether they would stand up. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Caithness would have some opinions on that point.
We support this part of the Bill and the efforts made to bring the provisions to fruition by the companions in arms in architecture of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. Despite what my noble friend Lord Caithness said, we believe that they will prove to be a worthwhile change to the legislation.
On the amendments, I find myself in the same camp as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. The noble Lord began by taxing my imagination and I wondered whether we were talking about the same Bill. Eventually, however, we returned to the Bill and the noble Lord supported the attitude that I shall take to Amendment No. 200. All's well that Monkswell, I suppose.
The aim of the amendments is to ensure that the new Architects Registration Board does not spawn several new large and expensive committees. We are certainly sympathetic to that aim. We have established a new professional conduct committee but, having abolished the Board of Architectural Education and the admission committee, the last thing we would wish to see is large new committees rising from the ashes, as it were, to take their place. I accept that such committees may be bureaucratic and expensive to run, and one of our aims in reducing the size of the Architects' Registration Council of the UK was to reduce registration costs.
We agree with the minimalist approach implied by the amendments. Our proposals would reduce the board to only 15 members and we would not wish the board to be supplemented by vast committees. However, I do not think that the proposed amendments are the right way to deal with this possibility.
While I might agree with the sentiments contained in Amendment No. 200, I do not think legislation is the right way forward. After all, any professional body is bound to act reasonably with regard to the interests of that profession, and this would include avoiding unnecessary costs.
46
There must be a certain amount of trust and a new organisation should be free to run its own affairs without having its hands tied unduly by legislation. If, at some time in the future, the board were to act in a way contrary to the spirit of this legislation, there is the possibility of changing the composition of the board both through elections and through the appointed members.
The proposals in Amendment No. 199 to insist on a majority of board members on all committees established by the board unnecessarily ties the hands of the board, which ought, in establishing its small, effective but inexpensive committees, to be granted the freedom to choose who should serve on them.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I, too, very much regret the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was not able to be present on Second Reading because I thought that the points that he made were very much Second Reading points. Although I recognise their weight, I found his remarks today a little intemperate and prejudiced. If the noble Earl does not mind me saying so, the answer to his claim that the Bill is a "load of rubbish"—those were his words—although it is argued that it is designed to protect the public, was extremely well given by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who pointed to the membership of the board, a matter to which we shall return when we reach Amendment No. 211.
At the time of the passage of the original legislation, the professions had much greater status and were taken for granted by the public. However, their status has changed greatly during the past 60 or more years. Although I do not necessarily agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said about the composition of the board, the fact that by election it can be changed by that part of it which is subject to nomination is safeguard enough. I say to the noble Viscount that I would not resist an argument, if it were put forward by the profession of chartered surveyors, that it should have registration. I say cautiously that I think it is mean of him as a chartered surveyor to try to interfere with the entitlements of architects when I am sure that the great majority of that profession would not wish, in a similar way, to interfere with the wishes of the profession of surveyors, if it decided to pursue this course.
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lords Monkswell and Elton, and to my noble friend Lord Ezra for the support they have given to the spirit of my amendment. I am not entirely happy with what the Minister said in referring to the composition of the board, which could not be quickly changed, as sufficient guarantee against the possibility that this would not be minimalist but would grow by the establishment of new committees. He said specifically that the last thing the Government would wish to see would be large new committees arising. I believe that this provides some guarantee that, should there be any danger of it, the Government will endeavour to find ways to reverse that trend, which would not be in keeping with the contents of the Bill or the intentions behind it.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord was kind enough to thank me for the support for his amendment. In case he intends to do it again at a later stage, I point out that I was not saying anything about his amendment but supporting this part of the Bill against the misguided attack of my noble friend Lord Caithness. I reserve the right to attack anything that the noble Lord brings forward at the next stage with just as much ferocity as that, if the need arises.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I hope I was not presumptuous. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out to the noble Viscount, Lord Caithness, the proportions of the Bill.
Lord Monkswell: I, too, point out that I was not being supportive of the noble Lord's amendment but merely complimentary to the profession as a whole.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I am amazed by how many noble Lords are disowning, not their earlier remarks, but my response to them. I acknowledge that the Official Report should be read. That is the only way to discover precisely what noble Lords have said. For the moment, I am grateful to them for what they have said about the amendment and the spirit of Part III of the Bill. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
Clause 114 agreed to.
Clause 115 agreed to.
Clause 116 [Registration]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 200A:
Page 65, line 21, at end insert ("or who has infringed the rights of other registered persons in respect of belonging to a trade union.").
The noble Lord said: Part III of the Bill gives important status to the RIBA. It introduces a legal framework of proper procedures to deal with alleged misconduct and incompetence against architects. I understand that the RIBA fully supports this part of the Bill. Therefore, it is extraordinary that the RIBA has ceased to recognise the trade union that represents the vast majority of its staff; that is, the MSF Union. It has reached this decision despite the fact that 85 per cent. of RIBA employees are members of the union and 92 per cent. of all staff voted for the re-establishment of trade union rights in an independently scrutinised ballot.
I am well aware that the Government are probably not enthusiastic about trade unions. However, we are talking about the rights of individual staff members, the overwhelming majority of whom wish to be members of that trade union and wish it to be recognised by the employer. I fail to see how the RIBA can adopt the attitude that it has. The amendment is intended to give support to the views of the staff who wish their union to be recognised. I very much hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the spirit of the amendment. It seems to me to be extraordinary that in this day and age, when the overwhelming majority of the staff of a
48
particular organisation wish to have their union recognised, the employer has no interest and moves the other way. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the thrust of this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: It grieves me that I rise to support the amendment. I have a great deal of respect for the architectural profession as a whole and many individual members of it whom I know. I respect also the way in which they operate, not just in the sense of professional and technical competence but in the way they treat others, whether they be clients, staff or other professionals. I believe it to be a blot on the escutcheon of the architectural profession that the dispute between the leadership and employees of the Royal Institute of British Architects has arisen. I hope that in supporting the amendment the Government will send out a very clear message to the profession that, while this part of the Bill is about the professional competence of the profession, there is also an expectation on the part of society that professional people should behave in a responsible manner to others with whom they come in contact, particularly those they employ.
I suspect that the action of the leadership of the RIBA has been disturbing to a large number of practising architects. They feel that their profession is brought into disrepute by this action. It is to be hoped, even at this late stage, action can be taken, in the form of an amendment, to make amends for this blot on the escutcheon of the architectural profession, all members of which are listening to this debate, according to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.
Lord Lucas: This amendment has nothing to do with the Bill. The Bill is not about the RIBA but about an entirely different body: the Architects' Registration Council. The Bill affects registered architects, not unregistered employees of the RIBA. The right to belong to a trade union and protection against infringement of that right is properly dealt with across all industries and professions by employment legislation. This Bill contains provisions that deal with allegations of unacceptable professional conduct. If it were alleged that the type of infringement under discussion constituted unacceptable professional conduct, it should be dealt with in a proper manner as set out in the Bill. But this Bill does not even require architects to be very good architects; it certainly does not require them to be very good employers or people. That is entirely outside the scope of the Bill.
It would be wrong and contrary to the principles of natural justice for a person against whom an allegation had been made simply to be thrown out by the registrar without his case being heard and dealt with in a proper way. The registrar would be entirely the wrong person to hear a case of this kind. I very much hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment without further ado.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may point out to the Minister that the amendment is entirely within the context of the thrust of this part of the Bill, because it talks about registered architects. The amendment is

49
drawn fairly narrowly in that it applies only to registered architects who are denied their trade union rights. With that explanation, the Minister might like to reconsider his remarks, because, as I said, the problems are faced by registered architects, and that is what this part of the Bill is about.
The amendment does not refer to other members of the RIBA's staff who are not registered architects. If the RIBA were to be required to confer what everyone, I think, would consider to be the right of trade union membership and representation to registered members who are members of staff, those same rights would be read across to other members of staff who were not necessarily registered architects.
Lord Lucas: Neither does the Bill deal with registered architects who have difficulty obtaining their child benefit. Registered architects, along with everyone else, have the rights granted by employment legislation. That is the right place for those rights. They have no place in the Bill.
Lord Dubs: Of course, in a narrow technical sense the Minister is right, but I draw a great deal of comfort from two phrases that he used. He used the phrases, "very good employers" and "very good people". I think by that he meant that he welcomes employers who are good employers and behave decently to their employees. There was indication of a slight rap over the knuckles of people who are not good employers. I welcome that rap over the knuckles. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 66, line 12, at end insert ("and shall consult the chartered bodies of architects in the United Kingdom and shall have special regard to the advice received from such bodies.").
The noble Lord said: In commenting upon Amendment No. 200A, the Minister rightly said that the Bill is not about the RIBA. It is important to emphasise that we are looking at chartered bodies—bodies of chartered architects—who represent about 70 per cent. of the profession, which are properly concerned with the interests of the profession. That is a wide responsibility, although I see it also as a public duty. The new registration body, despite what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said earlier, has been designed to, and, I hope, will function in the public interest, as the Bill sets out.
What we need for the success of the registration body and for the prosperity of the profession is co-operation between the professional bodies and the registration body to ensure that both, in their way, contribute to the public interest and to a flourishing, successful, and well-focused profession.
The amendment has a simple purpose. It is to ensure that the professional bodies are properly consulted about the development of architectural education and entry into the profession. Perhaps I may refer first to entry into the profession. Again, I readily concede that in 1931 it may have been in the minds—I can say no more
50
than that—of a number of architects that a new registration body would in some way help to restrict or confine entry into the profession. I do not anticipate that that is what they would want today or that it is what the new registration body will do. However, it is important that the only people admitted to the profession are those who have proper and widely understood qualifications and who have been through the proper courses to justify their entitlement to the name "registered architect". I believe that that is a view which will be common to all Members of the Committee and one we must accept.
Secondly—this, I believe, follows—if we are to have entry into the profession by those best qualified to be called registered architects, it is important to pay attention to the development of architectural education. Architectural education has, traditionally and very properly, been the responsibility of the professional bodies. It is the professional bodies for architects in this case, but equally the education of professionals, whether in medicine, law, or engineering, has traditionally been, and remains, the concern of those various professional bodies.
In recent years there has been some rivalry—if I may put it that way—between the existing Board of Architectural Education and the professional bodies. I say that despite some genuine and devoted service by distinguished architects in the board's service. I think, for example, of the present chairman of the board, Professor Ken Murta. The board disappears under this legislation. There is total agreement over that.
What I seek to ensure is a partnership between the new body and the professional organisations over education and entry into the profession, because the ownership of education is, as I say, a proper concern for all professional bodies, and the new organisation would make no claim to that. It could only by stealth or inadvertence find itself involved in questions of education. I hope that the Minister will say that that is his understanding of the matter. Even if he were to suggest that the amendment is unnecessary, I hope that he will make it clear that consultation with the professional bodies will be at the heart of the new registration body both in determining those who are fit and proper persons to join the profession and what education they should have in order to do so. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: Perhaps I may raise one point. I appreciate that my noble friend may not be able to answer off the cuff, but I should be happy if he would write to me. I remember on the question of registration and education in the years when I was a junior Minister having to go to Brussels to discuss common qualifications with other members of the Community, in particular the Germans. I wonder whether registration here will automatically mean registration throughout the EU; and, equally, whether we would be prepared to accept EU architects, however they may have been educated, under the proposals.
Lord Lucas: I shall instantly satisfy my noble friend by saying that I shall not give him an answer now and that I shall write to him.

51
I turn to the amendment. One of the duties of the new board will be to consult such professional bodies as it considers appropriate before adopting any qualifications, practical experience, and examination requirements for registration. I can fully understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, to make it absolutely certain that the chartered architectural bodies will be among the consultees. Their advice on the criteria for registration will be of particular importance to the board.
Let me therefore assure the Committee that in carrying out that function the board will have to act reasonably in deciding which bodies to consult and in having regard to any advice received. It would clearly be unreasonable for the board to fail to include chartered architectural bodies in its consultations, or not to consider their representations. For that reason, I see no need for a specific reference to that group of consultees on the face of the Bill. I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I hesitate to intervene between the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, but the answer to the noble Lord's question is that there are acceptable reciprocal arrangements between the member states of the European Union under the architects' directive. The point is most important and it is one to which the new registration body must give continuing attention.
I am grateful for what the Minister said. In particular, I am comforted by his comment about the board having to act reasonably. To say that the profession should be among the consultees might seem to diminish its relative role. I am sure that was not his intention, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 66, line 40, leave out ("within three") and insert—

("(a) where the application is made on the ground that he satisfies subsection (1)(a), within three months of his application being duly made; and

(b) where the application is made on the ground that he satisfies subsection (1)(b), within six").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 202, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 204 to 208 and 214 to 217.
Clause 116 sets out the functions of the registrar of architects and requires him to notify applicants for registration of a decision within three months. That will allow sufficient time for routine applications. However, a small minority of applications, mainly from overseas, require the board to exercise its judgment about the standard of competence attained and may require the applicant to pass an examination. That will need more time. Amendment No. 202 therefore will allow six months instead of three for the registrar to notify applicants in such cases.
Clause 117 requires the professional conduct committee to make a disciplinary order against a person whom it has been found guilty of unacceptable
52
professional conduct or professional incompetence. This order may involve erasure from the register, suspension, a fine or simply a reprimand. Amendment No. 204 would replace this requirement with a discretion and would give the committee freedom not to impose any form of disciplinary order if it considered the matter too trivial to merit any punishment.
Amendment No. 205 is consequential to this change (to Amendment No. 204). Instead of publishing the names of people against whom a disciplinary order has been made, the professional conduct committee would be required to publish a list of those whom it has found guilty of unacceptable professional conduct or professional incompetence and give a description of the nature of the conduct or offence concerned.
Amendment No. 214A corrects a minor drafting error. If an appeal against a disciplinary order or against the removal of a person's name from the register is going to be made to the High Court or the Court of Session, the clock will start running from the date the notice of decision is served, instead of the date of the disciplinary action concerned.
Amendment No. 208 corrects a drafting error in Clause 117. As drafted, one of the possible penalties for failure to pay a fine imposed on a person found guilty of unacceptable professional conduct or professional incompetence would be a further fine. This was not intended. Instead, the amendment will make the penalty for non payment of a fine, either suspension or erasure from the register.
The other amendments in this group, (Nos. 206, 207, 214, 215, 216, 217) are necessary consequential amendments. I trust that this group of amendments will meet with the Committee's approval. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may refer to a comment which the Minister made about Amendment No. 204. He suggested that the amendment would give the professional conduct committee the discretion not to impose a penalty against someone whom it had found guilty of professional misconduct or incompetence. He suggested that the reason for not imposing a penalty was that the transgression might be considered too trivial.
I am not sure that the Minister meant to make that suggestion and perhaps I may suggest another scenario. The misconduct or incompetence may be of a serious nature but the standing of the architect and the fact that he has been found guilty will be enough of a penalty in itself. That will give the professional conduct committee the ability to declare the fact that they have found someone guilty, even though for a significant offence, yet impose no penalty. Does the Minister confirm that that is an acceptable understanding of the amendment?
Lord Lucas: I hesitate to leap onto that possibly shaky ground. I shall consider what the noble Lord said and shall write to him if, after consideration, I in any way disagree with what he said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 117 [Discipline]:
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 67, line 43, at beginning insert ("serious or repeated").
The noble Lord said: I hesitated in tabling the amendment, which is self explanatory, because I strongly believe in the need to maintain a high level of competence in the profession. Although the profession might not like my comment I must say that it, like every other profession, has its bottom 10 per cent. which it could do without. I have no wish to protect them and it would not be proper to do so given my previous comment that the overriding purpose of the legislation is to protect the public and not the profession.
Nor would I agree that the amendment includes the provision "serious and repeated". I am substituting "or" for "and", which is an important factor. Either the shortcomings should be serious or they should be repeated. It would not be sufficient that the two factors should be taken together. I hope that I have made that clear, although I am not sure that I have.
We all make mistakes in our professional life and elsewhere and there is no point in pursuing a minor or one-off error of the kind that everyone makes from time to time. I am aware that there is always a danger of certain vexatious complaints resulting in a great deal more work than the new board can undertake. I hope that the Minister will see the intention of my proposal and will respond in the spirit of it. I hope that he will strongly support the need for the new board to do all within its power within the terms of the Bill to ensure that the profession serves the public in the best possible way.
Lord Lucas: The noble Lord explained himself very well and I have a clear understanding of the difference between "serious or repeated" and "serious and repeated". An error which is not serious but has been repeated is perhaps the noble Lord's continuing demotion of my noble friend Lord Caithness!
The Government are opposed to Amendment No. 203 on the simple ground that it is unnecessary. There are already two opportunities to decide whether an allegation of professional incompetence is taken further. First, persons appointed by the board, or the professional conduct committee itself, must satisfy themselves that there is a case to answer. Secondly, the professional conduct committee has discretion to satisfy itself whether professional incompetence has taken place. In both cases it will be possible to decide that the matter is sufficiently trivial or isolated not to be regarded as professional incompetence.
The addition of the words "serious or repeated" would do little to clarify matters. After all, their interpretation is a matter of opinion and it would be for the same committee to decide. In any event, I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, will be doubly reassured by the Government's Amendment No. 204, which removes the requirement for the committee to make any disciplinary order if it considers none to be necessary.
I hope that my remarks have convinced the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, as I am sure he will, I ask my noble friend to notice that as presently drafted, Clause 117 requires that the case "shall" be investigated where there is an allegation of either of the two kinds of offences mentioned. Therefore, the discretion to which he referred is not apparent on the face of the Bill. If the Bill said that the case "may" be investigated, what my noble friend said would be plain to all who read the legislation. I hope that my noble friend will seek further clarification about that before the next stage because it would be a great pity if this machine, which is intended to be smooth, simple and cheap to run, were required accidentally to investigate every scintilla of doubt in relation to professional propriety. For once, I find myself in modest agreement with the noble Lord opposite.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I pause to see whether the Minister wishes to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, because the element of discretion is extremely important. I had understood that there was discretion, but I may have misread the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will clarify this matter because it is very important. Indeed, if it is not clarified to my satisfaction, I would certainly consider raising this matter again at a later stage.
I am surprised that the noble Earl—and I beg his pardon—Lord Caithness had not thought of intervening on the amendment, because I should have thought that he might wish to express strong opposition to it. In view of what he said earlier about architects, I thought that he might consider that on every possible occasion, for whatever error had been committed, architects should be subject to the provisions of the Bill and to disciplinary action. But perhaps on reflection, the noble Earl feels that his earlier language was rather strong and therefore is prepared to go along with the amendment.
Although in the circumstances I must withdraw the amendment at this stage, if there is no discretion I may return to the matter on Report. It may well be that in the interval between now and Report, the Minister will write to me to point out what both the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and I have missed or, alternatively, I may discover for myself that the element of discretion exists satisfactorily.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may intervene to ask the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, what discretion he suggests should be written in. It would concern me greatly if all allegations were not investigated. The Bill is silent as to the extent of those investigations. I would hope that even where an accusation has been made that appears vexatious, some degree of investigation, even though it may be fairly minimal, takes place and that no accusation or allegation is dismissed as trivial or insubstantial.

55
As I said, the Bill as I read it does not give any explanation as to how much investigation would take place. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, will accept that we must ensure that all allegations are investigated, even though it may not be in great depth.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I agree with that. It is an extremely important point because there must be no presumption of any matter being vexatious. It must be investigated to see whether or not it is. However, I have tabled this amendment in these precise terms to ensure that anything which is not serious or repeated should not have the results which are set out in Clause 117. But I can see from the movement of the Minister that he has extremely important matters to divulge to the Committee.
Lord Lucas: I really wish to stand by what I said in my initial answer. Clearly, reading Clause 117, if it appears to the registrar that a person may be guilty of unacceptable professional conduct or incompetence or if an allegation is made to that effect, then the matter will be investigated. There is no discretion there.
The discretion comes in at the next stage when the persons investigating the case must find that a registered person has a case to answer. That is the first filter. Unsubstantiated allegations will drop out at that stage. The professional conduct committee must then satisfy itself that what is alleged has actually occurred. I presume that some allegations will drop out at that stage too. The professional conduct committee may then find that what has occurred is of such little import that it makes no award against the architect concerned.
Those are the three levels of discretion which exist in the Bill as amended once my amendments are accepted. I believe that that is the right arrangement and that people can be sure that their allegations will be investigated. However, there are adequate filters to make sure that unsubstantiated allegations do not take up a lot of time.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I am grateful to the Minister. I believe that he provides some reassurance for me and for the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, by setting out the various stages which are followed in those circumstances. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 204, 205, 206, 207 and 208:
Page 68, leave out lines 28 to 37 and insert—
("(1) The Professional Conduct Committee may make a disciplinary order in relation to a registered person if—

(a) it is satisfied, after considering his case, that he is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct or professional incompetence; or

(b) he has been convicted of a criminal offence other than an offence which has no material relevance to his fitness to practise as an architect.").

Page 69, line 4, leave out from ("persons") to ("disciplinary") in line 8 and insert ("whom it has found guilty of unacceptable professional conduct or professional incompetence or in relation to whom it has made a disciplinary order under subsection (1)(b); and
56
(b) in the case of each person a description of the conduct, incompetence or offence concerned and the nature of any").
Page 69, line 23, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1)(a)").
Page 69, line 26, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(1)(b)").
Page 69, line 34, leave out ("penalty order or a suspension") and insert ("suspension order or an erasure").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments when I moved Amendment No. 202. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 117, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 118 agreed to.
Clause 119 [Offence of practising while not registered]:
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 71, line 4, after second ("Act")") insert—

("(a) in subsection (1), after " "Architect" " where it first occurs, insert "nor in the course of business hold himself out to be such by the use of similar words"; and

(b)").

The noble Lord said: Members of the Committee may think that this matter is rather separate from the revision of the Architects Registration Acts, which is the important part of Part III. But I think it is wholly appropriate that I should briefly raise this question because it involves an extremely important measure of consumer protection.
By defining what an architect is and which form of words so describes a registered architect, the amendment seeks to prevent those who might believe that there is some advantage in being thought to be an architect sailing under false colours, adopting misleading identities and in effect disguising themselves as architects.
I know that over a long period of time, the existing registration body has had a great deal to do in trying to ensure that clients and the public are under no misunderstanding as to who is and is not entitled to call himself an architect. There was very limited provision—and I refer to naval architects in the original legislation of 1931.
If any Members of the Committee look at the yellow pages of a telephone directory or in a local newspaper, they will see that many individuals purport to sail under that title. Some of them use a spelling like a-r-k-i-t-e-c-t because that spells out phonetically the word "architect". Some refer to themselves as providing architects' design services and some refer to a complete architectural service. It is reasonable for lay people to assume that those people are qualified and registered architects. They may then be misled into employing individuals who are not qualified to do the job for which they have been sought.
Again, I look at the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, when I say that I wish to make it absolutely clear that there is no intention here at all to exclude from the performance of their proper skills members of other professions. However, I am sure that the noble Earl would not like any individual to masquerade with the title of "surveyor" if he were not qualified to do so. All I am

57
suggesting is that this Chamber should contribute towards making it more difficult for those who are not architects, who are not qualified and who have not been entered within the profession to claim that they are so.
I hope that the Minister will not suggest that the problem is common to all professions. Whether or not it is remains to be seen. If the Minister claims that it is, I should like to have illustrations, for example, from the profession of medicine which do not cause problems that ought to be remedied. But if indeed it is common to other professions, that, of itself, is hardly a case for failing to remedy the abuse of the position of architect under the provisions of the Bill. Why should we fail to do what ought to be done simply because the opportunity is not before us to do likewise for other professions?
The alternative argument is that we should educate the public. Well, we have had 65 years of seeking to educate the public about who is or is not a registered architect. Within the provisions now before the Committee, it may be possible for the new registration body to run a campaign to help the public understand who is and who is not an architect. But, as I said, there has been limited success in that respect. The existing registration body has spent a good deal of time seeking to protect the public from those who have masqueraded as architects in one way or another.
I am sure that the Minister will deplore misrepresentation in so far as some people claim to be architects when they are not so qualified. However, if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment today because it is not, perhaps, ideally drafted, it would be most reassuring if he would undertake to consider a similar amendment at a later stage. Whatever the outcome of today's discussion, that is something I should like to consider in the light of the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Quarry Bank, is seeking to do, but I have some fears that his amendment would go much further than his stated intention. I am not clear whether the terminology is as precise as he suggested. The noble Lord used words like "misrepresentation" and "masquerade" to describe people who are in professions other than architecture but who provide professional services which have some relationship to what the general public would consider to be building work, architecture and so on. I am worried lest the effect of the amendment would prove to be far more restrictive than would be acceptable, given the fact that other professions are also allowed to undertake some of the work in the building area.
I am not clear what the expression "use of similar words" actually means in the amendment. If it means that no person should pretend to be an architect when he is not, then that is beyond challenge. However, if the noble Lord is seeking to prevent other professions providing certain services to the public—for example, design services, building conservation and so on—I am concerned lest the effect of the amendment would prove to be duly restrictive and too protective of the architectural profession at the expense of others.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I have a few points to make to the noble Lord, Lord Rogers. When I spoke earlier I was trying to make clear that some of the architects with whom I dealt in the past—and, indeed, with whom I still deal—who are not masquerading as architects and are fully qualified have not provided the service that would entitle them to be set up on a pedestal. However, my real point is that I believe that the registering of title is a totally outdated and outmoded form for any organisation to undertake. That applies particularly to one part of this wide profession—the architects—who seek to maintain it. That is the bane of what I was trying to say.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I shall continue to use architects because some of them are extremely good. However, it is only right that I should point out that I have had many bad experiences as indeed have other people. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I find the amendment to be very ambiguous. I was reassured to some extent by what the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, said. If someone tries to pose as an architect who is not so qualified, I believe that such a provision would be fair. But many people provide services which are very similar to those provided by architects and we should allow such services to continue; for example, chartered building surveyors provide a host of services.
Part of my training was spent in designing and adapting buildings. If now, in my profession as an estate agent, I wish to draw plans of a house for sale and show the plans on the particulars for sale, would the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, allow me to do so? I spent six years trying to get qualified and eventually did so. Surely I can use that part of my professional training. That is the point which concerns the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and myself; namely, that the amendment would actually prove to be a great deal wider than the noble Lord realises.
Lord Howie of Troon: I apologise for joining the debate rather late. The protection of title is a most important matter. I say that because there has been a tradition of disquiet between the architectural profession so eloquently represented by the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, and the civil engineering profession so ineloquently misrepresented here by myself. We have always been at daggers drawn in various ways; but that does not apply to me personally. Indeed, I have the greatest admiration for architects and have said so on many occasions. As a structural engineer, I have assisted them in ensuring that their buildings stay up, which is always a good idea. Moreover, I have designed buildings—and very nasty they were. They were nasties because I am an engineer and not an architect. Had I been an architect, they would have been absolutely splendid.
The protection of title is important in the sense that when you buy an architect, so to speak, you buy an architect and not some kind of building technician who fancies himself to be an architect. If Members of the Committee take a profession where the title is not protected, they will see what I mean; for example, the title of "engineer" is not protected. People describe

59
themselves and are described as engineers when in fact they are no more engineers than the noble Earl. But the noble Earl would never dream of doing such a thing because he is not an imposter; nor, indeed, are those people.
They are engineering technicians; for example, a television engineer is a mechanic. Then there are motor engineers. I know that my noble friend Lord Monkswell is an excellent engineer, although he gets a little above himself from time to time. The title of chartered engineer, the professional engineer of whom I speak, is not protected. I should like to see a Bill which would protect their title in the same way as the title of architect is protected. It is not a matter of closed shops or anything of that nature; it is a matter of presenting a professional expertise truly, openly, honestly and in a way which can be understood by reference to the register or to the Royal Institute of British Architects. I believe that the registration of title as regards architects is entirely to be supported. Indeed, it should be extended far beyond architects so as to cover others in the building arena, including the noble Earl opposite who is shaking his head for some reason. I should also like to protect him because he is obviously in need of protection.
The Earl of Caithness: Will the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, bear in mind that almost a logical consequence of protecting title is then to protect jobs? The European architects' directive has made working in Europe for many chartered building surveyors absolutely impossible. It has reduced their opportunity of carrying out work which they currently do as they are banned from so doing because of the registration of title.
Lord Howie of Troon: They are trying to do work which others could more properly and better do.
Lord Swinfen: Like my noble friend Lord Caithness I should declare an interest because I, too, am a surveyor. I quite understand what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, is trying to do. He is trying to ensure that no one without appropriate qualifications can hold himself up to be professionally qualified as an architect. However, I suspect that his proposal could do serious damage to a number of surveyors who perform architectural services in that they are capable of, and do, design buildings and extensions, and supervise repairs and maintenance. I do not wish to be rude to architects because it is not my opinion but the chartered surveyor who trained me always said that the task of a chartered surveyor was to correct the mistakes made by architects. The noble Lord should find a different way of trying to achieve the purpose he rightly has in mind.
Lord Monkswell: As I have been alluded to in this debate, I rise to declare that I am an engineer. However, that term can encompass anything from a fitter at one end to a chartered engineer with tremendous professional competence at the other. I agree with my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon that there is a problem in this respect in this country. I suggest that it extends far wider and is of far greater import than
60
Members of the Committee who have spoken today have mentioned. I give a couple of examples. Anyone, without any capability or qualification whatever, can set himself up as a plumber, an electrician or a roofing contractor. The problems that the general public experience as a result are horrendous.
In America—the "home of the free"—my brother works as a landscape contractor. If someone wants to set himself up as a landscape contractor in this country he need have absolutely no qualifications or professional competence whatever. He can hawk his services where he likes. In the state of California, however, a person wishing to practise as a landscape contractor not only has to receive some training and pass exams; he also has to be licensed by the local authority and must have professional indemnity insurance. If those sorts of restrictions can operate in what is described as the free capitalist economy of the United States, surely we can go some way towards emulating it. I would hope that the protection of architects embodied within the Bill was a step that we could, and should, willingly take. Notwithstanding that other areas of economic activity within our society are not so regulated, we should set out our stall to ensure the regulation of the architectural profession and then ensure the regulation of every other profession that bears on the lives of ordinary consumers.
Lord Lucas: We seem to have strayed rather wide in recent contributions. Heaven knows where the process might end if we allow it to carry on. We may be discussing qualifications for legislators even!
It is of fundamental importance, in matters concerning registration, that the general public should be given as precise and clear a definition as possible over who is registered and who is not. The Architects (Registration) Act 1938 achieves this by requiring that any person using the title "architect" in the course of his business has to be registered. There are specific exemptions for naval, landscape and golf course architects who are unlikely to be confused with the real thing. This is simple and easy to understand and does not allow any room for confusion or misinterpretation. It is the definition which the Government wish to retain.
There will always be unqualified persons who would like to pass themselves off as architects by using similar titles or designations. I have sympathy with the intent of the amendment to prevent such persons misleading the public. However, by expanding the scope of the protection to include similar words to "architect" the amendment would introduce a grey area over exactly what title is being protected. Someone who misspells the word "architect" is hardly likely to be mistaken for the sort of architect anyone would want to employ.
There are perfectly legitimate designations currently used by non-architects such as "architectural consultants", "architectural designers" and so on, which would be affected by the amendment. It is not in the interests of the public to weaken the distinction between these sorts of designation and the title "architect". Nor would it be fair to prevent persons using designations which accurately describe the work which they legitimately carry out, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Caithness.

61
For these reasons, expansion of protection of title was never a part of the pack age of reforms which the Government, the RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) and ARCUK (Architects' Registration Council of the United Kingdom) agreed upon. Nor was it the subject of the consultation which the Government subsequently carried out. It would be unreasonable to introduce any change in the scope of protection of title without fully consulting all those who might be affected. I do not believe that such an exercise would ultimately serve the interests of either the architectural profession or the general public.
It may interest the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, to know that the title "surveyor" is a wide one. There is a Bill before this Chamber at the moment—the Party Wall Bill—where the term "surveyor" is specifically defined to include almost anyone who is competent to do the job that is required by that Bill and might even extend to cover architects if they wish to call themselves that. Therefore I do not believe the noble Lord can levy that charge against my noble friend.
Lord Howie of Troon: Has that Bill come before this Chamber?
Lord Lucas: Yes, indeed, I replied to its Second Reading.
Lord Howie of Troon: Is the Committee stage yet to come? Will we then discuss the matter to which the noble Lord has just referred?
Lord Lucas: I look forward to it. I was merely pointing out that there was no protection as regards the title of "surveyor". Indeed, the surveyors themselves who are promoting that Bill do not seem to have the worries that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said they would. I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that any expansion of protection of title would be a complex matter and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: The Minister is, of course, right in saying that the matter of this amendment was not subject to any discussion between the profession and his department. I clearly said in my opening remarks that this might not seem to be wholly appropriate to the Architects (Registration) Act but that this was a suitable opportunity of the kind noble Lords seek to take to introduce desirable change on the basis of legislation before the Chamber.
I am sorry that there should be any misunderstanding about the amendment. With great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I want to make it absolutely clear that, having seen the professions working together in the construction industry over a considerable period of time, it is only by working as a team that we can expect to achieve the quality of building which I know—despite his unfortunate experience—he and I would both like to see. Architects are very much dependent upon chartered surveyors. They work closely with structural engineers, building service engineers and civil engineers, and with many other professions. Nothing that I say today should
62
be thought to cast doubt upon that or to imply that I should like architects—of which I am not one—to take work away from those in other professions whom they are dependent upon and who do excellent work within this industry.
The noble Earl referred to the amendments being ambiguous. Clearly I puzzled the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who said he thought that the amendment went too far. He believed the implication was that it prevented others from offering professional services. However, at present a man and woman with no qualifications in any profession can choose to use a form of description which could mislead the public.
The Minister believed that potential clients or clients would not be easily misled by the form of language to which I referred earlier. I hope the Minister will remember that many clients are small, once in a lifetime clients. They wish to extend their house; or perhaps a widow wishes to spend some money left to her on the death of her husband. Those men and women have no experience of the profession. They assume that there are regulations which prevent anyone who is not an architect purporting to be one. The purpose of my amendment is solely to protect such persons from the possibility of misrepresentation.
I recognise what the Minister says about a grey area. He seemed to be more passionate for consultation than Ministers usually are. I do not believe that it is a complex matter. The provision could be changed on the face of the Bill now if the Minister so wished and the Committee so decided. However, in view of the misunderstandings which appear to be common to both sides of the Chamber, I do not press the amendment. I shall consider fully what has been said, including the support received from the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. I shall consider whether it will be proper to come back to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 119 agreed to.
Clauses 120 and 121 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Architects]:
[Amendment No. 210 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 211:
Page 87, line 4, leave out from ("represent") to end of line 5 and insert ("consumer and public interests, none of whom should be from other trades or professions seen to be competitive with architects").
The noble Lord said: This is perhaps the most important of the amendments that I have put before the Committee today. The Minister may agree that the success or failure of the new body is dependent upon its structure, in particular the existence of the board. There has been a major step forward—I hope that Members on both sides of the Chamber will fully understand it—in the provision in the Bill for the governing body of registration in this country. The old council of ARCUK

63
consisted of 77 members while the proposed new body consists of only 15. More importantly—it is the kernel of my amendment—of the 77 members of the old council, only seven were non-architects while a majority of the small new board will be independents. Under the provisions of the statutes, the great majority of ARCUK were members of the RIBA. There is no guarantee that the existing professional bodies will be represented in the elections of members of the new board, despite the fact that the RIBA represents 70 per cent. of the profession.
It is important—it is why I wholly support the provisions of the Bill—that if this new body is to be genuinely representative of the public, and within the intention of the Government the profession should not have a majority on the board. On the other hand, if this legislation is to be a success and to last as long as the previous legislation, the new body must have the full confidence of the profession. There is real concern within the profession about the proportion—a minority—of elected members to be appointed to the board, with no special provision for the representation of the professional bodies.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, considered whether it might be desirable to reverse the proportions. He decided not to proceed, I think rightly. But his thoughts fairly reflected the representations that many architects might make: that it is a step too far to reverse the proportions on what is a small board. To that extent the provision is a revolutionary change; and it is not surprising that architects have anxieties about it.
Their anxiety is compounded by the fear that the Bill as drafted will admit as independents (if I may use that word to describe those who are nominated effectively by the Government) men and women from professions competing with architects in the construction process, or those seeking to qualify for registration as architects when hitherto they have not done so. I hope the Minister will say that it is not the Government's intention to provide among those independents for professions which compete with the architects' profession any more than that would be appropriate if any of the other professions in the construction industry had such a registration Bill.
It is easy for many of us to assume that the profession is dominated by a number of large, well known firms or by very distinguished architects who are almost household names. That is not the case. It is a profession of small practices which on the whole have small clients. Those small clients are very diverse. Perhaps I may give three examples. There is the sole practitioner who had 32 projects in the past year, 25 of which were for domestic extensions, the largest an extension to a church. Then there is the medium-sized practice with 16 jobs on its books, almost all of which are in the public sector. Roughly 40 per cent. of those jobs are for individuals, or for first time clients. Then there is the large practice with 60 staff and 100 live projects, largely in education, the arts and leisure. It is a grave mistake
64
to assume at present that the majority of architects work for large clients and in property development. That is simply not the case.
Those facts are not necessarily familiar even to Ministers. I believe that full account should be taken of those facts when deciding who the members of the board will be. The public sector remains important. That is in part central government, local government, hospital trusts, trusts in the field of education and in universities and their extensions. There has been a large building programme in that area. That large public sector should be represented in the appropriate way on the board.
I refer to housing associations. Although increasingly obliged for financial reasons to design and build, they now provide the great bulk of public sector housing. It is an important group of institutions which might be represented, if not formally, by individuals serving on the board.
There is the large number of quite small, once in a lifetime, domestic clients. The Government will have to consider how best they should be represented. It might be by someone involved in the consumer movement—either the National Consumer Council or the Consumers' Association. It could be someone working closely with the Citizens Advice Bureaux which are called upon from time to time to advise potential clients on how they may go about finding an architect. It may be someone from a women's institute. It will be for the Government to decide. I merely ask the Minister today to recognise that they should consider those kinds of bodies to find people who will constitute the lay membership of the board.
The legislation is not intended to protect Bovis, Wimpey or any of the major commercial property developers like Stewart Lipton, for example, a notable name and a company which has done excellent work. They all know where to find the right architect and how to obtain redress of a grievance, usually through the law, if a problem occurs. They can look after themselves and chop and change in their choice of architect. However, the ordinary man or woman, the once-in-a-lifetime client, is not in that position. I am sure that the Minister will be able to say that such people will be properly represented on the new board which will not be made up of people competing with the architects' profession. If he can say that, then I and the profession will be well content. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: In Schedule 2 to the Bill, under the heading "Appointed members", there is the phrase:
"represent the interests of users of architectural services and the general public".
I therefore assume that the Government have in mind a category of individuals who use architectural services. My understanding is that some users of architectural services are from the professions to which the noble Lord referred. It would be wrong if a large number of such professions were represented on the new board, but it seems to me that one or two would not come amiss, if it were thought proper in terms of their other contributions to the work.

65
I am concerned that a phrase as wide as "competitive with architects" should find its way into legislation. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, does not intend that, but the phrase is so wide that it is difficult to know who would be allowed to serve on the new body. I am worried that yet again the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has gone further than I would have expected. I understand that he does not want a large number of persons from other professions to be appointed to the body and that is a proper concern. However, if one or two should appear on the body as users of architectural services, it might not be such a bad thing.
The Earl of Caithness: I hope that my noble friend Lord Lucas will resist the amendment as another piece of protectionism by architects. As drafted, the Bill is right. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, adduced a number of arguments for some good people who should be appointed to the board or who are worthy of consideration. Having listened carefully to him, I found no arguments why those who use the services of architects but who also compete with them—such as chartered building surveyors or chartered surveyors—should not be represented.
On an earlier amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said that the professions had worked in harmony and should continue to do so. Having said that, it seems odd that the noble Lord should wish to exclude from the board those people with whom architects will work in the future.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: There might be an answer to that proposition or a reason for it. Thirty years ago, when I was active in consulting engineering, I recall that such building professionals as chartered surveyors and the like—estimable people in almost every way—attempted to usurp the work of architects. They did so largely by insinuating themselves in as project managers. Being somewhat feeble, the architects permitted them to do that. When I returned to consulting engineering after a period in another place (from which I was ejected by popular appeal), I discovered that the quantity surveyors were attempting in the same way to insinuate themselves into consulting engineering. The consulting engineers were able to repel them, at least for a while. There is more to chartered surveyors than meets the eye, there is nothing wimpish about them. They are a serious competitive body of people who must be carefully watched. That is possibly why we do not want too many of them on this body.
It all boils down to what one considers a profession, what it is for and how it ought to be disciplined and arranged. To some extent, the manner in which the profession is arranged and disciplined is a definition of the profession itself. I was excited that my noble friend Lord Williams put down an earlier amendment which proposed a majority of architects on the board. I was about to put down a similar amendment, but since he had done so I did not. Unfortunately, he withdrew his and left me stranded like a whale. No doubt I shall put it down again on Report, because it was right.
66
The essence of a profession is that it is disciplined, organised and arranged by its members. It is different from a business. I know that noble Lords opposite are obsessed with the idea of the market, with businesses and similar matters and can think of nothing else. I absolve them from even considering the matter. However, that is not the case with my noble friends. They should consider the professions and what they are like. I shall advise my noble friends on the Front Bench where to look for a description of the ethos of the profession which might help and guide them in their attitude to this part of the Bill. I revert to a point which I have mentioned before in this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, will remember. It is a well known book called: The Acquisitive Society, by R.H. Tawney, a well known socialist. That word has perhaps gone out of popular usage lately. In his book, R. H. Tawney included an interesting chapter in which he discusses the industrial society and describes the professions as the model he would like to see an industrial society take.
My noble friends on the Front Bench will be happy to note that not only does R.H. Tawney say that, but he suggests that the pattern of professional institutions such as the RIBA—although he does not mention it by name—and other professional institutions which I have mentioned was the kind of pattern that the trade union movement should have taken.
In parenthesis, if my party had listened to Tawney in those days and had converted the trade unions into the same shape as the professional institutions, the world would have been a much better place than it is today. If a profession is to remain a profession and not be transformed into something else, it must retain a substantial measure of self-government. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has gone a long way towards meeting the Government's views, much further than I like. If a profession is not self-governing, it ceases to be a profession. In so far as it ceases to be a profession, it loses its value to society.
Lord Lucas: The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, seems to envisage his committee overrun by mice or perhaps chartered surveyors. I assure him that it will not happen. Although his fears may he understandable, they are unfounded. The wording of the paragraph closely reflects the text of the department's position paper, which had the support of both the Architect's Registration Council of the United Kingdom and the Royal Institute of British Architects. The Government's aim remains the same: that the appointed members should represent a balance between consumers of architectural services and the general public. The Government will consider very carefully who those appointed members should be. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that appointees should be independent men and women who wish to perform a public service and represent clients. I take his point too that there will be small, once in a lifetime clients who should be taken into account when the Government decide whom to appoint.
But I cannot agree that the Government's hands should be tied and that no one from another profession within the construction industry, however eminent or

67
independent minded, should be nominated. Other professionals from the construction industry might well be able to make a useful and constructive contribution to the board, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said. To ban all such professionals from the board would almost be a requirement that none of the independent members on the board should have a clue as to what they are talking about. That would seem to be undesirable.
Having said that, there is no question of such a person or persons dominating the board. It is a matter of simple arithmetic. There will be seven elected architects and the remaining eight appointed members will be divided between those who represent the general public and those who represent the consumers, both big and small, of architectural services. Any appointees from the construction industry would be in a small minority.
Finally, I should remind the Committee that there will be consultation before any members are appointed. I assure the Committee that any responses that we receive will be considered very carefully. I hope that, in that very short reply, I have given the comfort that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, requires.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord responds to that reply, may I ask with whom the Government are consulting? If one is talking about consumer interests and general interests, it is quite hard to know who the consultees should be.
Lord Lucas: I shall have to write to the noble Baroness on that matter.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to protectionism. There is no protectionism whatever intended in this amendment. However, he will, I hope, accept that within his profession he would not like architects to determine what is a suitable education for a chartered surveyor or indeed to decide who is properly qualified to enter the profession. I seek only to establish in this amendment that there will be no representatives on the new board who will see their task precisely as that—speaking for other professions competitive with architects and seeking to determine, as they might easily do, the conditions for entry and the form that architectural education should take. In that sense the amendment is not protectionist at all. I simply ask for architects to have done to them what they would want to do, no more and no less, to others.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made a fair point, which is not apparent from the amendment, when he said that he did not see why there should not be two or three representatives—I want to come back to that word—of other professions on the board. I should prefer to say that I totally accept—it may not have been clear from the amendment, which is why I must reconsider the form of words used—that some who may serve on the board not as architects but as the so-called independent members may have other professional qualifications.
Lord Dubs: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. If I said "representatives" that was a slip of the tongue.
68
What I meant was people who happen to be in other professions but who ought to be there because they are independently minded persons.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: The noble Lord's remarks are the perfect preface to what I am about to say. I am very glad that I carry him with me. The other day I had the opportunity of hearing someone who had been for many years the property manager of a major university, during which time he placed many contracts with architects and other professions. I have no idea of his profession, though it is highly probable that he is a chartered surveyor. But not for one moment would I consider him an unsuitable person to be a member of the board. He would be there not as a chartered surveyor but as someone who has experience as a client, and he would be there in an individual capacity.
As so often, the noble Lord, Lord Howie, was outspoken where I was conciliatory; passionate where I was emollient; and quoted R.H. Tawney where, as always, I seek to represent the moderate centre in such matters. But what he said about self-governing professions is very important indeed. It would apply not only to architects but to others as well.
In his closing remarks, the Minister made a very important and reassuring remark. He said that appointees should be independent and not representative. That is the heart of the matter. When men and women from other professions sit on the board, even if in one or two instances those professions may be competitive, if they are truly independent and do not seek to represent their professions, I do not feel that there could be any complaint.
I shall reflect further on what the noble Lord said and on the discussion that we have had. In the light of that, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 212 and 213 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 213A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 214 to 217:
Page 90, line 40, leave out ("7ZA(2)") and insert ("7ZA(1)").
Page 91, line 8, leave out ("of the action concerned") and insert ("on which notice of the decision or order concerned is served on him").
Page 92, line 38, at end insert—
1990 No. 2
(". In section 20(1) of the Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990 (interpretation), in the definition of "architect", for "Architects Registration Acts 1931 to 1969" substitute "Architects Acts 1931 to 1996".").
Page 94, line 1, leave out ("shall not be required to make any disciplinary order, and").
Page 94, line 15, leave out ("this") and insert ("the 1931").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 214 to 217 inclusive with Amendment No. 202. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Lucas: I beg to move that the House be resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Business of the House
6.57 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, before we start the next business, perhaps I may make a brief statement following a Statement made in another place earlier today. It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I explain briefly the arrangements that are being made for consideration of a Bill to provide additional powers to the police for the prevention of terrorism.
Copies of a draft Bill are now available in the Printed Paper Office. The Bill itself will be published tomorrow and it is expected that it will pass through all its stages in another place tomorrow. It is intended that your Lordships will be invited to take all stages of the Bill on Wednesday before the business already on the Order Paper for Wednesday. My noble friend the Leader of the House has tabled a Business of the House Motion to that effect.
The purpose of this very brief statement is to give noble Lords as much advance notice of the likely effects of the Statement made in another place earlier today on the business in your Lordships' House.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before eight o'clock.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I thought that the statement by the Government Chief Whip would be responded to by Her Majesty's Opposition. There is a very important point to make about the statement.
I speak on behalf of these Benches in so far as this is a matter that I anticipate will be dealt with by Home Office Ministers. We are disturbed about bringing forward this legislation in the closing days of this parliamentary period. When the Bill comes before the House, we shall want to explore the point at which the Government found it necessary to bring it forward.
The Government will recall that when the original legislation on terrorism was brought before the House 20 years ago, it was immediately after the Birmingham bombings. Your Lordships' House very readily agreed with the other place, in view of the acute urgency of the matter and the new situation that had just arisen, that it was right to take that Bill through all its stages in a single day. I am not aware, unless we can be presented with evidence for it, that there has been any event (I am glad to say) within recent days which would appear to justify passing a Bill through this House with great haste in the closing stages before the Recess.
As I understand it, the Bill inescapably involves some restrictions on the individual. And your Lordships' House and Parliament generally have been cautious about agreeing such matters without careful discussion. Indeed, in 1975, when the original legislation on the
70
prevention of terrorism was before the House, there was a substantial debate. Remarks were made on both sides of the House about the need to ensure that the liberties of the citizen were looked after properly and that the Bill did not become part of the statute book permanently.
That is a view which we expressed in this House when we debated the renewal order only a month or so ago. I do not understand why, when we had that debate, no hint was given to your Lordships' House that new legislation of this kind was being brought forward. If it was not urgent one month ago or there was no justification for setting the Bill before the House then, why do we have to have it in the closing days before the Easter Recess? It will be difficult for a number of noble Lords to be present and to give the Bill the treatment it deserves.
I say that without prejudice to the contents of the Bill, the necessity for it or the debate which we shall have on it. However, I should like an explanation because noble Lords have been taken by surprise by the announcement just made. We should like to know why we should consider the Bill on Wednesday and why it cannot be postponed until the House returns. That will depend on whether the House is told of a new emergency which we had not anticipated and of which we are not aware which justifies bringing the legislation forward.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the reason neither I nor a colleague rose to speak when the Government Chief Whip made the announcement was that I had been advised that my colleagues in another place, who are fully apprised of the importance of the issue, were satisfied that this business merited the exceptional course upon which the Commons decided.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is correct in saying that it is a surprise. I await, as he does, with a great deal of interest the cause for the urgency and the issues themselves. That is understandable. But it is within my memory in this House in the past 10 or 12 years that on perhaps two or three occasions the House agreed, in the specific atmosphere and on the specific subject of terrorism, to take new legislation. We are therefore conscious of the fact that if the Government feel it necessary and if my colleagues in another place had not been consulted far more fully than we have been as yet—I make no complaint about that—and are satisfied in relation to the need for the legislation, then we are in the hands of the Government.
If the Government wish to deal with the matter in all stages in the other place tomorrow and if the House has already determined to rise on Wednesday, then the two options are quite clear. First, we could do as the Government suggest and deal with all stages on Wednesday; or, secondly, we could find some other day. The other day may be Thursday, Friday, or it may be that we have to wait until after the Recess. I imagine that all those matters were considered by my colleagues.
We on these Benches recognise that it must be important for the Government to propose what they have. We trust that they are conscious of the niceties of procedure in both Houses and especially in this House.

71
Therefore, though I share the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and pose the same questions, we shall not attempt to interfere with the timetable proposed.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to reply briefly. I am grateful for the words of the Opposition Chief Whip and for those of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that we all share in the interests of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. If we did not regard this matter as important, we would not bring it forward in the manner that we have.
A great deal of discussion and thought has taken place. There has been consultation with the police and, I understand, consultation between the Home Secretary and his opposite number in the shadow Cabinet. The conclusion is that the Bill is needed and needed now. The police want it as quickly as possible. I hope that the House agrees that if the enactment saves one life over the Easter break, then the speed of the Bill's passage will have been more than justified.
There will be time for debating some of the issues on Wednesday. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Blatch, who will be dealing with the Bill on behalf of the Government, will be able to reply more substantively to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I take it that the substantial discussion—if there is need for one—on the need for urgency, will take place on the Business Motion that the Bill be taken in one day. We therefore have time to reflect on the balance between civil liberty and civil safety which is clearly here at issue.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I wonder whether I can ask the Government to review the announcement that they have just given to the House. If we look back to 1974 we can see that the original Prevention of Terrorism Act was passed in a 24-hour period shortly after the excesses of the Birmingham bombing. Some of us feel that the result of that action was that we introduced legislation in haste, realising that we would repent it at our leisure. It did a great deal of damage by aiding the IRA as a recruiting sergeant.
At that time there was a demonstrable need for something to be done by Parliament and that was done precipitously. The problem with which we are faced as parliamentarians is that there does not appear to be any justification that has been made public to parliamentarians about the urgency of the situation. As I understand it, we shall be presented with a Business Motion on Wednesday to consider the passage of the Bill through all its stages on that day.
I ask the Government to put forward their Business Motion tomorrow, Tuesday, for the consideration of the House. That will give time for consideration of the debate that will be conducted tomorrow on the subject, giving the terms of the emergency of which the Government are apparently apprised and effectively a day's delay before we consider the Bill with which the Government will present us. I put that forward as a plea.
72
It would give us some measured opportunity to consider the circumstances of the situation of which the Government will no doubt apprise us.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the main points made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will be taken up during the course of the debate on Wednesday. However, on the issue of the Business Motion, the reason why I came before the House this evening was to let your Lordships know of the Government's intentions and to warn people of both the Motion that my noble friend the Leader of the House is tabling this evening on the Order Paper for debate on Wednesday and also to let the House know of our intended timings.
The Bill would not be dealt with in this way unless we already had prior agreement and also if we did not believe that it was important and urgent for the Bill to be agreed before the House adjourns for the Easter Recess. I hope that the House will recognise the need for this legislation when it comes to be debated on Wednesday and also that the reason I came forward with the Statement today is to keep everybody well informed of our intentions.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
7.10 p.m.
Read a third time.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
REFUSAL OF STUDENT LOAN NOT REFUSAL OF CREDIT
(". A refusal to an eligible student of a private sector student loan shall not be regarded as a refusal of credit for any purpose and may not be required to be declared in any other application for credit.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Minister has said on many occasions during the passage of the Bill that the private sector must be free to pick and choose which students to lend money to. Surely it is the case that, unlike other forms of applications for loans from the private sector, the institutions envisaged under the Bill will be receiving public subsidy. Unlike an application for a loan for a car or for a personal loan, an application in this case may be turned down because of the institution the student wishes to attend or the course he wishes to follow.
I do not intend to raise all the issues mentioned during previous debates. Suffice it to say, this amendment does not seek to challenge the right of the private sector to refuse to give loans. However, the amendment would at least guarantee student applicants protection from possible future discrimination in their work or private finance. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the amendment says only that if someone is refused a subsidised loan for his education from a privately owned company, the company involved will have to say why. It is not that onerous a statement. A refusal of credit may follow someone for the rest of his life. The student has not created the situation—it is the course he or she has

73
chosen to follow. An institution may decide that graduates in English are not a good credit risk. However, someone who passes the examinations for a degree in English well and who acquires a good job may become a good credit risk whereas someone who takes a law course, passes very badly and becomes a very bad lawyer may become a bad credit risk. Surely, when one is taking account of variables and parental income, that should not be held against the student.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, we return to an amendment we discussed at earlier stages. I resisted those similar, if not identical, amendments for good reasons. I am still not persuaded of the need for such an amendment.
The amendment, if agreed, would have consequences which go far beyond the business of student loans. I simply do not think it would be practical. It is another over-regulatory amendment. It would not only regulate the private lenders of student loans but private lenders of all kinds. That is clear from the first part of the amendment which says:
"A refusal … of a private sector student loan shall not be regarded as a refusal of credit for any purpose".
That would affect private lenders of any kind.
Financial institutions, when considering applications for credit of any kind, must be allowed the freedom to make reasonable, commercially sound decisions. We could not expect them to make special provision for students on the basis of an earlier application for credit, perhaps dating back many years, which probably involved a different financial institution.
We do not lay down rules on what banks and building societies can and cannot do when considering applications for current accounts and overdrafts. We do not lay down rules on whether or not information about those applications, which are not always successful, should be disclosed when the student applies for credit in the future. There is simply no precedent for the provisions which the amendment demands.
The noble Baroness again puts forward the argument, with which I believe I dealt at an earlier stage, that public subsidy is involved in the loans and therefore different treatment applies. I accept that there is public subsidy but it is only a small part of what we are talking about. The major part of the risk is still with the private sector institutions and that is one of the main purposes behind the Bill. It is the banks themselves which have to bear that risk. It is right that they should be able to make their own decisions accordingly.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that the information will follow the student for the rest of his or her working life. It is wrong to assume that information about past applications—perhaps many years in the past—will necessarily be of any use or interest to future prospective lenders. The economic climate is always changing and as it does lenders' propensity to lend will change. The applicant's own circumstances may change. He may go from being a not terribly well off student reading English, as I think the noble Lord put it, to being a high flying merchant banker, or even, dare I say it,
74
a lawyer. It is simply naïve to imagine that a mortgage application from a creditworthy young professional will be turned down because he or she was refused a student loan years earlier.
The financial institutions choose their methods of assessing applications and their own lending policies. Those methods and policies may change and will certainly differ between institutions. They know how much their policies vary and that is part of the financial market. Nevertheless, if any financial institution wishes to have a complete credit history before extending credit we believe that it should be able to have it. To refuse that would be unfair and, as I said earlier, over-regulatory. For that reason I hope I can persuade the noble Baroness that the amendment is unnecessary. I trust that she will not feel it necessary to press it this evening.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in this Bill we are dealing with an unusual set of circumstances. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, we are dealing with a situation of paying fishmongers to sell fish. Subsidised loans are not in the same category as private sector loans. The Government believe that there will not necessarily be any connection between a refusal of an application for credit and what will happen in the future. We remain highly dissatisfied with the Government's position. The Minister leaves me no alternative but to divide the House.
7.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 74.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blyth, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Borrie, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McNally, L.

Craigavon, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

David, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Meston, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Palmer, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dubs, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ezra, L.

Rea, L.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Geraint, L.

Russell, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Seear, B.

Grenfell, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tonypandy, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Judd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kennet, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

75

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hogg, B.

Addison, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Aldington, L.

Hothfield, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E

Howe, E

Blaker, L.

Inglewood, L.

Blatch, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bowness, L.

Kimball, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kitchener, E.

Burnham, L.

Leigh, L.

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lucas, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Courtown, E

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Mountevans, L.

Davidson, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Norfolk, D.

Denham, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Downshire, M.

Prior, L.

Dundonald, E.

Rawlings, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rennell, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

St. Davies, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Garder of Parkes, B.

Savile, L.

Gisborough, L.

Seccombe, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Strange, B.

Goschen, V.

Strathclyde, L.[Teller]

Harlech, L.

Swinfen, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hemphill, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hertford, M.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
STATEMENT OF REASONS
(". The Secretary of State shall require any person to whom subsidy is to be paid who refuses to make a private sector student loan to an eligible student to provide the student with a statement of reasons for the refusal.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a very straightforward reason for this amendment. It is that if anybody is refused a loan they should be able to find out the reason why. This follows directly from our last debate and this amendment is something of a fall-back position from it. If a student is refused a loan, surely it makes sense to let him or her know why. As the noble Lord said, having been refused a loan at the start of their adult careers they should be informed as to why they have been refused. That is a very reasonable step to be taken by those giving the new loans, which are government subsidised, if only to a small extent. This is a matter which the Government can quite easily agree to without damaging their own objectives for the Bill. It will also preserve the position for students applying for loans as they start out on their adult careers. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, there are many arguments in support of this amendment
76
because of the vulnerability of students. The Minister's reply that it is possible for students to establish a sort of pattern of refusals by looking at other people's refusals, misses the point. There is anxiety. I shall be grateful if the Minister can answer the anxieties in particular of the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities (SKILL), which is concerned because, on 12th March, in a discussion about Amendment No. 10 as regards discrimination on grounds of race, sex or disability, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, confirmed that private lenders would be required to conform to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. However, it is possible that that Act will still allow private lenders to discriminate against potential borrowers with disabilities. At present a borrower cannot be turned down by the Student Loans Company on the basis that he or she has a disability nor on the basis that he or she may be unable to pay back the loan. Borrowers from the Student Loans Company do not start to pay back their debt until their income passes a certain level and, if their income does not reach that level before the age of 50, the debt is written off.
The loans are covered by the Disability Discrimination Act, Part III of which relates to goods, facilities and services. Those provisions outlaw discrimination in general, but list exceptions where discrimination is lawful. One of those (Section 20(4)(c)) allows providers to offer less favourable terms to a disabled person if additional costs are involved. Statistics show that the disabled are less likely to gain employment than other people and that they are less likely to gain well paid employment. Therefore, they constitute a greater risk to a private lender and, as a group, will inevitably cause the lender to incur extra costs. Private lenders would therefore be legally justified in offering less favourable terms to borrowers with disabilities and possibly in refusing credit altogether. Surely it is important as a minimum protection for students in general, and in particular for students with disabilities, that they should be given a reason for any refusal to grant them a loan.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity of this last chance of the Third Reading debate to indicate to my noble friend the Minister that the principle raised in my interventions and in those of my noble friend Lord Peyton, who unfortunately cannot be here tonight—that is, the right of Parliament to scrutinise—has not gone away; nor shall we allow it to do so.
My view is reinforced, if that were necessary, by the report of the Public Accounts Committee, published on 21st March. Its proceedings demonstrate all too clearly that we were right to press the Government to give a firm commitment that once the negotiations with the private sector—if, indeed, they take place—are signed and sealed, proper provision will be made for Parliament to scrutinise on the basis of an adequate amount of detail the arrangements concluded.
The serious breakdown in the operations of the Student Loans Company in the autumn of 1994-95, which left 35,000 students without money for a whole university term, can largely be attributed, on the evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee, to a

77
series of failures to consult either the students or the universities; to secure expert advice on the design of the pro forma; or to make adequate contingency plans. All those mistakes could, and probably will, be repeated in the new scheme, should it ever be implemented.
Another major cause of trouble in the system was undoubtedly the failure to define clearly the responsibilities of the Student Loans Company and of the Department for Education and Employment respectively. As paragraph 25 of the report states:
"We note that proposals currently being developed for the Department for a twin-track public/private loans scheme will have an impact on the Company's operations. We observe that Sir Eric Ash's successor as Chief Executive will have to oversee a period of significant change. While we accept that there is an arm's length relationship between the Department and the Company, we emphasise the importance of departmental oversight in this period of change and look to the Department to ensure that proper arrangements are in place".
It is hardly reassuring—indeed, it is deeply disturbing—that in paragraph 43 of the conclusions of the report we read:
"We asked the Company how they expected their business activities to be affected by the proposals, recently introduced by the government, for a twin-track public/private loans scheme … The Company told us that the subject was of 'burning interest' to them but that they did not have enough facts to make detailed plans … the Company agreed that the process of planning the Company's operations was fraught with uncertainty and this would be a very considerable further complication".
Does the Student Loans Company have those facts now? Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will tell us, particularly as we are also told in the report that, in projecting staff levels, the company was not able to plan more than a few months ahead.
The report continues:
"We asked what proportion of student loans might still be in the hands of the Company at the end of their three-year planning period. The Department told us that, for planning purposes, they had assumed that by the third year of a twin-track system, 25 per cent. of student loans would be provided by the private sector. However, the Government hoped that take-up by the private sector would be considerably greater than that. The Company told us that this would affect the scale of the work they did".
So, we have three players, the department, the Government and the company—and we learn from paragraph 92 of the evidence in the committee's report that the Minister's stated policy—stated in the other place—is,
"to hope that all student loans will be done by the private sector in the future".
I think that my noble friend the Minister will agree that, if that is the Government's hope and intention, Parliament has strong grounds for scrutiny of the scheme once the commercial arrangements are in place.
We are entitled to feel concern at the ambiguous and ill-defined arm's length relationship between the department and the company and at the detachment displayed by the department. I cite the Permanent Secretary's reply when asked by the committee what the department did to help to put matters right when they went badly wrong or even to press the company to put things right. I quote:
"There is no doubt in my mind at all that this project was poorly planned and poorly implemented but it was an operational matter for the Company".
78
Where have we heard those words before? If, as the report says, consideration is being given to the company being designated as a non-departmental public body, I should like to know the implications for the future.
In its summary, the PAC echoed the concern that we are entitled to feel, and to which I shall return on future occasions. It states:
"we accept that there is an arm's length relationship between the Department and the Company, we emphasise the importance of departmental oversight in this period of change and look to the Department to ensure that proper arrangements are in place".
I end with one last quotation from paragraph 49:
"Given the level of uncertainty associated with the Department's proposals, we recommend that they pay particular attention to the potential impact of these proposals on the operations of the Company".
As Sir Eric Ash observed, the devil is in the detail. We have a right to be able to judge the scheme once it is in place in detail.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I rise briefly to say that I know the Minister will say that this matter should be left to the private sector and that it is a matter of choice. I have nothing against such a statement, but let us recall what happened with pensions when we moved from SERPS to asking people to take out personal pensions. The final result was tears, with one-seventh of those people being oversold a pension. We later had to amend that legislation with another piece of legislation.
Of course, there is not a strict parallel here, but we could end up with many people being refused credit without a proper reason being given. Six months or even two or three years later, we shall have to amend the legislation because the volume of consumer complaints will be too great. Therefore, I think that the amendment is making a perfectly reasonable request, especially when we remember that the student loan application will be the first loan application that many people make. No matter what the Minister says, if they are not given a proper reply, their copybook will be blotted. We must remember that credit companies share information and that, once somebody has been refused credit, they do not get it thereafter. That is a fact. People become red-lined, just as happens with certain housing areas. That is what will happen. I wish that the Minister would agree that disclosure of such information is not in conflict with freedom of choice.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, as we have heard, the Minister's argument time and again has been that a student loan should be treated like any other commercially available loan. We have heard the argument advanced that because there is a public element to the loan, it should be treated with a greater degree of transparency. We heard a second argument from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that a student has no choice but to take out a loan. Surely we do not want a young person to exercise his or her choice not to be a student.
The third argument, which I believe we should revisit and which has not yet been mentioned tonight, relates to the ombudsman. The Minister said that a student would be free to go to the ombudsman without a written statement of the reasons for refusal. I think it is

79
extremely unlikely that a young student, busy with his or her studies, could be bothered to make a frivolous complaint about a rude bank manager unless he or she had a piece of paper to back up that complaint. I find that a difficult scenario to envisage.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, several times used the phrase "working with the grain" of the private sector. While I understand the sentiment, I remind him that the state is the client and the banks are the contractors. I believe that it is for the banks to work with the grain of the state in providing a proper degree of transparency and accountability for the Government to ensure that they are doing their work properly.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not intend to follow my noble friend Lady Park because I do not believe that what she had to say was strictly relevant to this particular amendment. However, I intended to pick up one or two points when we come to Bill do now pass, which might be a more appropriate time to address her anxieties relating to parliamentary scrutiny.
I return to the amendment itself. It is a matter that has been addressed both at Committee and Report stages. I have a sneaking suspicion that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, was not here at Report stage. I apologise if he was here. At that time I addressed the very point about the ombudsman. It is our understanding that the ombudsman does not need specific written evidence to take action to deal with the anxieties raised on earlier occasions. We have made it quite clear that what is required is evidence of any kind.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he has just said. Unfortunately, I was abroad and was not here for the Report stage. I read the report of those proceedings in Hansard. I raise the issue again because I found his response inadequate. It is very difficult to imagine a young busy student pursuing a complaint without any paper to back it up on the basis that he or she feels hard done by.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I made clear that there was no need for the evidence to be written. I expanded on the subject of what kind of evidence might be required in a letter that I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I am sorry that he is not able to be here. Similarly, a letter was sent to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. I well understand why he cannot be here. I copied those letters to a number of noble Lords—I even copied my letter to the noble Lord, Lord Morris (but that is neither here nor there) setting out the kind of evidence that could be put forward in making use of the banking ombudsman. I believe that the banking ombudsman has himself made clear, as I made clear at Report stage, that he feels perfectly free to intervene in these matters.
We are not opposed to students being given the information that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, sets out. We very much hope that private lenders will do so willingly, particularly as most, if not all, of the applicants will be existing or potential current account customers. This must be a matter for
80
them. They are lending and risking in the main their own money. They must be free to reject applications and decide what to tell such applicants. We want a normal lending arrangement between lender and borrower rather than the extensive regulation that this amendment seems to imply.
I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, when he says that students have to take out loans. Students are not forced to take out loans; nor do they have to take them out with the private sector. Students are free not to apply for private loans or indeed any loans. If economic circumstances force a student to take out a loan, he or she is always free to apply to the Student Loans Company. All eligible students will continue to have a right to a loan from that company and a right to know the reasons for any refusal. But no student will have a legal right to a subsidised private sector student loan. It follows that the normal lender/borrower relationship, in which there is no legal right to reasons for refusal, will apply.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, raised the particular worries of disabled students. As this is Third Reading, it will not be a matter of particular concern if I say that I shall look at some of the points that SKILL has raised with the noble Baroness. We shall make sure that the contracts with the lenders require exactly the same terms for all borrowers, whether disabled or not. We will not allow them to discriminate under this Act against individual students on the grounds of their disability. The contracts will prevent that.
The noble Baroness will recall that at an earlier stage I resisted an amendment which tried to write that into the Bill. Thereafter, the usual provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act and the service provisions will apply and the student will have the appropriate protection of that Act. I prefer to write to the noble Baroness about it because I cannot remember the precise details as to when those provisions will come into effect, what they are and what protection they will give. I was not aware that she was going to raise the issue of disabled students. I am sure the noble Baroness will accept that that Act brought in considerable further protection for disabled people in employment, service provision and other matters, and that it is a matter for another day. However, it is a matter on which I hope to write to the noble Baroness.
For the reasons I gave earlier, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, does not feel it necessary to press this amendment tonight.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, raised a very important point when referring to disabled students. The Minister's reply was reassuring in so far as it went without giving a reason. I believe that this amendment justifies itself, certainly on the ground of getting the Minister's reply into Hansard. I had assumed that the Disability Discrimination Act covered this to an extent. However, as the noble Baroness spoke, I thought that possibly I was wrong. I have been placated by what the noble Lord has said as to that matter.

81
As a matter of principle, the idea that this is a normal credit arrangement is not one that holds water. It is a fairly open secret that the Government would like to have loans provided mainly by the private sector. When the initial loans scheme came out, they wished it to be provided by the private sector. It was very open, but none of the private sector wished to take it up. In this case, the loans will account for a high percentage of people's income, especially those in the lower income bracket given the parental background. That is why the amendment is called for.
In those circumstances, it seems appropriate that a reason is given. The Minister says it is hoped that a reason is given. Surely, to require that a one paragraph letter is provided saying under what criteria the loan has been refused is not asking too much. I do not believe that at this stage my case will be helped by pressing the amendment. However, I believe that important points have been raised which will hang over the whole issue. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Schedule [Consequential Amendments]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 21, after ("student",") insert—
("(aa) after sub-paragraph (1)(c) insert—
"(d) make provision for the level of sums paid by the person borrowing in respect of repayment of any loan to be linked to the income of the person borrowing",").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at no stage have the Government answered satisfactorily the question put to them by many noble Lords in this House and, most importantly, by the CVCP, regarding the need for a proper income-contingent loan scheme with collection of repayments through the tax or national insurance system. Why do the Government seek to subsidise the administrative costs of setting up a private sector loan scheme based on a system of repayment that is fundamentally flawed? Why would any private sector institution want to participate in a scheme that so many wish to see radically altered? Even the Conservative Party's own national policy group on higher education want to scrap the current system. How can the Minister justify bringing in this extension within such a widely discredited method of repayment?
The widely welcomed national committee of inquiry into higher education will report just as the proposed private sector loan scheme comes into effect. Any objective observer can see that the current scheme has no friends, and will be scrapped. Surely now is the time for the Government to recognise that it cannot be everyone who has spoken, other than the Government, who is out of step. On this occasion the Government are out of step. They should respond to the widespread concerns which have been raised. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I have made two criticisms of the scheme. The first was that we do not give students enough to live on. I do not suppose that we can change that. The second was that it was
82
something of a blunt instrument when it came to gathering in the money afterwards. If we allow the private sector to change the way repayment is made, many of the objections will disappear. The amendment is to:
"make provision for the level of sums paid by the person borrowing in respect of repayment of any loan to be linked to the income of the person borrowing".
That means making individual arrangements for the individual in the scheme. Surely that is sensible. It would be responding to market forces, purchasing power, and so forth. Everything is there. We are referring repayments to the student's income. If it is a loan and the lender will get back the money, surely that makes sense. This is probably the last chance saloon for the Government to remove one of the major problems relating not just to this Bill but to the original Act. I fully support the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. I think that my noble friend Lord Borrie and I both made the point on Second Reading that the 85 per cent. of average earnings was a strict method of arranging repayments. It is hard on a number of students. Although it may have been £18 at the beginning, now that the loan is much greater with the grant being less, the figure becomes much greater. I do not understand the argument put forward by the Minister on Report when he said:
"But it could be time-consuming and labour intensive to check the income of all borrowers. It would also be costly".—[Official Report, 25/3/96; col. 1528.]
I do not understand that, because surely if you are checking whether they have 85 per cent. of average earnings, their income has to be checked. I wonder whether the Minister could explain that. In the meantime, I support a more flexible repayment method which would, I hope, lead to rather fewer defaulters.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I rather resent the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, that I have not addressed the issue of income-contingent loans and whether they could be repaid through tax and national insurance contributions. I thought that I had made it clear that that is something that Dearing can no doubt look at. It is something that we have looked at in the past. I believe that such schemes are more complicated and more expensive to run than the current scheme which, whatever the criticisms made, has the advantage of being relatively simple and straightforward with, at the moment, a relatively good repayment recovery rate and low administrative costs.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, said that our scheme is surely already income-contingent. She admits that. It works on 85 per cent. She said we have to look at their incomes to decide that and so why cannot we look at other schemes. With the other schemes she suggests, I presume that there would be different repayment levels for different levels of income. That would mean that we would have to look finely at everyone's income rather than use a broad brush

83
approach as to whether they are over or not over 85 per cent. It would be a more complicated scheme and therefore necessarily more expensive.
Perhaps I may repeat that the current scheme is, to some extent, income contingent. It is set, as the noble Baroness said, at 85 per cent. of average earnings. That figure, the repayment period of five years, and a whole host of other figures can be adjusted by means of the regulations that exist under the 1990 Act. The Bill does not change those matters at all.
We could move to a scheme which is yet more income contingent than the current scheme, although the current scheme is already income-contingent. If we did that there may be a greater degree of complexity. One would have to look at the division of costs. If the former student had a more favourable repayment period, one would have to accept that the whole system would be more expensive. These things have to balance. I accept that at the moment students are repaying a relatively low figure. I accept that that figure will increase over the years. That is why each year we have a new set of regulations which allows us to look at what should be the appropriate repayment figure, how long the period should be, and what the 85 per cent. figure should be.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question. If the figure was average earnings rather than 85 per cent. would it be possible to change to that in the regulations?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it would be possible, yes, because one can shift that percentage up or down. It could up to 100 per cent.; it could go down to whatever. We could do it with some figure other than average earnings. There is a whole host of things that we can do by means of regulations. But, having set up the Dearing review, and having asked Sir Ron to look at these issues in great detail, we feel that there is no point in making a major change at the moment other than the changes that we could make by means of the regulations. For that reason, it would not be wise or sensible for the House to pursue the amendment. I hope therefore that on this occasion the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.
Lastly, the noble Baroness yet again, as did her noble friend Lord Morris, threw in my face the reports and views of some Conservative think tank. That think tank does not make Conservative policy. Policy is developed by Ministers, as is right and proper. I, on a previous occasion, threw back at the noble Baroness a supporter of one of our schemes—a friend of the noble Baroness, Mr. Frank Field, a Member of another place. I did that just once. It was unnecessary for the noble Baroness to come back yet a third time and mention some Conservative think tank whose views are different from those of the Government. As I said, I believe that these are matters that can and should be addressed by Sir Ron. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am amazed that if there is only a slight difference between the Government and a Conservative think tank, the
84
Government, who claim to be so flexible, are not prepared to make that slight movement tonight. This is a major change in advance of the committee of inquiry reporting. It is the setting up of a whole new parallel structure which will come into effect just as the committee of inquiry reports.
Secondly, why on earth are the Government so rigid in the way that they want to regulate the private sector? The Minister has said on many occasions that the financial institutions will carry the burden of any failure to repay. Surely we can have confidence in the financial institutions which choose to bear, together with government public subsidy, the enormous cost of setting up a new scheme at the same time as the committee of inquiry is due to report on the change.
Why are the Government so concerned with rigid control and regulation in this instance? Why are the Government not prepared to take the view that if the private sector institutions are risking their money they should be able to make their own choices?
Finally, the Minister said that no one needs to take out a loan. It is not necessary for those with private financial means or family income to take out a loan, but for many students it is the only means of survival. I remain convinced, but can see little chance of convincing the Minister of his mistake. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. We have completed what is a relatively simple Bill, bar seeking the agreement of another place for the two amendments that I brought forward in Committee. The first was to implement fully our policy that students may take out only one loan per year, public or private. The second was to address the concern that higher education institutes might not obtain a fee for certifying eligibility for a private loan.
It is a relatively simple Bill which is designed to change the current scheme for student loans from a position where there is only one lender—the state in the form of the Student Loans Company—to one where there is the possibility of a plurality of lenders in the private sector while also retaining the Student Loans Company.
As I explained on Second Reading and at other stages, this will bring to the student the benefits of choice and it will bring to the taxpayer the advantages of shifting some of the risk of lending to the private sector. I hope also that it will bring benefits to the lenders themselves and that they will see the attractions and advantages of involvement in the scheme. The perfect deal or contract is, after all, one which leaves all sides of the agreement happy. This will, I trust, leave individual students, the taxpayers and all the financial institutions content.
For a relatively minor Bill, I feared that some if not all the concerns might go somewhat wider than this small part of the student loan scheme. Those concerns were heightened by many of the speeches made on Second Reading, the day on which we announced the forthcoming review of higher education by Sir Ron

85
Dearing. I understand, as does the party opposite, why there are concerns about the funding and the future of higher education, in particular as we have seen a number of developments during the past 15 or 20 years. That is why, with the support of the party opposite, we set up the Dearing Committee.
Having done that, and having said that on Second Reading I noticed concerns which went somewhat wide of the Bill, I am grateful that during subsequent stages the debate has been largely devoted to the Bill itself. It has been constructive and largely conducted in an unacrimonious style for which I expressed gratitude. Perhaps I may thank my Whip who assisted me in these matters, my noble friend Lady Miller, and today my noble friend Lady Trumpington. I also thank my noble friends Lord Peyton and Lady Park for their interventions, even though I did not always fully agree with them. I thank them for their support in the Division Lobby on occasions when they felt they could support me.
I appreciate the concerns of my noble friend Lady Park about the parliamentary scrutiny of the proposed contracts with the financial institutions. Indeed, she repeated them today. After debating the matter in Committee and on Report, and after dividing on those issues, I am sure that my noble friends will appreciate that we cannot have parliamentary scrutiny before the contracts are signed or even that the contracts are conditional on parliamentary approval. I made that clear to my noble friend on previous occasions and I know that my noble friend Lord Peyton appreciates that fact.
Nevertheless, I hope that they will accept that I went some considerable way down the road to reassuring them and offering them appropriate assurance. I reassure my noble friend that I am still considering what would be the appropriate form of the statement that I mentioned on Report when we talked about parliamentary scrutiny (cols. 1478 to 1479). I believe it is right that we should announce that to the House in the proper way and I hope that thereafter my noble friend will find ways and means of debating those matters in the usual manner.
I also offer my thanks to noble Lords opposite, especially those on the Front Bench, for their constructive approach. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, unlike some of us, has had the advantage of being able to start his holidays somewhat earlier. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, even if there were occasions when all three on the Front Bench spoke from the Dispatch Box on the same amendment. I dare say that that was designed to give some idea of numbers. Finally, I extend my thanks to noble Lords who contributed from the Liberal Democrat Benches, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Tope. I thank them for their constructive approach and their helpful manner. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Henley.)
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as the Minister said, there has been universal support for the Government's parallel activity of setting up the national committee of inquiry. In that context, the Bill has been described as unnecessary and ill-timed. It does
86
nothing to address the immediate crisis facing our universities and colleges and this coming year's Budget means that by 1998–99 £550 million will have been removed from the higher education sector. Further education faces a cut of almost two-thirds in its capital budget during the next three years and 5 per cent. per annum in terms of current expenditure.
Even in the context of the Bill, Ministers cannot ignore the problems and wait for the report of the committee of inquiry. The Government should be addressing these problems now in addition to the concerns expressed by Members on all sides of your Lordships' House about the acute problems faced by staff and students. In that context the Bill is not relevant.
However, I wish to thank the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, SKILL and the National Union of Students for their helpful briefings. I wish to place on record our thanks to Clare Cozens for her indefatigable work on behalf of us on these Benches.
We welcome the progress that has been made in the course of debates. Progress has been highlighted and welcomed by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals as regards payment for the administration of loans by universities. The Government amended the Bill in response to the universities' concerns regarding payment for their work in administering the new private loans. That is welcome but the universities will wish to be consulted about the detailed arrangements of the scheme once they have been agreed with the financial institutions.
In relation to parliamentary scrutiny of the detailed arrangements for the Bill, the Minister announced at the Report stage that he envisaged a Statement to the House as the best way of outlining those detailed arrangements. He referred to that again tonight. We on these Benches share the views of the CVCP that both Houses of Parliament should be provided with an opportunity to discuss them. Like the CVCP we too believe that before next year's student loan regulations there should be consultation on the vexed problems facing medical, dental and veterinary students.
The Minister has been courteous and as helpful as he has been able during the passage of the Bill. I thank him on behalf of those on these Benches, especially on behalf of my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris who, unfortunately, is unable to be present today. I know that the custom is that at this stage we wish the Bill success. However, in the light of the criticism received from all sides of the House as regards paying financial institutions to set up an entirely new administrative system based on the mortgage method of repayment with no support, that is asking too much. Higher education is too important to individual students and to the economy to be treated in this way.
However, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the points of great concern raised and supported from these Benches. I thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I thank also the noble Lords, Lord Tope and Lord Addington. Last but by no means least, I thank my noble friends for their support

87
at all stages during the passage of the Bill. Their help and support has been invaluable, in particular to me this evening.
Lord Addington: My Lords, it falls to me to make the final comments on the Bill. The Bill is a missed opportunity. However, I believe that that is combined uniquely with it being something which will probably never come to pass. I say "probably" because there is a vague chance that it may come to pass. But to do so it must survive a general election and a review. One or other of those occurrences may well do this Bill down.
The scheme was originally rejected by the private sector and I suspect that a similar fate may well await the Bill now, even if it overcomes those other hurdles. We did not manage to improve the Bill fundamentally. The amendment on which we divided sought to improve it in relation to the individual status of students and we failed. That sums up the whole Bill.
Having said that, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was his usual courteous and charming self while disagreeing with most of what we said. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, provided interesting and stimulating comment for the whole debate, as did other noble Lords. I should mention in particular the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who often stirs things up to a very interesting pitch. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and the entire Opposition Front Bench team made extremely interesting contributions, as did my noble friend Lord Tope. On these Benches, we have not so much had a team as a relay effort. I could not be here for the Committee stage and my noble friend Lord Tope is unable to be here this evening.
If the Bill ever reaches the statute book, I hope that it proves to be vastly more successful than I can foresee it being at present. I hope that it is not merely a continuation of the current loan scheme about which we can all stand up and say rightly, "I told you so".
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [H.L.]
8.12 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 122 [Power of Secretary of State to give financial assistance for regeneration and development]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 218:
Page 72, line 14, at end insert ("and to more environmentally sustainable patterns of development and living.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 218 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Dubs and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 220 and 224. We embark now on another part of this rather complicated Bill. Part IV deals with grants for regeneration, development and relocation. In Clause
88
122, certain activities are specified as being contributory to regeneration or development in the sense of the Bill. We believe that there is one primary activity which has been left out and which, indeed, should be the primary purpose of this part. Amendment No. 218 refers to,
"more environmentally sustainable patterns of development and living".
That is not an idle phrase. It is designed to ensure that any regeneration or development should not just simply do what is prescribed in subsection (2) of Clause 122 but should, as a primary purpose—that is why we wish to insert it in subsection (1)—introduce the notion of environmentally sustainable patterns of development and living.
Amendment No. 220, again in the name of my noble friend, is in a sense subsidiary to Amendment No. 218. It seeks to add to the objectives of subsection (2):
"preventing land from becoming derelict, contaminated, neglected or unsightly",
and, perhaps more importantly, in paragraph (k),
"assisting the development of urban land as an alternative to rural land".
In other words, urban land as at present conceived should be considered riot just as houses and roads but as part of the rural landscape. If we are regenerating an inner city, there should be some element of considering that land which is being regenerated as though it were rural land in the way in which the Committee normally understands that. It should not be simply thought of as urban land; in other words, building new houses where old houses existed.
Amendment No. 224, which is consequential, provides:
"Financial assistance under section 122 shall only be given following an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of any assistance and the consideration of options and alternatives".
I hope that the Committee will realise that in speaking to these amendments and in moving Amendment No. 218, I am placing at the top of the agenda for Part IV the whole question of sustainable development not just in the context of the regeneration of inner cities but in the context of ensuring that the regeneration of inner cities should contribute to the "ruralisation", if I can use that word, of what we are trying to regenerate. It should not just be a question of—I use the old-fashioned expression—slum clearance. It should have a much wider role than that and it should be environmentally sustainable. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: I support all three amendments. It is a particularly appropriate context in which to raise the issue of environmental sustainability. I appreciate that that term has overtones which could give rise to several hours of debate. I do not intend to try to analyse the word "sustainable". But I do not believe that environmental sustainability can be separated from economic or social sustainability. The three concepts go hand in hand and must do so if any of them is to be successful.

89
Therefore, in the context of the part of the Bill which deals with regeneration, it is appropriate and, I think, absolutely necessary to refer to environmental sustainability as a necessary criterion which is fundamental to any regeneration.
The wording of Amendment No. 218 is interesting. It refers to "patterns of development and living". Again, that is extremely appropriate in this context. After all, the object of regeneration is likely to be relatively large-scale or, at any rate, medium-scale. Therefore, it can certainly assist in changing patterns and is not simply a small discrete area of development.
I must say that I read paragraph (k) of Amendment No. 220 slightly differently. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was going to talk about the importance of regenerating brown-field sites and not spilling on to green-field sites. The notion of "green land", if I may use that term in its widest sense, that he mentioned as part of the urban landscape contributing to the urban framework is a most interesting and important one. Urban quality is essential for urban life.
I mentioned that, in my view, environmental and economic sustainability are inseparable. If our cities are to be economically successful as well as being pleasant places in which to live, they must indeed be pleasant places in order to attract people and inward investment. That is particularly true of the City of London. As regards Amendment No. 224, there is reference on the face of the Bill to the assessment of environmental "effects", so that should not need saying. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and his noble friend Lord Dubs are right to say that it does.
Lord Renton: Strangely enough, the issues raised by this group of amendments have a considerable bearing upon the protection of the countryside. I say that for the following reason. Many people are not satisfied with life in the towns because it is not made attractive enough for them. Therefore, they decide to move out into the countryside, which leads to development that is not always to be welcomed. The more attractive we can make the towns the smaller will be the threat to the countryside. Leaving aside the technicalities of the amendments, I believe that the general spirit behind them deserves consideration for the reason that I have given.
Earl Ferrers: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for the careful way in which they have introduced and spoken to the amendments. We are now moving into a most sensitive area with the subject of sustainable development. My noble friend Lord Renton is entirely correct to say that the more we can develop our cities and improve them the better it will be for the countryside. Otherwise, we shall have to take fresh greenfield sites and leave unused relatively industrialised sites in towns. That would be a great pity. Indeed, that was one of the aspects considered in the rural White Paper.
90
I shall deal first with Amendments Nos. 218 and 220. Clause 122 provides that financial assistance can be given for regeneration and development. Amendment No. 218 would extend the purposes for which financial assistance may be given to include,
"more environmentally sustainable patterns of development and living".
Amendment No. 220 would extend the list of activities which can be supported to include the prevention of dereliction and the use of urban, rather than rural, land. They are most important matters.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who suggested that "sustainable development" was a curious expression. Indeed, one always has to stop and wonder exactly what it means. It really means that what we have to do is so conduct ourselves that we do not destroy the environment of the countryside for our children and their children when their time comes. However, that does not mean that we cannot have economic progress: that we must have, though it must be carefully dealt with.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that he puts sustainable development at the top of the agenda and that that is much wider than slum clearance. I agree with him. But that is precisely what the Government are doing. I say that because sustainable development is a major concern of our regeneration policies. It is no coincidence that it is at the top of the list of wider strategies which bidders for the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund are advised to consider in the Government's published Bidding Guidance with which they have to comply when making a bid.
The admirable objectives set out in those two amendments are already covered by the Bill's provisions. Perhaps I may give Members of the Committee an example—the creation of an attractive environment would include action to prevent land becoming derelict. We have tried deliberately to propose broad categories of activities so as to ensure that we can accommodate a very wide range of regeneration and development activities. We would prefer not to go into increasing detail for the usual reason; namely, that if one does so there is always the risk that that will raise doubts as to whether other areas of work are or are not covered.
Amendment No. 224 indicates that the "environmental effects" of any assistance should be assessed before any funds are given to a project. Work to protect and improve the quality of the environment is one of the objectives of the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund. The Government take that into account in assessing bids. Bidders themselves are specifically asked to set out the costs and benefits to the environment of their bid.
In addition, where appropriate, particular development projects will require environmental assessment under the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988. Under those regulations, environmental assessment is required before planning permission is granted for certain categories of development. For some categories, an assessment is required in every case. For other specified categories, assessment is required

91
where the proposed development is likely to have significant effects on the environment. It is not, therefore, necessary to set up a specific mechanism for environmental assessment in relation to assistance under the clauses, because they are already provided for both in the regulations and in the bidding process which is undergone by bidders when they make their offers for work to be done. I understand the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has tabled the amendments. However, bearing in mind what I have said, I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that the matters to which they refer are already covered in regulations and in practice.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord, Lord Williams, responds, will the Minister consider before the next stage the proposition of putting environmental objectives on the face of the Bill as part of what is already quite a long list? That would help to achieve the Government's stated objective of encouraging such work. In their response to the environment committee's report into the single regeneration budget, the Government published a table showing the percentage of bids addressing the SRB challenge fund objectives at each stage of the bidding process. The environment came pretty low on that list at the point when bids were submitted. It is a good deal higher as a percentage of the bids approved, but it still seems as if those who are making bids needs encouragement to address themselves to the area.
Lord Monkswell: There is one aspect that the Minister appears to have left out of his response when considering subsection (2)(c), which refers to,
"creating an attractive and safe environment",
and which I believe he used in aid of his suggestion that we should reject the amendment. If one looks through all the matters to be included, there is no reference to energy or its use; or, indeed, to the need for our society to reduce energy consumption. That is something that would be encompassed within the additional words that my noble friend has suggested in his amendment; namely,
"and to more environmentally sustainable patterns of development and living".
That is one aspect.
The other difficulty concerns the way the Bill is written which does not seem to inhibit the development of greenfield sites. Clause 122(2)(a) refers to,
"securing that land and buildings are brought into effective use".
Unless one takes account of,
"environmentally sustainable patterns of development and living",
it may be considered that building a new factory or warehouse on a greenfield site amounts to effective use of that land. I refer to the building of warehouses just outside the Trafford Park industrial estate on what was effectively agricultural land—a greenfield site—rather than using the derelict industrial site of the Trafford Park industrial estate. There seems to be nothing in the Bill to suggest that developers should use brownfield sites rather than greenfield sites. I wonder whether the date of the noble Earl's letter to me is significant, as it
92
was dated 1st April. In the letter he states that he attaches a copy of the draft proposals for the scheme of construction contracts. I must advise the noble Earl that no scheme was attached to the letter. I hope that the 1st April gremlins have not been getting at the noble Earl but I suspect that they may have.
8.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, seems to be a blighted person as regards my correspondence with him. I felt pleased when I wrote that letter because I thought that I was apologetic to the noble Lord when I should have been. I thought therefore that I had satisfied the difficulty in that I had given him a draft scheme. I am unbelievably appalled to find that that did not reach him either. The reason the noble Lord did not receive the draft scheme the first time was because my noble friend Lord Lucas wrote to everyone who had participated in the Second Reading as regards Part II of the Bill. That must have been about the only part of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, did not participate in. Therefore, we did not think he would be interested in receiving the draft scheme. However, the noble Lord may recall that there should have been a set of these publications in the Library and in the Printed Paper Office. Those went astray, as we discussed the other day, but they are in the Library now. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to attach himself to one and not let it go. I am sorry that my letter did not include the draft scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was concerned that energy use was not mentioned in the Bill. There is a limit to how much one can mention in statutes. One can make the mistake of including too much. Responsible energy use is very much part of sustainable development. Everyone is deeply conscious of that, in the same way they are deeply conscious of sustainable development. However, one cannot include every facet of sustainable development in legislation. The noble Lord referred to greenfield sites and said there was no inhibition as regards the use of such sites. However, I believe there are inhibitions. The planning policy guidance notes are detailed and specific, and they are being updated. It is important that there should be some forms of development, in a limited way, in the countryside because people have to work and conduct business there. They can only do that if one enables the countryside to share in manufacturing. However, that has to be carefully controlled. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell—as I agreed with my noble friend Lord Renton—that, where one can, one wants such development in the cities. One should not leave derelict areas in the cities while one is developing greenfield sites across the country. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the noble Earl for giving way but he will appreciate that there are nine categories, or aspects, of development listed in the Bill. I suspect that these will be the categories that Her Majesty's Treasury will consider when making financial disbursements. It would seem sad if the Treasury was not to provide grant aid to developments which have as

93
one of their features the reduction of energy consumption, bearing in mind the need, which I think the Western world appreciates, to reduce energy consumption in patterns of living and working.
Earl Ferrers: I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, need worry his head too much about that, because the whole purpose of sustainable development is to economise on energy and to make the best use of what resources we have. Just because that is not mentioned as one of the nine items in the Bill does not mean that anyone who tries to produce a scheme which includes measures which are conducive to energy saving will not have his scheme considered in the same way as others.
Lord Monkswell: The noble Earl suggests that sustainable development is important and is something that would meet the various criteria we are looking at. However, that is not stated in the Bill. Are the Government thinking that they will adopt—perhaps not in the wording that has been suggested by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel—wording to suggest that sustainable development is important and would benefit the Bill if it was written into it?
Earl Ferrers: As I tried to explain when I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, sustainable development is right at the top—as he put it—of his agenda, and indeed of the Government's agenda. We have published White Papers and documents on it. Sustainable development is an important matter. If one included it in a Bill, someone like the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, would then ask us to define sustainable development. Then we would become involved in a fearful rigmarole. I do not think that that is desirable. Everyone knows—within reason—what sustainable development means. The Government have explained what they intend to do. Various measures have been set out in guidance notes, in planning guidance policies, in regulations and so forth. Not everything has to be included in a Bill. I suggest to the Committee that it would be best not to include sustainable development in the Bill, as I believe we would get ourselves into more of a tangle than if we did not include it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether, if there were environmental objectives on the face of the Bill, that would not help. I shall certainly consider what the noble Baroness has said. However, I come back to the same argument. I believe that Bills and statutes concern what the law is and what the law states. We should try not to include too many explanatory details as to what the law is supposed to be doing. However, I shall certainly consider the point that the noble Baroness raised.
Lord Renton: I support what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said about sustainable development. It really would be absurd to try to define it, with all its ramifications. It is bound to vary from place to place according to circumstances. That is another reason why it cannot be written into a statute in detail.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, my noble
94
friend Lord Monkswell and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for speaking on this issue. It is an important issue. I am perfectly happy to accept that the wording,
"sustainable patterns of development and living",
may not be appropriate for a Bill. I am unconvinced by the government view that sustainable development is a vague expression. It has been defined in debate after debate and report after report. Indeed, it is at the head of the Government's agenda, so we are told.
As Amendment No. 218 implies, I should like to see some provision in subsection (1) of Clause 122. It is the primary subsection in the clause. It is the primary subsection in this part. I should like to see a provision which does not simply contribute to the regeneration or development of an area. I wish to see a contribution to,
"more environmentally sustainable patterns of development and living".
The words may not be appropriate but I should like to see some provision which sets the tone for Part IV as regards regeneration and development of an area. I should like to see wording which provides for,
"sustainable patterns of development and living".
I can only repeat those words. I believe that if such a provision were in subsection (1), it would meet my concerns and, as I understand it, the Government's agenda.
As regards Amendments Nos. 220 and 224, subsection (2) goes into some detail. It refers to,
"creating an attractive and safe environment; preventing crime or reducing the fear of crime … providing employment for local people".
Those are detailed matters. I accept that the wording of Amendment No. 220 may not he appropriate but I do not see why we should not have some provision there to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about assisting the development of urban land as an alternative to rural land, to ensure that trees and grass grow in inner cities as a result of this programme, not necessarily that new buildings are produced.
I hope that the Government will further consider the matter before the next stage of the Bill. If they are serious about putting sustainable development, however defined, at the top of their agenda, this is the clause in which that provision should be put. I hope that the noble Earl will agree to consider the issue to see whether both our agendas can be met.
Earl Ferrers: Of course I shall consider the matter. I agree with the noble Lord that it is an important part of the Bill. It is important that we get it right. We have put in what we consider the most appropriate definitions.
Having said that, I would not die at the stake and say that this is the only possible form of wording. However, I am concerned that the provision should not be too diffuse and woolly. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I wonder what the courts would think of the words in Amendment No. 218,
"and to more environmentally sustainable patterns of development and living".

95
How would they be able to consider whether some action was an environmentally sustainable pattern of development and living? I do not quite know what that means although I have an idea.
We seek to put in provisions which can be easily understood. Subsection (2) provides for,
"contributing to, or encouraging, economic development".
That is perfectly clear. It also provides for,
"creating an attractive and safe environment".
That is clear. The subsection refers to,
"preventing crime or reducing the fear of crime".
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, that is clear. The noble Lord's wording—he was generous enough to say that it may not be the best—would be a woolly addition which would be difficult to interpret.
Of course I shall consider the matter, including Amendment No. 220 which refers to preventing land becoming derelict, contaminated, neglected or unsightly. I shall certainly consider all those points. I cannot give a guarantee that we shall necessarily find that those are the best words or the most suitable to be incorporated, but I shall certainly consider them.
Baroness Hamwee: Without going into the definitions, the environment and the environmentally sustainable concept are at the top of the Government's agenda. It is an objective in the challenge fund bidding. Will the Minister inform the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and myself how that objective is described to those who bid? Since the Government must have defined their objective in some way, we should be able to come together on wording which reflects the reality but also puts the provision on the face of the Bill.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Baroness is right. I am perfectly happy with the noble Earl's complaints about woolly wording or whatever it may be. Nevertheless, I believe that there should be some provision in subsection (1) which will help local authorities and others and which will be properly interpreted. The Government can put what interpretation they wish. I believe that environmentally sustainable development should be at the top of the agenda rather than in subsection (2). The Government have to think again. They are committed to the concept, as I understand. There is no difference of intention. We believe that the provision should be on the face of the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: There is nothing between us on what we seek to achieve. Where we disagree is as regards the force of the wording. This is a personal observation. I retain a deep apprehension about putting the words "sustainable development" in the Bill. Whenever I hear those words, or whenever I use them, I have to stop to consider what they mean. If the noble Lord drives his car in a certain way, is he driving it in an environmentally sustainable way or not? I believe that it would be terribly difficult to put such wording into a Bill which would then have to be operated on in a court
96
of law. I believe guidance notes and planning guidance, which are more flexible and can be altered, to be a better way to put into action a concept at which we all aim without putting the provision into legislation. I shall certainly consider the matter.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl. As he says, there is little between us. The difference is whether the provision is on the face of the Bill or in guidance notes. If it is in guidance notes, will the noble Earl be good enough to explain to the noble Baroness and myself how the Government interpret Clause 122 in the light of sustainable development and respond to the noble Baroness's question on how they expect local authorities to respond to the Government's sustainable development agenda in requesting financial assistance for regeneration and development? If he can do that, very kindly before Report stage, we shall have to look at his response and consider whether we come back to the issue on Report. I hope that I can rely on the noble Earl to produce a letter to us.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord can rely on me to produce a letter. I am a little worried about whether I shall be able to produce it before Report stage. I suspect that I shall. However, he will have observed that there is a period of relaxation which he will no doubt enjoy over the next week or so and, oddly enough, officials usually enjoy that period too. It may be a little difficult to produce the letter before Report stage, but I shall do my best.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I had not realised that officials needed to enjoy a period of relaxation.
Earl Ferrers: They only do that after they have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Lord Williams of Elvel: That is a fair point because they have plenty to think about after I have spoken. I hope that we may receive the reply before we come to Report stage because both the Liberal Democrat Benches and our Benches, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I believe, feel that there is an important issue in Clause 122. Unless anything else needs to be added, having had that assurance and in the light of the interval between now and Report stage and the rest that I hope everyone will enjoy, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 72, line 21, after ("housing") insert (", including wheelchair accessible housing,").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that proper consideration is given to the provision of wheelchair accessible housing when an area is undergoing regeneration or development. The single regeneration budget is one of the major contributors to the regeneration of urban areas. The Committee will be aware that there is currently a shortfall of around 325,000 dwellings nationwide, suitable for people who use wheelchairs.
When an area is being redeveloped, the opportunity should be taken to provide more wheelchair accessible homes. Properly designed wheelchair accommodation decreases dependence and reduces the cost of care. It also reduces the limitations on family life. The effect is that the wheelchair user will have a greater opportunity to be economically and socially active, contributing to the community rather than taking from it.
I appreciate that it will not always be appropriate to include wheelchair accessible accommodation in each development. However, it is in my view essential that proper consideration be given to the inclusion of this type of home in all schemes covered by the clause. I hope that my noble friend can confirm in his reply that the matter will be given proper consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I support the amendment. I remind my noble friend how splendidly the Government behaved on the question of making, for example, taxis and other public service vehicles accessible for users of wheelchairs. If it can be done for people in a mobile condition, I should have thought it would be even easier and better for it to be done where people live in a static condition. The matter is important and I hope that the Government will be sympathetic about it.
There may be another way of achieving it apart from the one used in the amendment. However, the amendment raises the issue and it might be a suitable way of dealing with the problem.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who put the case fairly. Whether the proposal should go on the face of the Bill is a matter which we can discuss, but the thought and the concept are right. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Hamwee: I wish to put on record the support of these Benches for the thought, although I share the doubts as to how best it could be expressed. The thought is important and it is right to raise it now.
Lord Lucas: We sympathise with the amendment but believe it to be unnecessary. Clause 122 provides the Secretary of State with a discretionary power to give financial assistance to persons who incur expenditure in connection with activities which contribute to the regeneration or development of an area.
The clause lists nine examples of activities which are considered to be eligible for support. These include the provision or improvement of housing, to encourage people to live or work in the area or to benefit existing residents. Notably, it also includes activities which benefit local people who have special needs due to disability, in paragraph (i) of subsection (2). The needs of disabled people, including those dependent on wheelchairs, are thus already specifically mentioned in the clause and in a general reference which relates to all the activities listed, rather than just housing. I hope that that will satisfy my noble friend.
Lord Swinfen: I think it probably will, particularly if the Government agree to an amendment that I have put
98
down later on in the Bill concerning building regulations. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 220 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 72, line 34, at end insert—
("() Any financial assistance given under this section shall further any national, regional or strategic planning guidance given by the Secretary of State and any development plan prepared under Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Dubs. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 222 and 223 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
As the Committee will be aware, development plans are required from local authorities under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It seems to us to be important that those development plans, when they are approved by the appropriate authorities and the Secretary of State, shall have some status which governs regeneration budgets. The amendment that I propose would ensure that:
"any financial assistance given under this section shall further [development plans or] any national, regional or strategic planning guidance given by the Secretary of State".
I hope that the amendment is almost uncontroversial, but I ask a further question of the Minister. As I understand it, the current funding for economic regeneration projects such as City Challenge is only payable to statutory bodies. Clause 122 would, it appears, allow the Secretary of State to make payments to any such body, although our amendment would restrict it to being within the development plan. But if the Secretary of State were to make payments to a non-statutory body, the question arises: how would accountability of the spending of public money be ensured? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer that question. I have said enough to introduce Amendment No. 221 and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 222 and 223. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Amendment No. 222 is not very different in its aim from Amendment No. 221. I had in mind that with a system where central government, both in Whitehall and through its regional officers, runs the regeneration budget, it is appropriate that we should remind ourselves that we have quite rightly a plan-led system. Local authorities create, by no means lightly or quickly, their own development plans. With a system in place for strategic plans, the regeneration which is assisted under those arrangements should fall within the strategies and objectives of the plans. Perhaps more controversially, I do not believe that we should allow the Government's regional officers to set a strategy almost by default.
Amendment No. 223 is about transparency and accountability, requiring an annual report from the Secretary of State on the financial assistance given. The reason that I make that suggestion is twofold. First,

99
the system run through the urban regeneration agency, a quango, and through the use of the government's regional officers makes it necessary to ensure that accountability is properly in place and that the decisions can be considered in a proper fashion as well as understood.
The single regeneration budget has brought together a series of programmes of government expenditure which were previously administered separately, each with its own criteria and objectives. I have heard concern expressed that the establishment of a single budget will have the effect of hiding changes which are made to the allocation of funds for different types of activities. That perhaps takes us back to our debate a few minutes ago.
Previously, there was clear, separate accountability—perhaps that is putting it a little high. There was at least a mechanism for understanding the amount spent on, for instance, housing renovation under the Estate Action programme and services to ethnic minorities. In the case of the former urban programme, the Government made public decisions on the planned division of funding between environmental, economic and social objectives.
Given that there are changes in bringing together those programmes, only after the successful bids have been analysed will one understand what has taken place. I am told that there seems to have been a reduction in the funding previously available to TECs for labour market schemes. I have already mentioned housing renovation. Due to the confusion over Section 11 funding, there has been a significant cut in the funding allocated for services to ethnic minorities. I am told that there has been a net loss of about £7¼ million in London alone as a result of a first round of challenge fund bidding.
I have recently seen a report on a study by the Chartered Institute of Housing. I understand that the study indicates that, in its view, competition for single regeneration budget cash has acted as a form of rationing for housing schemes. The report said that new or improved housing has lost out to job creation, training and crime prevention in four regions. It comments that it had a low political priority and was even viewed with hostility. I quote from Inside Housing. The report says that some partnerships said that they had been warned off housing projects by government regional officers. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to comment on that and give us some assurances.
Clearly, there are concerns about the transparency and the accountability of the way in which the budget is run. For that reason I tabled the amendment.
9 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that her Amendment No. 222 was not significantly different from Amendment No. 221 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I believe that she is right. She said that previously it was much easier to see where money went because it was allocated to various separate plans and it was ring-fenced—a certain amount of money was given for a specific project.
One of the drawbacks of that system was the very reason that the money was ring-fenced. It was decided some time ago that we should move to a single
100
regeneration budget which puts all that money together, as the noble Baroness knows only too well, and allows people to bid for it. We have found that we have had better value for money that way. I do not want to go into the justification for the single regeneration budget here, but the fact is that that is what happens now and it has proved very successful.
The amendments of both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord reflect points which have been raised before. The Environment Committee in another place considered those areas when it made its first report on the operation of the single regeneration budget challenge fund. The points were also covered when the Government responded to that report.
The amendments would require financial assistance for regeneration and development to relate to planning guidance issued by the Secretary of State and to development plans.
We agree that bids for support under the single regeneration budget challenge fund should take full account of the Secretary of State for the Environment's planning policy guidance, local authority development plans, and other regional strategies such as single programming documents prepared in relation to European structural funds. The bidding guidance for Rounds 1 and 2 drew specific attention to this; and it has been reaffirmed in the guidance for Round 3, which was published on Friday, and which the noble Lord will be glad to know is in the Library. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will be able to find his copy in the Library and that nothing disastrous happens to his copy. If he does not have an annotated copy, one will be there in the Library for him if he wishes to find it.
However, we do not think it is necessary to specify this or other detailed aspects of the arrangements in legislation. That would make the arrangements especially rigid. For example, it is also important that bids should, where appropriate, take account of national strategies relating to sustainable development, and regional or local strategies relating to housing or health. Those national and other strategies are clearly set out in the bidding guidance issued to local authorities and others, and are reflected in the criteria relating to bid assessment by government offices for the regions.
The noble Lord was concerned about accountability. In fact, there is no change in the powers of accountability. Payments may already be made to any person under Section 27 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986, which this legislation replaces and the grant offer letter includes conditions which ensure proper accountability by various methods, such as the clawback of grant.
I turn to Amendment No. 223 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. That amendment requires annual reports of actual and planned financial assistance towards each of the activities listed in the clause. The whole purpose of the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund is to attract and support a group of activities for the regeneration and development of areas. Any one successful bid may involve a range of different projects combining to offer a total approach to local problems. What the public money is buying

101
therefore consists of several of the statutory activities listed under Clause 122(2). It would therefore be impossible to provide the information sought by the noble Baroness without the imposition of a considerable bureaucratic burden on individual partnerships who, rightly, seek to give priority to making their projects work on the ground. It would have the detrimental effect of encouraging people to think in terms of separate activities rather than of the project as a whole.
As bidders put their own money into the various projects, it will be necessary, as a start, to extract that money from the whole in order to arrive at the public money expended. Then, in turn, the public money would have to be separately allocated in the accounts between the various functions. It would be a considerable bureaucratic exercise.
We are keen to establish precisely what achievements are realised by projects, and partnerships are therefore required to report regularly on the outputs of their projects; for example, on the jobs created, the people who have been trained and the homes that have been improved. They also provide overall details of expenditure.
The noble Baroness was concerned about housing obtaining its fair share of resources under Round 2 of the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund. There were 172 successful bids planned to construct or refurbish 91,000 dwellings, which is a 26 per cent. increase on Round 1. The noble Baroness was concerned also about Section 11 not receiving its fair share of resources. We are moving away from secular interests towards identifying the wider benefits which ethnic minority communities, voluntary groups and local communities more widely are deriving from the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund.
Therefore, while I understand the reasons behind which the noble Baroness tabled her amendment, it would be considerably bureaucratic and would not work. As I tried to explain, while I understand why the other two amendments were tabled, the Bill is better without being so amended.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister's answer seems to indicate, quite rightly, that the Government assess the various matters to which I referred in Amendment No. 223. I accept that the wording may not be very good and I am not seeking to add to the bureaucracy. I am seeking to ensure that the information as regards the assessments which the Government must make of how the various objectives are being met in comparison to one another is made reasonably available to the public. We have received a lot of information as a result of the environment committee of another place considering the budget and the Government responding to it. I doubt whether the Government want to go through that level of exercise on an annual basis.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am still not entirely clear, even after what the noble Earl said, about the accountability question. As I read the Bill—I can only go on the Bill because, if it is enacted, that is what the law of the land will be regardless of what happened before—under Clause 122 the Secretary of State will be
102
entitled, with the consent of the Treasury, to give financial assistance to any person in respect of this, that and thus. Clause 124 states that,
"Financial assistance under section 122 may be given on such terms as the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, considers appropriate".
It therefore seems to follow that the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, may well say that any person could include any person—to put it shortly—and that, if the Secretary of State and the Treasury so decide, any person who wishes to engage in respect of the expenditure, may well receive financial assistance under Clause 122. Therefore, Clause 122, in my reading, allows the Secretary of State to make payments to any body which satisfies the criteria under Clauses 122 and 124 even though it is not a statutory body. I still do not understand how, if the Secretary of State were to make payments to a body which was non-statutory, the accountability as regards the spending of that public money would be achieved. Before I go on with the amendment I hope that the noble Earl can clarify the matter for me.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I am always only too happy to try to clarify the position for the noble Lord, Lord Williams. We are talking about the single regeneration budget which can be given to various projects. Whereas before, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, certain amounts of money were given for specific items, now it is all put into one pool called the single regeneration budget and people bid for projects. When they bid, they say what they will do.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that he was quite surprised that the local authority might not be involved and that the Bill as drafted could allow any person to be given funds. That is perfectly true. It could he a person; it could be a company; it could be a non-statutory body. They would come up with a plan and say, "I think we could do this. We could develop this piece of land. This would be our cost. If we had a certain amount of government funding from the single regeneration budget we would be able to do this project". It need not be a statutory body. It could be a person. It could be a company. The whole point is that whether they received the money would depend on the type of bid which they made. That is why the provision is drawn in this way.
The noble Lord then asked how a record would he kept and what is the accountability. The answer is that the accountability comes by virtue of, for instance, the recent report we gave to the Select Committee on the Environment and also in departmental annual reports. The noble Lord was concerned about Clause 122 allowing payments to non-statutory bodies. As I explained, it is the same as giving a grant to anyone. You have to say what you are giving the grant for. The output is then monitored and the reports are audited. That allows payments to be made to the voluntary sector as it does to local authorities or anyone else who can come with a project which is worthy of support and
which on the whole is considered of all the bids put forward to be the most likely to give good value for money. As the noble Lord will realise only too well,

103
when government funds are given towards projects, they are not just given and forgotten; they are monitored, reports have to be made and information is published at the end of the year in various departmental reports.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Reports may be made and various departmental reports may be issued but I simply do not understand that concept. I must stress that point. Now we know that the purpose of the Bill is to allow private bodies of one form or another—as the noble Earl said, companies, individuals, whoever it may be, and not local authorities—which come up with a scheme to regenerate the centre of Bristol, the centre of Llandrindod Wells or wherever it may be and which perform under these criteria to get the money. The noble Earl went on to say that the money will be monitored and that departmental reports will be made.
I do not think that is satisfactory. I find it very odd that public money can be disbursed to private individuals or private companies which conform to the criteria and have projects to do this, that and thus and yet there is no accountability other than, as the noble Earl said, annual reports from one department or another. I find it an extraordinary concept. I hope very much that the noble Earl will be able to reassure me that that is not really what the Government mean.
Lord Elton: We seem to have moved away from Amendment No. 221 and to have moved on, if I understood the noble Lord, Lord Williams, correctly, to Amendment No. 223. Amendment No. 221 has the effect of limiting the expenditure under the clause to items subject to planning guidance under Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
I merely rise, while information is being collected, to point out that there appear to be two, or possibly three, items in subsection (2) which could not be the subject of planning policy guidance of any sort and which do not fall within that Act. Therefore, the effect of this amendment, whatever it is on accountability, would be to narrow the deployment of funds. The amendment would be unfortunate in that respect.
Earl Ferrers: I want to try to help the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, a little more. He said that money can be obtained and given to any single person, and that sort of thing. He makes it sound as though that is wrong. It has been going on for quite some time. Someone may want to complete a building project. The building company says that it will cost so much and if it gets a grant, it will be able to build so many houses. They may be homes for old people or others. The company will put forward a bid. It will say how much money it is able to contribute and it will approach the Government or seek a contribution from the single regeneration budget. When the budget is worked out, one has to discern whether the bid would be better for that area than any other bid. If it is, then the correct forms of application and so forth have to be filled in. The money is carefully "monitored", to use that awful word yet again. The money is put into the project and the results are seen. One knows how many houses have
104
been built and how many people are housed. That is the kind of way in which the project is managed and looked after. That is a wholly commendable way.
Lord Williams of Elvel: This comes back to my Amendment No. 221. The point about these schemes is that they are a partnership between local authorities and other sources of finance. That seems very desirable. I have no particular problem with that although I have about the single regeneration budget, but I shall leave that aside.
I have a problem with the Bill, as drafted. I may be quite wrong and I am open to correction, but a purely private sector consortium, regardless of any local authority, development plan or strategic planning guidance and the rest of it, can say "I have a project to regenerate or develop 'an area'", in the words of the Bill. Provided that the purely private sector organisation conforms to the criteria of Clause 122, as approved under Clause 124, it will be in receipt of public money. That is quite different. I emphasise again what has happened as regards City Challenge and even the SRB. I simply want to know if that is the Government's intention. If it is, please let us know and we shall take it up at a later stage. This is quite different to what has happened before.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord asks whether it is possible for someone to come forward with an idea and say that they are going to develop something without any guidance or planning permission. Of course, that is not so. Any project that is brought forward is subject to all the planning rules and applications that are necessary. Nobody would introduce a scheme which did not have planning permission. It would be a matter of prudent management to decide at what point one applies for planning permission. Presumably, if one has a project, one does not produce it without having checked whether it will be likely to get planning permission. So it is perfectly possible for a firm or business to say, "This is a project for building houses" or whatever, and that might be done in concert with, or for, a local authority and the local authority may not be involved. However, it would be able to do that by making a bid and those who assess that bid will do so against a whole host of different bids for the region. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked whether it is possible for a private body to have public funds. The answer is yes it is when it is doing something for an area and for which it is making a bid and where that bid is deemed to be the best bid for the improvement of that area.
Baroness Hamwee: At the risk of detaining the Committee for just another minute, perhaps I may put one point on the record. I should like to thank a voluntary organisation in London—voluntary in the sense that it is funded in part by the Corporation of the City of London but collects funds from other sources also—called Vision for London. In reporting on the successes and failures of bids in London, that organisation has produced the most accessible and one of the most helpful reports that I have ever seen. I mention that because I do not think that this is the right way to run the country or the scheme. Reporting

105
on such schemes and allowing successful and, more importantly, unsuccessful bidders to understand what is going on is important.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We have come to the end of this particular argument. In the polite words, I shall read the Minister's words in Hansard and return to this at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 222 and 223 not moved.]
Clause 122 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 224 not moved.]
Clause 123 [Regeneration and development: forms of assistance]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 225:
Page 72, line 40, after ("guarantees,") insert—
("() borrowing approvals to local authorities,
() the raising of any capping limit to enable local authorities to meet revenue expenditure associated with financial assistance given under section 122,").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 225 is grouped with Amendment No. 226 which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. It may be convenient if we discuss the two amendments together. Concentrating briefly on Amendment No. 226, it is intended to make it entirely clear that local authorities have the power to do things for which the Secretary of State is enabling the funding to be provided—I apologise to the Committee for the cumbersome language that I have just used. It is important that all potential partners are assured that those activities are intra vires in order to allow partnerships with the private sector to take place; otherwise the private sector will be frightened off, as we have seen recently.
Amendment No. 225 has been tabled to seek assurances that the assistance that is given may include the lifting of controls on expenditure by local authorities to the extent required to enable them to play their part in partnerships for regeneration. I have mentioned specifically borrowing approvals and the raising of capping limits. I have included borrowing approvals because local authorities need permission to borrow money. I have included the raising of any capping limit because capital expenditure has revenue consequences and if revenue cannot be spent because of a capping limit, the debt cannot be repaid and that will constrain regeneration activity which involves capital expenditure. Those matters are important and need to be addressed although perhaps not in the way that I have dealt with them. However, I am afraid that I was unable to resist the opportunity of highlighting the way in which local authorities may be forced to contribute to the partnerships in a less complete way than many of them would like. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I speak to Amendment No. 226. It is grouped with Amendment No. 225 to which the noble Baroness has spoken. The noble Baroness has correctly pointed out that there is some
106
difficulty about the vires of local authorities to become involved in the regeneration and development of their areas. The purpose of Amendment No. 226 is to put this beyond doubt. The Committee will be aware of the recent case of Allerdale District Council v. Credit Suisse which has raised the question whether local authorities have the power to support particular forms of regeneration not specified by statute. That uncertainty has discouraged the private sector from participating with local authorities. In Allerdale District Council v. Credit Suisse the High Court ruled that a guarantee given by the district council to the developer of a recreational facility was ultra vires. As a result, the contract was made unenforceable and void.
It is clear that the companies involved took legal advice. They were advised that they should not collaborate with local authorities—this advice has been given by lawyers since—where there was uncertainty or doubt as to whether those authorities had specific powers to undertake the activities concerned. This is anomalous in view of the increasing pressure on local authorities to act in partnership with the private sector, which we support. The Committee will generally acknowledge that the ultimate aim is to secure more regeneration work undertaken on a partnership basis. There is doubt about the vires of local authorities as a result of this decision and other cases. The amendment is designed to clarify the position so that local authorities and companies, private individuals and institutions can feel comfortable about co-operating in regeneration matters.
Earl Ferrers: I deal first with Amendment No. 225 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This would extend the list of possible forms of assistance to include credit approvals to enable local authorities to borrow to fund capital projects. It would also raise capping limits to help authorities meet revenue costs.
Assistance under the single regeneration budget challenge fund is available to a range of bodies including, but not limited to, local authorities, and for both capital and revenue projects. We decided to offer a form of support that provided the maximum flexibility and was of benefit to everyone. Therefore, at present we provide assistance in the form of grants. The single regeneration budget was formed by a combination of 20 existing programmes that offered support by both grant and credit approvals. We moved to a grant-only regime having first consulted the local authority associations to ensure a simple, flexible system that could be used to fund capital or revenue projects by the range of bodies already supported under the single regeneration budget, and by the broad-based partnerships which submitted bids under the single regeneration budget challenge fund.
We believe that it would be a retrograde and unnecessary step to return to credit approvals. Most partnerships would continue to need grant to support revenue projects, or to support capital projects by private sector partners. So projects would receive. a combination of grant and credit approvals. That does not mean that the Government's funding will be any bigger.

107
All it means is that it would come via two routes. That would create greater bureaucracy within individual partnerships and in offices for the regions.
Decisions on capping limits are taken by the Secretary of State each year in the context of the demands on local authorities, and the interests of the national economy. Adjustments to capping limits do not generally reflect the consequences of individual decisions of various local authorities on their spending priorities, such as that resulting from an authority's successful bid for assistance under the single regeneration budget challenge fund. It would be inappropriate to use primary legislation to dictate the factors which should be taken into account.
I turn now to Amendment No. 226 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. This would seem to provide that, once the Secretary of State has given financial assistance towards an activity falling within Clauses 122 to 125, that general function would become a function of local authorities generally.
District councils and unitary authorities already have a widely drawn economic development power under Section 33 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. This broad power, and other specific provisions which exist in separate legislation, allow local authorities to undertake a broad range of regeneration activities, and are sufficient to allow them to participate fully in work related to the single regeneration budget.
These clauses relate to the Secretary of State's powers to give support. He can support local authorities which spend under their proper powers. If there were any doubt about those powers, that would be a separate question. For those reasons, it would not be appropriate to include the two amendments in the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will agree to that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Has the Minister—I am sure that he has—considered the case of Allerdale District Council v.Credit Suisse? It is an important landmark case as to whether local authorities have the vires to make a contract, whether they have the vires to enforce that contract, and whether the other parties to the contract have the vires to enforce that on the local authority within the context of the present law? I am advised that at the moment that is not the case without clarification. That is the point of the amendment. Local authorities should, as we all agree, be entitled to enter into proper partnerships with the private sector to encourage regeneration. I hope that the Minister has considered this case carefully and can give us a proper response before I sit down.
Earl Ferrers: I would not give a proper response before the noble Lord sat down, I should wait for him to sit down. Now that he has sat down, I shall give him the response. It would have been discourteous to have us both on our feet at the same time. I should prefer to give a considered answer later about a specific case. It would be inappropriate to discuss an individual case upon which there has been a legal judgment. If I may, I shall write to the noble Lord about the matter. In general, the case to which he referred (Allerdale District
108
Council v. Credit Suisse) concerned a local authority's guarantee powers, whereas the clause that we are debating relates to the Secretary of State's power to give assistance. It concerns guarantees and not regeneration. That is as far as I can go at the moment but I will consider the noble Lord's points and write to him.
Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 226 refers to local authority powers as they are affected by the exercise of the Secretary of State's powers. As regards Amendment No. 225, the Minister said that it would be retrograde. It is sad that allowing local authorities to play their part as I have suggested is regarded as a retrograde step. It is perhaps a little odd too in these days when the use of private finance is encouraged. It also tends to suppress the community leadership role of local authorities, which is a role that I should like to see supported. The hour is late and I shall not pursue the point now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 226 not moved.]
Clause 123 agreed to.
Clause 124 [Regeneration and development: terms on which assistance is given]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 227:
Page 73, line 3, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) The Secretary of State shall consult local authorities and relevant interests regarding the regeneration and development of the regions and publish regional strategies for regeneration and development, in which he shall have regard to the views expressed in such consultation.
(1A) Financial assistance under section 122 shall have regard to the strategies published in accordance with subsection (1) above and may be given on such terms as the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, considers appropriate.
(1B) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for the reimbursement of the costs of preparing applications for funding under this section.
(1C) The Secretary of State shall determine—

(a) those applications which are eligible under subsection (1B) above for reimbursement; and

(b) the level of such reimbursement.

(1D) The Secretary of State shall give reasons in writing to applicants for financial assistance under section 122 for the success or failure of their application on the same date as he publishes his decisions on the allocation of such financial assistance.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 227 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 228. No doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will speak to her Amendment No. 229. The purpose of the amendment is to provide what I would call a strategic background against which to judge bids for support from the single regeneration budget and other funding sources. Perhaps I ought to declare a minor interest in that I am President of the Federation of Economic Development Authorities. It is purely an honorary position but the economic development authorities—district councils which have economic development departments—are involved in bids for the SRB.
Judging from my experience of the Federation of Economic Development Authorities and other bodies, there is a difficulty about the transparency of decisions regarding the allocation of funds for regeneration and

109
development. The purpose of the amendment is to improve that transparency and to encourage collaboration between central government, local authorities and others in developing some kind of strategic framework for the future development of United Kingdom regions.
There is anxiety among local authorities and others preparing SRB bids that the process of deciding which bids should be accepted and which should be refused is not transparent. Amendment No. 227 achieves three aims. First, it requires the Secretary of State to consult local authorities and other relevant bodies about the future regeneration and development of their region and to have regard to their views when deciding on the priorities or criteria to be used in deciding between different SRB bids. Currently there appears to be something of a policy vacuum within regional offices where decisions on individual SRB applications are taken. I am afraid that that gives rise to some suspicion, however unworthy, that decisions are taken on political grounds rather than on grounds of a contribution to a particular area. A strategy, if put in place, would provide an indication to bidders of the types of project which should be brought forward for further local regeneration.
Secondly, it appears that the government regional offices vary very markedly in the extent to which they provide to those submitting SRB bids feedback as to why the bids were successful or unsuccessful. Indeed, when consulted—and I am advised by the federation of which I am president—government regional offices vary widely in the advice which they are prepared to give to local authorities in putting forward a bid. Some regional offices are very forthcoming and others not so forthcoming. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to give reasons in writing, which is reasonable, to bidders as to the success or failure of specific bids.
That feedback is particularly important because it will encourage bidders in future rounds to improve their submissions; to improve the way in which they present their case; and will improve their chances of success. That would be seen as at least a minimum level of courtesy following the expenditure of large amounts of time and money in preparing the bids. One local authority I know spent over £1 million of its council taxpayers' money in preparing a bid. That is a great deal of money. As it happened, the bid was successful. But many bids which have cost a great deal of council taxpayers' money as well as public money have been unsuccessful. Feedback will also provide proof that all bids have been considered carefully.
Thirdly, because the costs of preparing SRB bids are high, this amendment gives the Secretary of State discretion to reimburse some or all of the costs incurred in making bids which are commendable although unsuccessful. That happens frequently. Local authorities are told, "It was a very good bid, quite right, but unfortunately you were unsuccessful". This amendment would ensure that what are known in the trade—if I may use the expression—as near misses are not disadvantaged by the bidding process since costs of bids can be considerable.
I very much hope that the Government will take seriously these two amendments because there is a genuine problem in relation to the costs of SRB bids and the strategy which lies behind the single regeneration budget itself. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My name is down to Amendments Nos. 227 and 228, and Amendment No. 229, which is in my name, has a very similar aim to the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has just spoken.
The fact that the implementation of the budget is not consistent across the country is not necessarily bad because, after all, there are different needs and different priorities in different places. But what is worrying is that it is not possible to understand the basis for decisions, as the noble Lord has said.
The effect of the SRB so far has given rise to concern that funds have been allocated on a basis less closely related to the needs of different areas than has been the case in the past, as well as the basis for the allocation of funding between areas having become less explicit. I understand that the Association of London Government has assessed the degree of relationship between the SRB and the Government's own index of local conditions and, further, that the effect of the SRB so far has been to reduce the degree of fit between resource allocation and need. Indeed, I believe that some areas of high need have been missed out.
As I said, patchiness is not necessarily wrong but it seems in this case that perhaps it is. The effect of the proposed clause is to suggest that, rather than being reliant on a bidding system the Government might decide in advance how much an area should receive, so that the basis of allocation of funding would become more explicit. I was surprised to learn that it is only in London that there is real evidence of competition for resources, and that in most other regions the number of bids submitted does not greatly exceed the number that are funded. It seems, therefore, that there is perhaps not the competitive process that was originally envisaged. Again, that is not necessarily a bad thing. It may be the natural result of key partners in an area working together to submit a joint bid under the leadership of the local authority. However, in London it seems that particular bids each year are especially favoured by the regional office. Major established partnerships—one can think of Park Royal, Stratford and the South Bank—bid each year, and are likely to be funded each year. I question whether that approach is an appropriate one. As I have said on previous occasions, I have my doubts—indeed, more than doubts—about the benefits of competition. If it is to be the same projects which are to receive the lion's share of resources, that negates the objective of a competitive system. I support this group of amendments.
Earl Ferrers: These are meaty amendments, if I may so express it. I refer to the first two amendments in the group, Amendments Nos. 227 and 228, which stand in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The amendments return to concerns which have been expressed in the past,

111
primarily by local authorities, about the operation of the single regeneration budget challenge fund. The Environment Committee in another place considered these areas in its first report on the operation of the single regeneration budget, and most of these points have been covered in the Government's response to that report.
We welcome the committee's general conclusion that the single regeneration budget challenge fund has already demonstrated its potential to achieve excellent value for taxpayers' money; and that it does not think the Government should make major changes to the programme's operation. The Environment Committee felt that the Government were on the right course. That is encouraging. Amendments Nos. 227 and 228 cover several points. First, Amendment No. 227 would require the Secretary of State to consult local authorities and other relevant interests, and publish regional strategies for regeneration and development. There is a regular dialogue between government offices and key local players to discuss regeneration issues and priorities. That is a prime function of government offices. However, we do not believe that it would be practicable to try to incorporate the existing diverse arrangements into a formal exercise, nor that it is necessary to publish the results. The Environment Committee concluded that regional regeneration strategies—if we were to have them—would add a layer of bureaucracy, and risk making the bidding process for the single regeneration budget challenge fund unnecessarily cumbersome and restrictive. We therefore would not wish to adopt that course.
Secondly, the amendment would require financial assistance under Clause 122 to have regard to published regional strategies.
As I said earlier in relation to Amendments Nos. 221 and 222, we agree that bids for support under the single regeneration budget challenge fund should take full account of the planning policy guidance of the Secretary of State for the Environment and local authority development plans, as well as other regional strategies such as single programming documents prepared in relation to European structural funds. The bidding guidance for rounds one and two drew specific attention to this; and it has been reaffirmed in the guidance for round three.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to make arrangements to reimburse bodies for the costs of preparing applications for funding, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred.
The Select Committee agreed with Ministers that resources invested in bids for the single regeneration budget challenge fund were not necessarily wasted. Most losing partnerships have stayed together, and have looked for other funding or have put in new bids. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that if they were to be reimbursed it would encourage the bidder to continue to bid. I dare say it may. But the fact is that there would be no extra money available. Therefore that which was paid out to the losing bidders would not be available to other constructive bids. Although there is clearly an
112
expense and a drawback in losing a bid, nevertheless it has been shown that those who bid tend to stay together and are successful in later bidding.
Partnerships not successful in round two will be able to bid again for round three funding. Government offices will give advice to them, and other bidders, to assist in drawing up bids. The bidding guidance for the challenge fund deliberately stresses that bids for support should not be presented in a glossy or elaborate form. They should include the minimum information necessary to enable a bid to be assessed, and translated into action if it is successful.
Finally, the amendment would also require the Secretary of State to write to applicants, giving them reasons for the success or failure of their bids for funding, on the same date as the decisions are announced. In fact, that is what happens. Government offices wrote to all partnerships who were unsuccessful under the first two single regeneration budget challenge fund bidding rounds. They offered such partnerships a meeting to discuss why their bid failed, how it might be strengthened in subsequent rounds, and what alternative sources of funding might be available. Most of the partnerships took up the offer of a meeting, and many were subsequently successful in round two or are bidding again in round three. For those reasons I do not think that the first amendments are desirable.
Amendment No. 229 stands in the name of Lady Hamwee alone. She has lost the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on this amendment. I do not know why; perhaps he did not approve of it. The amendment would enable financial assistance to be given to local authorities on the basis of annual regeneration plans. Our view is that local authorities have important roles to play both as members of local partnerships and with other interested parties in helping to bring together bidders. The bidding guidance we have just issued for round three of the single regeneration budget challenge fund reflects our wish to see local authorities playing this central role. But we are looking for real local partnerships, which fully involve other parts of the community; and we agree with the Select Committee's recommendation that we should not give local authorities a formal strategic role in relation to the bidding stage of the single regeneration budget challenge fund process.
Overall, we believe that the present arrangements for the operation of the single regeneration budget challenge fund are adequate, although we will certainly keep them under review and see how they can be improved as time goes by. This reflects the Select Committee's advice against making major changes to the programme. We do not think it would be helpful to specify certain aspects of the arrangements in legislation, as this might limit the continuing process of improvement.
The simple and short answer to all three amendments is that the single regeneration budget challenge fund is working quite well. The Environment Committee said it thought it was working well and advised against making too many alterations. I suggest to the Committee that it would be inadvisable, after that advice, to change what

113
we are doing by primary legislation. That is why it would be best not to accept the amendments as part of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Earl. It is the first time that I have heard a Select Committee of another place being prayed in aid by the Government. Normally, Select Committees of another place are critical of governments. Nevertheless, if the Government rely on that evidence, we note it. In future cases where Select Committees of another place are critical of the Government, no doubt the Government will also rely on their opinion on other matters.
The Government must pay attention to the problem. Whatever the Select Committee of another place says, there is substantial disaffection in local authorities about the SRB on the lines that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and I have mentioned. I believe that it is not such a bad system, others take a different view and think that it is terrible. It is not such a bad system, bar the fact that it does not encourage assistance to go where it is needed, it goes where there is reasonable presentation. That is my experience and that of others.
I do not wish to press the amendment at this hour of the night, but the Government would be sensible to pay serious attention to the points made this evening. In the light of the noble Earl's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 228 not moved.]
Clause 124 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 229 not moved.]
Clause 125 agreed to.
Clause 126 [Resolution by local housing authority to pay relocation grants]:
10 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 230:
Page 73, line 36, leave out ("are") and insert ("will be").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 230, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 231, 232 and 250. We are now dealing with relocation grants. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 230 and 231 is to allow a local housing authority to seek confirmation from the Secretary of State that contributions towards relocation grants will be payable by him in respect of a specific proposed clearance area before passing a resolution to pay such grants.
The Bill introduces relocation grants which may be used by local housing authorities to assist people who lose their homes as a result of clearance activity. As I understand it, the grants will supplement existing compensation provisions to enable people affected by clearance to purchase a replacement dwelling and can be paid after a clearance area has been made. The decision to make relocation grants available must be made before making the clearance area. That is the ground on which the amendments are based.
Local housing authorities will be required by Clause 126 to do a number of things before deciding. Clause 134 merely says that the Secretary of State may make contributions towards relocation grants paid. In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, it is suggested that relocation grants will be financed from public expenditure released by the change from mandatory to discretionary renovation grants. That comes as something of a surprise because it is contrary to the suggestion made in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. Savings will not, in our view, be made by the change from mandatory to discretionary renovation grants. As we have argued over Part I time and time again, the same number of unfit houses will remain to be dealt with the day after the change is made as the day before the change was made.
So there can be no changes as a result of a change in the scheme from mandatory to discretionary provision. Furthermore, local housing authorities are likely to have to divert more of their limited resources to fund mandatory disabled facilities grants after the change. There can be no extra money for relocation grants. My amendment is designed to seek confirmation that the Secretary of State will pay whatever is necessary in respect of proposed clearance areas before local housing authorities pass a resolution to pay those grants.
I turn to Amendment No. 250, which is designed to ensure that subsidy is made available for relocation grant in the same way that renovation grants at present receive subsidy. The Secretary of State already has powers to make contributions towards the cost of renovation and disabled facilities grants, currently at the rate of 60 per cent. of expenditure. As we know, those powers are repeated in Part I of the Bill.
It is important for all grants to be dealt with in a similar way in order to ensure a proper balance between the different options for renewal. That is particularly important in relation to the balance of action between repair and replacement, which is what we are talking about when discussing relocation grants. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My amendment No. 232 is grouped with these amendments. I can understand that there may be a knee-jerk reaction to the notion that capital receipts may be released to be used for the purposes that I suggest. However, I do not feel that those purposes are so very wide.
The amendment refers to Section 290 of the Housing Act 1985. That section refers to local authorities' acquisition of land after they have declared an area to be a clearance area. Under Section 289(2):
"The local housing authority shall declare an area to be a clearance area if they are satisfied … that the houses in the area are unfit for human habitation or are by reason of their bad arrangement"—
the reference is to the arrangement of streets—
"dangerous or injurious to the health of the inhabitants … and that the other buildings … in the area are [similarly] dangerous or injurious to … health".
Further, it states that the most satisfactory way of dealing with the matter is the demolition of buildings in the area.

115
That is not a decision which is taken every day of the week by every local housing authority up and down the country. The amendment proposes that capital receipts received from the disposal of land previously subject to that type of action can be used by the local housing authority toward further investment. I use the term "investment" quite deliberately—not random, profligate spending.
I am well aware that restrictions on the spending of capital receipts are intended to reduce the local authorities' debt but they have the effect of reducing the local authorities' capital bases and, I suggest, their power. One of the reasons underlying the controls on the use of capital receipts is a wish to reduce local authorities' capital bases. But it also means that local authorities are restricted in their ability to invest; and coupled with other restrictions on capital expenditure, as I said earlier this evening, their hands are very much tied.
This is not therefore an extensive amendment. I do not believe that it will have huge implications. However, it could be extremely important and useful in the limited number of places where such actions are taken.
Lord Lucas: These amendments are all about the resources which will be available to local authorities to enable them to give relocation grants. Amendments Nos. 230 and 231 concern the resources condition in Clause 126(3), the purpose of which is to ensure that authorities do not commit themselves to future expenditure on relocation grants recklessly. In our view, it requires each authority to be generally satisfied, on the basis of its current level of resources, that it would be able to meet the sort of expenditure that such a commitment would imply.
The wording follows that in Section 289 of the Housing Act 1985 which requires authorities to be satisfied that their resources are adequate before declaring a clearance area. Although this, like the decision to pay relocation grants, implies a long-term commitment of resources, the wording seems to be generally understood and has not caused any problems.
In relation to the specific questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, the point is that if authorities have discretion they can allocate resources according to their own priorities. They will therefore be able to pay relocation grants if they wish from within the overall level of their resources.
Amendments Nos. 230 and 231 are unacceptable because they would require local housing authorities to be satisfied about the future availability of resources and for the Secretary of State to give them cast-iron guarantees on that. No government can give any such assurance because public spending decisions have to be taken afresh each year taking account of the amount the country can reasonably afford to pay. The Secretary of-State could therefore not give the absolute confirmation about resources which Amendment No. 231 appears to require. Authorities would therefore be unable to satisfy themselves on this and so would never be able to exercise their power to give grants. I am sure that that is not what the noble Lord intends.
116
I can, however, assure the noble Lord that it is certainly our intention to pay contributions towards the cost of relocation grants for the foreseeable future. We would expect to do so at the same rate as for slum clearance subsidy; that is to say, 60 per cent. Amendment No. 250 seeks to relate the amount paid to the level of contributions towards the cost of renovation grants under Part I, but we see no merit in that. Nor is it clear to us that a requirement on the Secretary of State to have regard to that level would establish a clear link in any event.
Amendment No. 232 seeks to enable local authorities to fund the provision of relocation grants using capital receipts from their slum clearance activities. If we wished to do that, we could do so under our existing powers in Section 59 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. However, allowing authorities to use receipts which they would otherwise have to set aside to meet credit liabilities would, if unchecked, add to public expenditure. Furthermore, such a change might also affect different authorities in different ways. Some authorities may not have sufficient receipts to meet the demand for relocation grants at the time the demand arose.
In conclusion, we believe that funding for relocation grants should be met from within the overall level of resources allocated for private sector renewal, with a 60 per cent. Exchequer subsidy as already mentioned. I hope that, on the basis of those explanations, the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the 60 per cent. reassurance. That is important. On other matters I have serious doubts about whether the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum is right and that there will be funds available from Part I in order to pay for relocation grants. Nevertheless, in the light of the noble Lord's explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 231 not moved.]
Clause 126 agreed to.
Clause 127 [Relocation grants: applications and payments]:
[Amendment No. 232 not moved.]
Clause 127 agreed to.
Clause 128 [Relocation grants: qualifying persons and qualifying dwellings]:
10.15 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McColl of Dulwich): In calling Amendment No. 233, I should point out that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 234.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 233:
Page 74, line 35, leave out from ("be,") to end of line 36 and insert ("acquired by the local housing authority under section 290 of the Housing Act 1985 or section 154 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 235 to 239 and to make reference to Amendment No. 234 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Amendments Nos. 233 and 235 to 239 are to make clear that relocation grants may be payable whether properties in clearance areas or surrounding lands are acquired compulsorily or by agreement. As currently worded, Clause 128(1)(a) provides that a person is a qualifying person for the purposes of eligibility for relocation grant if among other things he has an interest in a dwelling in the clearance area which has been, or is to be, compulsorily acquired. The definition of "compulsory acquisition" in subsection (6) of Clause 128 was intended to encompass all acquisitions, whether compulsory or by agreement, under Section 290 of the Housing Act 1985 or Section 154 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. However, we feel that the provisions are open to misinterpretation and that it would be best to clarify the situation. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will see that we have succeeded in incorporating the intent of Amendment No. 234.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is quite right. He has subsumed my Amendment No. 234, which I shall not be moving.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 234 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 235 to 239:
Page 75, line 10, leave out from ("be,") to end of line 11 and insert ("acquired by the local housing authority under section 290 of the Housing Act 1985 or section 154 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.").
Page 75, line 13, leave out ("a compulsory") and insert ("an"). Page 75, line 22, leave out ("compulsorily").
Page 75, line 23, leave out ("a compulsory") and insert ("an"). Page 75, leave out lines 27 to 30.
The noble Lord said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 233. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to. Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 129 [Relocation grants: amount]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 240:
Page 75, line 33, leave out ("and (3)") and insert ("to (3A)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 241 to 249, 251, 264 and 266.
Amendments Nos. 240 to 247 are to clarify the rules for determining the maximum amount of relocation grant which may be paid and to bring the rules for applying the means test more closely into line with those which apply for renovation grants. In particular, those who are displaced by clearance activity will be required to put the compensation they receive for the loss of their old home towards the cost of buying their new one.
Amendments Nos. 248 and 249 make minor changes to the rules governing the repayment of grant when one of the grant conditions is breached. Amendment No. 248
118
has the effect that the grant will not have to be repaid where the property is passed on under a will or intestacy to someone who lived with the deceased person throughout the 12 months ending with the date of his death. Indeed, that was our intention in drafting the Bill but Amendment No. 248 as originally drafted required an impossibility, which was that the new tenant should have lived with the deceased after his death.
Amendment No. 249 is to deter someone who wishes to move out of his home within five years of the purchase from escaping his obligation to repay grant by first selling the property to a member of his family. In these cases the grant repayment condition will become binding on the new owner and the same will apply if a person passes on his property under a will or intestacy.
Amendment No. 251 clarifies the definition of "owner" for the purpose of the relocation grant provisions by explaining the meaning of "net annual value", which is used in that definition. Amendment No. 264 ensures that only those provisions in Clauses 122 to 124 of Part IV of the Bill will extend to Scotland. Clause 125 has no relevance to Scotland. I understand that any decision whether to introduce relocation grants north of the Border will be taken when Ministers there come to reform the improvement and repairs grant system, at which time they will also review associated statutory powers.
Finally, we intend to bring the provisions of the relocation grants into force on 1st April next year. Amendment No. 266, when read with Clause 144(3), will enable us to apply for that day by order of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I was listening to my noble friend and I became slightly confused. I believe he said that if the grant is payable on the old home, it should be used in conjunction with the new home. That is fine when a home is bought and owned the second time around. What happens if it is a rented home?
Lord Lucas: Then no grant is payable. The grant is payable solely for the purpose of enabling someone to buy a new home.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 241 to 247:
Page 75, line 37, leave out from ("exceed") to end of line 39 and insert ("the difference between—

(a) the cost of acquiring the qualifying dwelling to which the application relates; and

(b) such part as may be prescribed of the amount which has been, or is to be, paid by the authority in respect of the acquisition of the applicant's interest in the original dwelling.

(3A) If the financial resources of the applicant exceed the applicable amount, the amount of any grant which may be paid shall, in accordance with regulations, be reduced from what it would otherwise have been.").
Page 75, line 40, after third ("the") insert ("qualifying").
Page 76, line I, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 2 and insert ("Provision may be made by regulations—(a)")
Page 76, line 4, at end insert—

119
("(b) for the determination of the applicable amount referred to in subsection (3A), and
(c) as to circumstances in which the financial resources of an applicant are to be assumed (by reason of his receiving a prescribed benefit or otherwise) not to exceed the applicable amount.").
Page 76, line 5, leave out ("under subsection (5)").
Page 76, line 13, leave out ("under that subsection").
Page 76, line 15, at end insert—
("() In this section—
"the original dwelling" has the same meaning as in section 128;
"regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury.").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 129, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 130 [Relocation grants: condition for repayment on disposal]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 248:
Page 76, line 45, leave out ("disposal") and insert ("deceased's death").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 130, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 131 [Relocation grants: conditions as to owner-occupation]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 249:
Page 77, line 25, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) Subsections (5) and (6) of section 130 apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 131, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 132 and 133, agreed to.
Clause 134 [Relocation grants: contributions by the Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 250 not moved.]
Clause 134 agreed to.
Clause 135 [Minor definitions relating to relocations grants]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 251:
Page 79, line 20, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of the definition of "owner" in subsection (1), the net annual value of a dwelling means the rent at which the dwelling might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year if the tenant undertook to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes and to bear the cost of repair and insurance and the other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the dwelling in a state to command that rent.
() Any dispute arising as to the net annual value of a dwelling shall be referred in writing for decision by the district valuer.
In this subsection "district valuer" has the same meaning as in the-Housing Act 1985.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 240. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 135, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 136 [Home energy efficiency schemes]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 252:
Page 79, line 45, at end insert—
("(3) Grants under this section shall be available toߞ

(a) any applicant in receipt of income support, family credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit, disability working allowance or disability living allowance, or

(b) any applicant over 60 years of age.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 253 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. We embark here on home energy efficiency schemes, which were introduced in 1991. The purpose of my Amendment No. 252 is to abolish the introduction of means-tested criteria for applicants for home energy efficiency schemes grants who are over 50 years of age. I do not believe that I need enlarge on the object of this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, may well argue that the introduction of a form of means-testing for pensioners will compensate for the reduction in HEES funding by allowing a reduced sum of money to go further, but experience suggests that that is not the case. The requirement to pay 75 per cent. of the cost of works for those not on means-tested benefits will be a significant deterrent to take-up. Measures adopted by regional electricity companies have offered a range of support for energy efficiency measures. It has been shown that grants of less than 75 per cent. are not successful, with very little take-up below that level. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: The issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, are of considerable importance. There was a commitment in the previous Finance Bill for the home energy efficiency schemes to be funded to a total of £100 million for three years. That commitment was repeated by Ministers throughout last year and as recently as last May. The result of that commitment was that an increased number of homes, particularly of elderly people on small incomes, were insulated and, as a result, much energy saving was achieved. There was a gearing up of the staff required to carry out that work.
The results of the measures now intended—that is, the reduction of £31 million in the £100 million originally vouchsafed and the means-testing of people of pensionable age—will have serious repercussions. I turn first to the case of people of pensionable age who will be means-tested. Very many people of pensionable age who do not receive income support (which is the test), in fact do not claim it although entitled to it. The DSS has estimated that about one-third of pensioners do not claim who could do so. Quite apart from those who could claim technically, a large number of pensioners live just beyond the level at which they could claim but they cannot afford to pay the extra amount. They will thus be deprived of the insulation benefit.
As a result of the cut-back, some 200,000 fewer homes will be insulated. There will be a loss of 1,000 jobs in small businesses. Some £12 million which would otherwise have been expended on insulating materials will not be so expended. That will not only mean greater disadvantage in environmental terms, but will have a

121
serious impact on health. A sobering statistic is that excess winter deaths in Britain in recent years have increased to something like 55,000. That is vastly in excess of excess winter deaths in any other western European country. In Denmark, which is at the other extreme, there are very few more deaths in winter than in summer, because of attention to good housing conditions. There is very little doubt that those extra deaths are of elderly people living in cold and damp conditions.
Therefore, I believe that the measures that the Government now propose to cut that vital expenditure, to subject pensioners to means-testing and to widen the scope of the use of the reduced availability of funds so that even less will be expended on insulation, will have serious adverse effects—serious from the economic, environmental, health and social points of view. Therefore, in the light of the difficult situation created by the clause, I very much hope that the Government will think again.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, in his amendment, Amendment No. 252, wants to ensure that any future domestic energy efficiency grant schemes will be confined to the same groups of people as are eligible for the existing home energy efficiency scheme. The present power allows grants to be paid only as prescribed by regulations, which may make provision for, among other things, the types of dwellings to be included, details of the work that may be done and the categories of people who may be eligible for grants. This is quite deliberately intended to give maximum flexibility within the overall purpose of improving the thermal efficiency of dwellings, reducing or preventing waste of energy and giving people advice about energy use.
I understand the desire of the noble Lord to put into primary legislation the social aims of the present scheme, but Amendment No.252 will have the effect of restricting unnecessarily the flexibility which the present power provides. It is a flexibility which Clause 136 will extend, which several noble Lords and others have welcomed. I think that what is suggested is a retrograde step. We could not reflect any future changes to the social security benefits structure without the lengthy procedure of a new Bill to amend the Act. I do not believe that Amendment No.252 will do any more to help the elderly, poor and disabled than is already being done through the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. We are committed to continuing to help those vulnerable groups. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will accept that point of view.
As regards Amendment No. 253, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that we had given an undertaking in the sum of £100 million for three years. I knew that this would come up. I remind the noble Lord—as I have before at Question Time—that the undertaking was to go up to £100 million for that year and to increase the base line to £100 million for the next two or three years. As a result of that, the noble Lord suggests that the Government have been disingenuous. Although those are not his words, that is the inference to be drawn from his comment.
122
The noble Lord knows only too well that all government departments operate on base lines. They must all proceed over the next two years not on undertakings but on base lines. The base lines inevitably have to be altered from time to time. Every year in the terrible Public Expenditure Survey round the Government, like any other business, have to decide, where cuts can be made if cuts have to be made. The fact was that it was necessary this year to make cuts. It was not an undertaking last year that for the next two years that money would be available, only that the base line would have that money available.
I understand the desire to maintain the grants paid under a very successful scheme. But it would be quite impossible to suggest that a figure should be written into a Bill. It would be extraordinary to have a funding commitment and power dealing with a grant scheme in a Bill. One can hardly envisage the effect of having every expenditure commitment enshrined in primary legislation. Of course, that is not the noble Lord's intention, but if this amendment is accepted the commitment will be enshrined in legislation. I suggest that that would be wholly wrong.
The noble Lord is concerned about the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. I remind him that householders may be eligible for one or more benefits: income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit, family credit or disability working allowance. All householders age over 60 are eligible for grant, but from 1st April the grant is limited to 25 per cent. if claimants do not qualify on any of the grounds that I have just mentioned. We are targeting the money available to those who are most inconvenienced in the community, and those householders who are 60 and over and do not qualify for other grants because they happen to be better off do not get 100 per cent. grant but still get a 25 per cent. grant. That is a reasonable way in which to deal with the matter. People who took advantage of the grant have benefited from it. We are targeting the grant on those most in need of it.
Lord Ezra: I do not follow what the Minister said about the £100 million. I have many quotes about it from Ministers. I shall relate just one which is at variance with what we have just been told. Mr. Robert Jones, a Minister in the Department of the Environment, in a Written Answer in another place on 22nd May, said:
"During 1995–96, some £100 million will be made available for grants, and a similar sum has been set aside for each of the next two years",—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/95; col. 386.]
I do not see that that can mean anything but a firm commitment by government at that time for £100 million to be made available for 1995–96 and that further similar sums were set aside for the succeeding two years.
It does not seem to me that that accords with what the Minister was saying. If the Government have changed their mind, as they evidently have, that is an unfortunate fact, and that is what I am arguing against. As to the impact, it will mean—whatever way it is looked at—that 200,000 homes which would otherwise have been insulated will not now be insulated; and a

123
number of deaths from damp and cold conditions which would otherwise have been prevented will not now be prevented.
The Government were moving in the right direction. I believe that at the time the Prime Minister was very much in favour. I have no evidence for that, but I was told he was. Having taken a step which brought so much extra comfort to the elderly and people on low incomes, it is unfortunate that the Government have now taken part of it away without notice, without consideration of previous commitments and without thought of the enormous amount of good it was doing and will no longer do. We should return to the matter if the Minister is not prepared to give any assurances at this stage.
Earl Ferrers: I must try to explain the position, because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is labouring under a misapprehension, although not deliberately. It is true that £100 million was allocated for 1995–96, and that a similar sum was—to use his expression—set aside for the following two years. When one sets something aside, one puts it in the baseline. No government will normally ever undertake to have a certain expenditure guaranteed for following years, because governments do not operate in that way. They operate from the baseline. That was increased, and that was as it should have been.
It was only when considerations had to be made in a stringent public expenditure survey that it was decided to make the cuts here. We said that those people who were, as the noble Lord said, elderly and on low incomes would be the ones to benefit from the grant. Those older people, who are not the poorest and who do not have these other grants, do not receive 100 per cent. grant; they receive 25 per cent. Before this happened, and when the grant was 100 per cent. all noble Lords who had the pleasure of being over 60 were eligible to have the grant. With a limited amount of funding, it seems wrong to give that grant to people who could themselves afford to pay.
Let us remember also that when the grant is paid, it is not one lump sum; it is given, for instance, for loft insulation, tank or pipe lagging, or draught proofing. They are separate items. If the whole work is carried out one receives £15-worth of energy efficiency advice too. All the work comes to £315 per house. I understand that it is rare that a household qualifies for all the grants available under the scheme.
I do not want the Committee to get the matter out of perspective. Those people in the poorest parts, those who are least well off, will still have the grants available to them. Those who are more than 60 years old but who are not the poorest people will still have the scheme available to them but at a 25 per cent. grant. I do not believe that we have been wholly disingenuous.
I do not know where the noble Lord found his figures. about how many house will no longer have the work done. I do not understand how he can work that out. I can tell him that the scheme has been a considerable success. More than one and three-quarter million grants have been paid since it began in 1991 and research shows that households receiving grants can on average
124
save about £39 a year if they maintain their heating patterns. The grant scheme has been a success and we have tried to aim it at those people who need it.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may make a comment now rather than detaining the Committee on the Question of whether Clause 136 shall stand part of the Bill. The Minister has told us what a considerable success the scheme has been. The amendments in the group have been tabled in order to maintain that success and that is the reason for my concern about the clause. It may seem inconsistent to support energy conservation and the home energy efficiency scheme while at the same time opposing the clause. However, I believe that it is the Government who are inconsistent in seeking to extend the scheme while reducing the means.
I believe that the focus of the scheme should remain on heating and insulation improvements rather than extending it to energy efficient appliances and lighting. I say that given the limited budget, about which we have heard, and the urgent needs of the client group to which my noble friend Lord Ezra referred.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, put their fingers on the point: there will be less money for a good scheme and it will be spread more thinly across the population. We should like it to be concentrated or for it to have more resources, if that is possible. However, the Government's approach seems to me to be wrong.
Nevertheless, having listened to what the noble Earl explained at considerable length, at this time of night it is right to bring the debate to a conclusion and to see whether we shall return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 253:
Page 79, line 45, at end insert—
("(3) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the resources available to fund grants under section 15 of the Social Security Act 1990 are at least equal to £100 million annually until the end of financial year 1997–98.").
The noble Lord said: It is not my intention to move the amendment at this stage. However, I wish to make it clear that I shall return to the matter at the next stage. I also wish to give the noble Earl an assurance that he will receive a letter which will explain precisely how 200,000 homes will not be insulated as a result of the measures which the Government are now taking to reduce the commitment which they firmly made a year ago.
[Amendment No. 253 not moved.]
Clause 136 agreed to.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 254:
After Clause 136, insert the following new clause—
HOME EFFICIENCY SCHEMES
(" .—(1) Section 3(4) of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 (reports by Secretary of State) is amended as follows.

125
(2) After "section 2" there is inserted—
"(aa) include his assessment of the contribution that has been made, and could have been made by home energy efficiency schemes, towards the achievement of a significant improvement in the energy efficiency of residential accommodation, as defined by guidance from him under section 4(2) of this Act.".").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment adds to the requirements of the reporting under the Home Energy Conservation Act. At about this time of night last Thursday, my noble friend Lord Rodgers was referring to 30,000 disappointed architects. Perhaps this is the point at which to refer to a potential 200,000 disappointed home owners.
The amendment seeks to require that the contribution of the home energy efficiency scheme to the improvement of energy efficiency in residential accommodation is considered at the same time as the Secretary of State gives his report summarising the progress made by local authorities on implementing the measures contained in home energy conservation reports required by the Act to which I have referred.
The Act requires the Secretary of State from time to time to prepare that report. The home energy efficiency scheme can make a significant contribution towards helping to meet the target energy efficiency improvements under the Home Energy Conservation Act. The Department of the Environment estimates that some 20 per cent. of heat is lost in the average house through the roof and 15 per cent. through draughts through doors and windows. Moreover, there are very considerable reductions in CO2 emissions to be achieved by dealing with these matters.
I believe that the home energy efficiency scheme should be considered as an integral part of the strategic approach to home energy conservation which the Home Energy Conservation Act envisages. This amendment would assist in achieving that end. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness is quite right to suggest that it is important to identify the contribution of programmes such as the home energy efficiency scheme to the achievement of significant improvements in energy efficiency. Guidance in the form of a recent Department of the Environment circular indicates that "significant" will be interpreted as 30 per cent. I would certainly expect that any report from my right honourable friend would identify the progress made by authorities in encouraging the take up of grant and the contribution that will make towards the overall target. I must confess to some confusion over the reference to "could have been made". I think that it would be undesirable for my right honourable friend's reports under the Home Energy Conservation Act to speculate on the hypothetical, or indeed appear negative by considering contributions that could have been made.
There is also concern that the amendment requires my right honourable friend to give undue prominence to the contribution of home energy efficiency schemes in his report to Parliament. However, I hope that what I have said will reassure the noble Baroness that those reports will certainly cover the important contribution which
126
our home energy efficiency scheme can make to strategies to improve the energy efficiency of our residential accommodation.
Baroness Hamwee: What the Minister has said has helped me with the drafting of my amendment for the next stage of the Bill when perhaps we shall spend a little longer on these important topics to which I fear we are not really devoting as much attention as some of us would like to see, given the late hour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 255:
After Clause 136, insert the following new clause—
PROVISIONS FOR DISABLED PEOPLE IN CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DWELLINGS
(" . The Secretary of State shall exercise his powers under section 1 of the Building Act 1985 to introduce an extension to Part M of the Building Regulations 1991 in order to ensure that in the construction of new dwellings reasonable provision shall be made for disabled people to gain access to and to use the entrance storey of the dwelling including sanitary conveniences.").
The noble Lord said: In 1985, the Government introduced Part M of the Building Regulations for public and commercial buildings. Those specified minimum standards of access for disabled people.
In January of last year, the Department of the Environment produced a consultation paper proposing that Part M be extended to include new residential dwellings. The proposal was for the introduction of two new requirements. The first was Regulation M5 which stated that:
"Reasonable provision shall be made for disabled people to gain access to and to use the entrance storey of the dwelling".
Regulation M6 stated that:
"Reasonable provision shall be made for sanitary conveniences on the entrance storey of the dwelling which allow access and use by disabled people".
The stated objective of the new requirements was to allow occupiers to be able to invite disabled people to visit them in their own homes without undue hazard or inconvenience, and to be able to cope better with reducing mobility and to stay put longer in their own homes. I understand that the Government consulted 185 organisations directly but that they received over 1,000 responses, and that the principal opposition to the extension of these regulations came from private developers in the form of the House Builders Federation and its members.
The principle of extending these regulations was supported by a large number of disability and housing organisations, including the National Federation of Housing Associations. I understand that the consultation period finished in April last year. That being the case, it is now almost a year since the consultation ended. The Government have in my view, and in the view of a number of other people, had considerable time to analyse the responses. There is concern that this matter is on permanent hold.
Extending Part M to residential dwellings would bring all new homes in line with those built by housing associations as well as being consistent with the Government's own regulations for commercial and

127
public buildings. I understand that the design by housing associations is a requirement of the Housing Corporation, a Government funded body. All new non-domestic buildings and extensions must provide access and facilities for disabled people. Those are mandatory requirements.
Since 1993, performance standards for accessibility apply to all new housing built for rent by housing associations in England and Wales. The extension of Part M to housing would create more convenient and flexible housing for parents with children, pregnant women, people with temporary injury, older people, people with a chronic medical condition, and disabled people. The basic structural criteria that allow easy access and adaptation are: parking, where provided, to be suitable for use by disabled people; avoidance of steps and steep ramps in entrance paths, and in entrance doorways; sufficient door widths and circulation space to allow easy passage for disabled people; electrical switches and sockets and mains controls sited within easy reach; and a WC at entrance level. Staircases should be suitable for the future installation of a stairlift. In blocks of flats the communal areas and lifts should be large and suitable for use by disabled people.
One in four households includes at least one person with a disability according to the OPCS 1991 national census. A high proportion of people with long-term limiting illness have mobility limitations. Arthritis Care estimates that 8 million people have some form of arthritis. I understand that some 300,000 people each year suffer a heart attack. Conditions affecting the mobility of younger people include asthma in one in 10 children, Aids, and disability caused by accidental injury.
The changing age profile of the UK population means there will be 600,000 more people over 80 in 2010. In 1992 over 15 per cent. of borrowers for new dwellings were 45 years-old or over. In 1995 the Halifax Building Society, in an experimental marketing initiative in its Brighton estate agents, found a huge demand for housing with accessible features, but no houses coming onto the market which were accessible.
A cornerstone of government policy is care in the community. The strain on the public purse of adapting existing, unsuitable housing currently runs at more than £80 million per annum. An unknown and far larger sum must be spent by private individuals. Can we really afford to continue to build unsuitable housing?
Accessible housing does not mean unattractive housing. It is not about concrete ramps and handrails. Those only become necessary when typical private sector housing must be adapted. The cost of implementing Part M is very small in relation to total development costs. Developers would have a competitive advantage in relation to existing housing. stock. In the long term there would be a reduction in the need for adaptations and other community care facilities.
The new Housing Bill—it is a government Bill currently going through another place—places a much greater emphasis on provision of housing by the private sector. It therefore becomes even more important that
128
new housing is accessible. The Government have themselves proposed extending the building regulations to include improved access for disabled people to domestic dwellings.
While the Government delay, the changes which are urgently needed to ensure that the country's future housing stock meets future needs are not being made. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My noble friend Lord Swinfen makes a strong case. We launched a White Paper in January 1995. We undertook to consult widely. We were astonished at the number of responses we received. As my noble friend says, there were over a thousand, many of them full and complex comments on the range of specific measures proposed. Assessment of those responses has been a long and complex task which still continues. Once that task has been completed, recommendations will be made to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on the measures to be introduced.
Until that time comes, I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Swinfen will have to wait. We have powers under the Building Act 1984 to make the necessary changes should they be agreed, and when the time comes that is obviously a course of action we shall consider. However, at the moment I urge my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I am encouraged that there seems to be some progress, although remarkably little. It is now a year since the representations were in. I have a feeling that the private building industry may be putting pressure on my noble friend's department in this respect, but I could well be wrong. Can my noble friend give any indication of when there will be any movement?
Lord Lucas: No.
Lord Swinfen: I find that response very unsatisfactory. However, I shall not follow the matter up at this hour of the night. I reserve the right to come back to it either at Report stage or later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 137 [Urban development corporations: pre-dissolution transfers]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 256:
Page 80, line 4, after ("section") insert ("and by prior agreement with the relevant statutory body").
The noble Baroness said: In the interests of energy efficiency I shall be brief. Under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 a UDC's assets can be disposed of in three ways, one of which is the transfer to a local authority statutory undertaker, or other body, by agreement. The Bill proposes a fourth method: transfer by order to a statutory body.
Some assets are unencumbered by liabilities. Many assets are encumbered by liabilities. I seek merely to ensure that a basic safeguard included in the 1980 Act is included in this Bill by providing for the agreement of the transferee in order to enable that transferee to avoid

129
liabilities being dumped on it. It is a fundamental provision of contract law in this country that you cannot assign a liability. It is not the case everywhere else. I believe that the old arrangement requiring agreement is a good provision to follow. I do not think that the Government should allow themselves to be seen as able to arrange the disposal of liabilities, even if that is not the intention as I dare say we may be told. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: First, I apologise to the Committee for having been unavoidably absent for the earlier part of the evening. I support Amendment No. 256 and it might save time if I said a brief word about Amendments Nos. 257 to 260. I wish to speak to them all together because the point I want to make encompasses all the amendments. It concerns what happens when powers are handed back or when the UDCs, HATs and new town corporations are wound up and decisions must be taken as to what is to happen to their assets.
My argument, as embodied in the various amendments, is that the assets should be transferred to local authorities rather than being sold off. It is a fundamental point and there are a number of reasons which I wish to mention in support of it. First, in the case of UDCs and HATs, many of the assets originally came from local authorities and it is only right that they should revert to the local authorities from which they came. Secondly, local authorities, with their planning and other powers, are the most appropriate bodies to take an overall view of what part the resources from UDCs, HATs and new towns should play in the local area.
Thirdly, local authorities have a breadth of experience going back over the years in terms of planning estates, the law and so on. That could be mobilised to solve the problems of the former UDC areas, HATs and the new towns. It would ensure proper continuity in the various areas. Fourthly, if there are any liabilities arising from the various bodies, then local authorities are best fitted to take over and finance the liabilities in an appropriate way. Fifthly, and perhaps most important, local authorities are directly accountable to their electorates. They are permanent bodies and therefore would avoid the uncertainty that would arise from an attempt to sell off the assets to whomever it might be, which would stop the sense of continuity and lead to more uncertainty in the local areas. Local authorities can take a broad view of the concerns of their areas rather than a purely financial view as to what will earn the most money.
For all those reasons, I feel that the amendments are sensible. The disposal of assets simply for short-term financial gain is not the way forward and I hope that we shall see local authorities as being the obvious successor bodies to UDCs, HATs and new town development corporations.
11 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: Let me say at the outset that the Government have no intention of, as the noble Baroness put it, dumping the residual responsibilities arising from the winding up of local development corporations on to a body which is reluctant to accept them, as we realise that it is most unlikely that it would then apply itself
130
seriously to completing the tasks which it had inherited. Once an organisation has accepted the role of residuary body or a new body has been set up for that purpose, it would defeat the whole object of the exercise if it were then able to pick and choose the things which it was prepared to take on and leave those which it did not want to accept.
The urban development corporations are currently disengaging from as many of their assets and liabilities as possible, either through sales on the open market or, in the case of physical liabilities, by means of transfers on mutually acceptable terms to local authorities or other public bodies. We therefore do not anticipate that there will be enormous amounts of work remaining to be done after wind up. But there will inevitably be some issues remaining and many of them will be complex, if not totally intractable, requiring the application of specialist skills and knowledge to their resolution.
The main reason for setting up a residuary body is to provide a safety net to catch everything which the urban development corporations have been unable to clear up before wind up and which would otherwise have to be administered directly by the Secretary of State. If that body were then able to refuse to take on certain functions, he would be no better off than at present, while the advantages in terms of economies of scale and the development of appropriate expertise of having all such matters dealt with by a single body would be lost.
I hope that that has been able to satisfy the noble Baroness and has been able to remove some of her anxieties.
Baroness Hamwee: The comments of the noble Earl deserve some thought, which I shall give them after tonight.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 257 and 258 not moved.]
Clause 137 agreed to.
Clause 138 [Housing action trusts: orders for dissolution]:
[Amendment No. 259 not moved.]
Clause 138 agreed to.
Clause 139 [The Commission for the New Towns: orders for dissolution]:
[Amendment No. 260 not moved.]
Clause 139 agreed to.
Clause 140 [Orders, regulations and directions]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 261 and 262:
Page 82, line 11, after ("provisions") insert ("and savings").
Page 82, line 14, after ("for") insert ("orders under section 144(3) or").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 261 and 262 with Amendment No. 78. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 140, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 141 agreed to.
Clause 142 [Extent]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 263:
Page 82, line 21, at end insert ("except sections 104 and 109").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. The point is a very simple one. My noble friend put the argument when we debated Clauses 104 and 109; namely, that it would not be appropriate for this clause to refer to Scotland. That is the intended aim of the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment seeks to apply in Scotland the provisions in Part II to all contracts not just those which are in writing. If a contract is so informal that there is absolutely no written agreement constituting it, I do not see that there is any need to impose a framework of conditions on the parties involved. I also believe, so far as possible, that we should seek to ensure that the coverage of provisions is the same both north and south of the Border.
Lord Dubs: It is too late to take issue with that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 264:
Page 82, leave out line 23 and insert ("sections 122 to 124 (financial assistance for regeneration and development), and").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 240. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 265 not moved.]
Clause 142, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 143 agreed to.
Clause 144 [Commencement]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 266:
Page 83, leave out line 11 and insert ("sections 122 to 125 (financial assistance for regeneration and development),").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 240. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 267 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 268 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 269:
Page 83, line 21, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 78. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 144, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause and schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Israeli Counter-Terrorism Measures
  Israeli Counter-Terrorism Measures
  Firearms Control and Human Rights
  Firearms Control and Human Rights
  Mr. Issa Ahmad Hassan Qambar
  Mr. Issa Ahmad Hassan Qambar
  Crimes against Humanity: Prosecution
  Crimes against Humanity: Prosecution
  Iraqi Refugees in Saudi Arabia: Assistance
  Iraqi Refugees in Saudi Arabia: Assistance
  General Affairs Council, 25th March
  General Affairs Council, 25th March
  The South West: Government Policy
  The South West: Government Policy
  European Defence: Policy
  European Defence: Policy
  Armed Forces: Attitude Survey
  Armed Forces: Attitude Survey
  Civil Service Posts: Irish and Commonwealth Citizens
  Civil Service Posts: Irish and Commonwealth Citizens
  Water Industry: Competition
  Water Industry: Competition
  Railway Safety Inspections
  Railway Safety Inspections
  Asylum Seekers: Local Authority Costs
  Asylum Seekers: Local Authority Costs
  Single Room Households, Gloucestershire
  Single Room Households, Gloucestershire
  Hazardous Waste Directive
  Hazardous Waste Directive
  Training for Work: Allowances to Ex-Offenders
  Training for Work: Allowances to Ex-Offenders
  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in the EU
  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in the EU
  Prison Service: Appointment of Director General
  Prison Service: Appointment of Director General
  Eurostar: Passport Inspections
  Eurostar: Passport Inspections
  Foreign Nationals Settled in the UK
  Foreign Nationals Settled in the UK
  Prison Population Growth and Prison Officer Numbers
  Prison Population Growth and Prison Officer Numbers
  Child Support Agency: Ombudsman's Report
  Child Support Agency: Ombudsman's Report
  Child Support Agency: Consolatory Payment for Error
  Child Support Agency: Consolatory Payment for Error
  Child Support Agency: Complaints Service
  Child Support Agency: Complaints Service
  Unmarried Couples: Identification Criteria
  Unmarried Couples: Identification Criteria
  Public Sector Debt
  Public Sector Debt
  UK Capital Spending
  UK Capital Spending