Sitting of 8 February 1996

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

    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That the Promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
    That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
    That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as were made by him in the last Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    To be considered again on Thursday 15 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY

    Budget Deficit
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the United Kingdom's budget deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product; and if he will publish equivalent figures for other states in the European Union. [12671]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The UK's general government financial deficit for 1995–96 is forecast at 4¾ per cent. of GDP. In 1995, six European Union countries had lower budget deficits as a proportion of GDP than the UK, and eight had higher.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does that not show that Britain has
    452
    achieved a position at the top of the tree in relation to the budget deficit as a percentage of GDP? Will he acknowledge, however, that that is not the only statistic where we lead in the European Union? Will he confirm that, although our unemployment continues to fall, today Germany has announced that its unemployment has increased to 4 million?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. We are reducing our fiscal deficit faster than any other major European country and today Germany has unfortunately announced that its unemployment has gone above 4 billion—I mean 4 million. [Interruption.] Let the Opposition take it as a warning. One of the main reasons why unemployment has risen in Germany is that it is suffering from a social chapter and all the additional on-costs on employment that this country has avoided.
    Mr. Shore: We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is hellbent on reaching the 3 per cent. of GDP borrowing requirement—one of the essential criteria—at the earliest possible moment, but what does he now say to his colleagues in the European Union, especially Germany, which has just reported a 4.1 million unemployment level? In those circumstances, will he urge it to cut its public expenditure further and to raise taxation so that it can conform next year to the 3 per cent. of GDP borrowing requirement criterion?
    Mr. Clarke: I am a strong advocate of getting down towards a balanced budget and of low inflation. They happen to be the Maastricht criteria as well, but as we move towards achieving them it is doing no harm to this country's economy. Sound Conservative policies are giving us the fastest growth of any major European country and falling unemployment. The problems in Germany and France are that they have not made the structural changes in their economies that a Conservative Government have been making in our economy for the past 16 years. Those two countries need more privatisation, less Government intervention, no social chapter, no minimum wage, a flexible labour market and the conditions for enterprise that we have put in place.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that convergence of budget deficits is not the key factor determining whether a single currency would work, but that much more important is a convergence of business cycles, for instance?
    Mr. Clarke: Yes, I do. The criteria are important. I am one of the people who argue that, if economic and monetary union is to go ahead, it is important to have strict adherence to the criteria on budget deficit, inflation, GDP-debt ratio, and so on. I have also frequently said, however, that the countries should go into economic and monetary union only if they are genuinely compatible with each other in other ways and would benefit from doing so. That includes being in the same stage of the business cycles, as my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: If the reports that the Government are to announce today—that public sector pay awards are to be about 4 per cent.—are correct, will the Chancellor explain how that will be funded, welcome as it may be to public sector employees whose pay has

    453
    been squeezed? Following, for example, the local authorities settlement, does such an award not inevitably mean that other services will have to be cut or that teachers will be made redundant? Does that not add to the crisis facing many national health service trusts, which are unable to meet their current demands, never mind such a pay award?
    Mr. Clarke: With respect, the hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reporting to the House on the review body's report, which he will do this afternoon, but we have had a straightforward, successful approach to pay for several years. We take the view that, in the public sector as in the private sector, pay settlements should be affordable and fair and should reflect the low inflation culture that we have created, but the hon. Gentleman must wait for the proper announcement from my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the United Kingdom's position relative to other European countries is much better than the statistics that he has announced might suggest, because many other countries in Europe do not take unfunded pension liabilities into account when they calculate their budget deficits? If a common accounting basis were used throughout Europe, would not our budget deficit position be shown to be infinitely better than those of other countries?
    Mr. Clarke: Actually, for the purposes of European comparisons we endeavour to compare fiscal deficits on the same basis. Where other countries' accounting methods differ—they do not differ too much—there are moves to bring them on to the same basis. But my hon. Friend is right about funded pensions. When one looks forward and tries to judge the economic potential of a country, it is important to know to what extent it faces what is known as a demographic time bomb, especially if that will turn into unfunded pension demands that future working populations will have to pay. We have anticipated that possibility, with all the changes that we have made to pensions policy through the 1980s and into the 1990s. Our occupational pensions funds exceed the pension funds available to the whole of the rest of Europe, and we shall continue to ensure that we leave our successors a pensions liability that can be afforded and is properly funded.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: The Prime Minister has said that public spending should fall to 35 per cent. of national income; the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said the same. Does the Chancellor agree with the Prime Minister that that should happen—yes or no?
    Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman would do the Prime Minister the courtesy of reading the quotations from him in The Sunday Telegraph, and also read the full text of what I said to the journalists from the Financial Times, he would find that the two are indistinguishable. The Prime Minister's remarks and mine could be swapped with each other. We have a clearly stated policy, which we have both enunciated, of a 40 per cent. target, and beyond that to go as far as we can. The 40 per cent. will be hit in 1997–98. If we continue to restrain growth in public expenditure below the growth in the economy, a steadily
    454
    declining share of GDP will be taken by the state. The Government are achieving that, and the high-tax, high-spending policies of the Labour party would take us in the opposite direction, as they always have in the past.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although the current budget deficit figures are good in terms of international league tables, the cumulative figures are even better? If we consider the total weight of debt in accumulated budget deficits as a percentage of GDP, on which interest will have to be paid by future generations, is not this country almost the best in the developed world?
    Mr. Clarke: I can give a short answer. My hon. Friend is exactly right and puts his point clearly. The fact that we are steadily reducing our fiscal deficit means that we shall be on target to reduce debt as a proportion of GDP, and therefore to continue to reduce the burden of debt interest, as we have done in our period in office, which leaves room for economic growth and for other public expenditure, too.
    Following is the table:

    General government financial deficit as a per cent. of GDP in 1995

    Country

    Per cent.

    Belgium

    4.5

    Denmark

    2.0

    Germany1

    3.6

    Greece

    9.3

    Spain

    5.9

    France

    5.0

    Ireland

    2.7

    Italy

    7.4

    Luxembourg

    -0.4

    Netherlands

    3.1

    Austria

    5.5

    Portugal

    5.4

    Finland

    5.4

    Sweden

    7.0

    Note: Estimates from "European Economy", supplement A, Economic Trends, No. 12, December 1995.
    1 German figure for 1995 is its latest estimated outturn.

    Takeovers (Special Dividends)
    Mr. Pearson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the use of special dividends in takeover bids; and if he will make a statement. [12673]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has received a handful of letters on this subject, including one from the hon. Gentleman. These are receiving attention.
    Mr. Pearson: When City financiers freely admit that the use of huge special dividends is a tax abuse, when the Financial Times says that no public interest in served by the loophole whereby the taxpayer subsidises corporate raiders and when The Times calls the practice an outrage and a state bribe, why are the Government doing nothing about it? When will they act to close the loophole which may already have cost the British taxpayer £200 million?
    Mr. Jack: I understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman articulates, on behalf of those who may not understand the basis on which the mechanism is used. He will realise that, put simply, any dividend, whether special or not, is paid out of already taxed profits. So there cannot be the tax loophole that he identifies. If he is uncomfortable about the process of bids being made by one company to take over another, that shows his fundamental discomfort with the marketplace.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that there are many more shareholders in this country than there were when the Conservative party came to office is a very welcome development in our society?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is, as always, absolutely right on that point. When we came to office, there were 3 million shareholders; there are now 10 million. All the policies that enabled that increase to take place were opposed by Labour. Those shareholders now look forward to dividends without double taxation—a policy introduced by the Conservative Government. The Labour Government, on the other hand, believed in double taxation on dividends.

    Budget Statement (Leeds)
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the impact of his 1995 Budget statement on Leeds. [12674]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has received a number of representations since he made his Budget statement in November from all parts of the country, welcoming the measures in the Budget.
    Mr. Battle: Ministers may be content to reel off average figures, but is the Economic Secretary aware that the pay rates of thousands of workers in Leeds are still the lowest in the country? Some of my constituents earn well below £2.50 an hour and they have been hit hard by Tory tax rises for years. Is it not the case that it is not only the unemployed who are paying a high price for the Government's economic policies but thousands of people in work who are seeing their living standards fall?
    Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman may care to learn that a family on average earnings is expected to be £4,500, or 40 per cent., better off next year than in 1978–79. When Labour was in power, real take-home pay grew not by 40 per cent. or 30 per cent., but by a miserly 1 per cent. Unemployment has fallen in Leeds in his constituency in the past year, and I hope that he will welcome that.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. It is to be regretted that the Minister widened what was a narrow question by her answer. I call Mr. Marshall, as the question was widened by the Minister.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will not the Budget lead to a £9 a week increase in real take-home pay and a reduction in unemployment in Leeds and elsewhere in the United
    456
    Kingdom, as well as faster economic growth in Leeds and elsewhere in the United Kingdom than in other countries in Europe?
    Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend is correct. I look forward to the people of Leeds enjoying the benefits of the Conservative Government's economic policies. I only hope that the Labour-controlled local authority in Leeds runs the city rather better in the future than it does at present.
    Ms Primarolo: What representations has the Minister received about regard the Deputy Prime Minister's endorsement of the late payment of bills, a practice that wreaks havoc on small businesses in Leeds and elsewhere? Will she condemn that practice? When do the Government intend to bring forward legislation to introduce a legal right to interest on late payment? Will the Government continue to string the business community along?
    Mrs. Knight: This question seems to have become extraordinarily wide. If the hon. Lady had ever run her own business, she would have found that there are both good times and bad times, and sometimes it is harder to pay the bills than others. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Wait a moment.
    Regarding interest on the late payment of debt, the organisations that represent small businesses are undecided about the route they wish the Government to pursue. I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government are determined to support small and large businesses, and our economic policies have proven just that.
    Mr. Pickles: With reference to the low paid in Leeds, has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to look at the statement from Unison on recent pay rises? Has she noticed the number of low-paid people in local authorities, particularly Labour authorities, including Leeds? Given that those authorities—particularly Leeds—support a national minimum wage, does she agree that this is a clear case of Labour saying one thing and doing another?
    Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. He may also be interested to know that, in Leeds, the local authority has decided to pass a lot of money into the reserves rather than spending it on services to the benefit of people in the city.

    Landfill Tax
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the economic impact of introducing a landfill tax. [12675]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The landfill tax will encourage the minimisation, re-use and recovery of value from waste where it is economically efficient to do so. Since the revenue will allow the main rate of employer's national insurance contributions to be reduced, the tax will provide for a further boost to employment.
    Mrs. Kennedy: Does the Minister agree that, notwithstanding adjustments to the standard spending

    457
    assessment, the cost of the new tax will fall heavily on local authorities, which will find that the cuts in national insurance will not fully compensate for the new tax? Does she also agree that the people of Liverpool will face an extra burden of £1.5 million a year on their council tax bills? Is that not another example of a new Tory tax on an already overburdened people?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Local authorities will see a reduction in their national insurance contributions. As many of their services are labour-intensive, they will benefit in that way. Obviously, it is the instinct of Liverpool council to pass everything on to the ratepayer. That is not the instinct of Conservative councils. They will be in a good position to reduce the amount of waste that they send to landfill by seeking alternatives, such as re-use and recycling, which will reduce the amount of tax that they pay while they get the benefit of the national insurance contribution cut.
    Mr. Renton: Is it the intention that the landfill tax should be paid by a local authority, if it has to move thousands of tonnes of waste from where the authority put it 10 years ago to another site? May I warn my hon. Friend that an extension to the Bluebell railway line in my constituency, which is loved by railway buffs and is an important tourist attraction in Sussex, may not be able to proceed if the answer to my first question is yes?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I will clearly have to look into the Bluebell line, because I would not want to inhibit my right hon. Friend's project. I can confirm that, in principle, it is a rule of the tax that all controlled waste sent to a registered landfill site will bear tax at an appropriate rate.

    Incomes
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on real personal disposable income levels in the United Kingdom between January and December 1995. [12677]
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Treasury's most recent estimate for the level of real personal disposable income in 1995. [12646]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Waldegrave): Last November's Budget forecast showed real personal disposable income rising by 2 per cent. in 1995. We do not yet have the final figures.
    Mr. Miller: Is it not the case that, after tax and inflation, someone on average earnings will see his or her real income fall by the sharpest rate in 1995 since 1981, or is it that the only real disposable income in which the Government are interested is that of the likes of Cedric Brown?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is partly right and partly wrong. It is true that people's take-home pay fell last year. That is because earnings were restrained. That was responsible behaviour by trade unions and employers, which helped to cause unemployment to fall fast. None the less, real personal disposable income rose sharply last year. I guess that the hon. Gentleman does not
    458
    understand that dividend income, which goes into pension funds that belong to people, has risen sharply, so people are better off in the assets they own.
    Mr. Mudie: The Minister's figures disguise the fact that the typical family is £800 a week worse off this year because of tax increases and that, despite the changes in the Budget, the family will be £670 a year worse off because of tax increases. In view of the fact that the Conservatives committed themselves, on page 5 of their manifesto, to reducing taxation further, are those tax increases incompetence or straightforward deceit?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the hon. Gentleman got the decimal point in the wrong place when he was talking about £800 a week. He is on very weak ground. Take-home pay increased by 1 per cent. during the whole period of the last Labour Government. It has increased by not far short of 50 per cent. under the Conservative Government since 1979. That is very weak ground for the Opposition parties to try to fight on.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the important thing is how this country has helped those who were unfortunate enough to be affected by the recession and that it is rich for the Opposition, who are always telling the Government to act, to complain when the Government have done so? They should consider how that is reflected in our performance when compared with that of every other European Union country.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. In a recession, it was right to protect public services. If we had not taken the tough steps that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took to correct the budget deficit afterwards, we would be facing a serious situation. The implication of the Labour party's questions is that Labour would not have put taxes up, in which case the debts would have been completely unsupportable. That is a nonsensical policy, like many of those put forward on the economy by the Labour party.
    Mr. Viggers: Is it not true that, by their firm action on the economy, the Government have held down interest rates and provided the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years? Will that not have a significant effect on disposable incomes? Has my right hon. Friend had any representations on interest rates from the Opposition?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Opposition policy on interest rates is an enigma wrapped in a mystery; they never tell us whether rates should move higher, lower or sideways. They have no views on the matter whatsoever. It is true that the firm handling of these matters by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has meant that we have the lowest mortgage rates for a generation, inflation is in effect at its lowest rate since the war and the economy is growing faster than those of its main competitors in Europe. That is a formidable record.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Is it not the truth that the very assumptions behind the Government's claim that people are an extra £9 a week better off in terms of living standards have been shot to pieces, on the one hand by the Government's driving up taxes and charges—putting up rail fares, driving up the council tax by at least

    459
    8 per cent., as the Chief Secretary admitted, and with prescription charges going up as well, as we will see today—and, on the other hand, by the fact that millions of public sector workers will not now receive a full 4 per cent. increase in 1996? Those are the very figures on which the Chancellor's assumptions were based. Is it not the case that living standards are not safe with the Conservatives and that the £9 a week claim is yet another broken Conservative promise?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I can answer that very shortly. The answer is no, because the forecast took into account the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he wants to fight on living standards rises under different Governments, he is on the weakest possible ground for Labour. There was complete stagnation in take-home pay under the last Labour Government.

    Economic Growth
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the rate of growth of the economy in the current and next years. [12680]
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I expect the economy to grow by 3 per cent. in 1996 and by 3¼ per cent. in the year to the first half of 1997.
    Mr. Coombs: Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to tell the House where those excellent figures put Britain in the league tables for growth both in Europe and among the Group of Seven countries? What advice would he offer to other Governments, and to those who yearn for Government, on the best way of maintaining such levels of sustainable growth?
    Mr. Clarke: We have had the fastest growth of any major European country since the recovery started in 1992 and we are likely to continue to achieve that. Forecasting is always a difficult business, but I suspect that we are likely to have the fastest growth in the G7. That is because of the combination of policies that we are putting in place and the excellent competitive position that British industry has achieved.
    Mr. MacShane: If growth is so superlative, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell the House why the CBI has said this morning that exports are falling across all regions? Why is Jaguar laying off, or putting on short time, 1,000 people? Why is the steel industry having to go on to short time? What is the gap between the rhetoric of the Chancellor and the reality of an ever-declining manufacturing base in this country?
    Mr. Clarke: The reason our exports are not doing so well is that other countries are not doing as well we are. When France, Germany and, to a certain extent, the United States of America do not achieve the sort of growth that we achieve, their markets do not expand quickly enough for our competitive exports to perform quite so well. Nevertheless, we expect—as does everybody—an increase in disposable consumer income this year. Everyone accepts that conditions for investment are very good. Manufacturing investment went up by 12 per cent. last year alone. It could achieve at least that this year. It is not true that we have a declining
    460
    manufacturing base; manufacturing is continuing to do extremely well in this country and will do better when other countries begin to match our performance and provide the markets for our goods and services again.
    Mr. John Townend: If there is any danger of the Government not achieving their 3 per cent. growth targets, will my hon. and learned Friend not hesitate to make further reductions in interest rates? I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating him on how he has dealt with interest rates over the past 12 months.
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's last point. We set interest rates in order to achieve the inflation target and we shall continue to set interest rates on that basis. That is why—I think that everyone now accepts this—we shall achieve our 2½ per cent. inflation target by the end of this Parliament. We shall keep the target at 2½ per cent. or below during the next Parliament. Low inflation is helping to create the competitive position of British industry, the new jobs that the economy is creating, and the steady and continuous fall in unemployment that we have seen over the past 18 months.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Is it not true that Britain is floundering, and that the truth is a long way from the rosy picture painted by the Chancellor? Growth is lower than the Government predicted last year; Professor Patrick Minford—a Government adviser—said today that it will be less than 2 per cent. this year. Non-oil growth since 1979 has averaged 1.7 per cent.—the worst record of any post-war Government. Britain has fallen from 13th to 18th place in the international prosperity league. The reason for that is that Tory economic incompetence has let down the hard work of the British people.
    Mr. Clarke: The sadness for the hon. Gentleman is that he knows perfectly well that the truth is as I have just described it—it is difficult for a party in opposition, such as his own, to accept that. I am astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman pray in aid Patrick Minford, a man whom I have known and liked for many years; the two of us have never agreed on economic policy, as he is far to the right of me and far to the right of any of the wise men—or wise persons—who now advise me. One thing on which Patrick Minford and I are totally agreed is that the Labour party's recipe, with the social chapter, minimum wage, more Government intervention, higher tax and higher public spending, will be totally disastrous for this country and will put us way down any league table that anybody likes to produce.
    Mr. Yeo: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the estimates that he gave for the growth of our economy are based on an assumption that Britain will not be burdened with the obligations of the social chapter? Does he further agree that if we were to be burdened with those obligations, that would undermine our competitive position faster than any other single policy change and would reduce the prospects for cutting unemployment in this country more seriously than any other policy measure?
    Mr. Clarke: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. It is totally absurd for the Labour party to try to scoff at that argument. It makes an enormous difference to the jobs

    461
    market if extra non-wage costs are piled on to the employer. Extra costs on top of wages for an employer in France are more than double those in the United Kingdom, which is why France has unemployment of more than 10 per cent. and is troubled with problems, while the unemployment rate in this country is falling so steadily. That message must be spread across the rest of the continent—meanwhile, we are benefiting, with more than 500,000 new jobs and an unemployment rate which is already down by 750,000 from its peak.

    VAT (Tourism)
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much value added tax the Exchequer recovered from the tourism industry in (a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [12642]
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There are no reliable figures available on the amount of value added tax paid by the tourism industry. Some indication of the scale is given by the net VAT paid by hotels and similar businesses. In the three years to March 1995 this amounted to £614 million, £668 million and £727 million respectively.
    Mr. Llwyd: The Minister may be interested to know that I recently conducted in my constituency a wide survey of hoteliers and others involved in tourism. At the top of everyone's list was the problem of the imposition of 17.5 per cent. value added tax. That rate makes them uncompetitive compared with France, where it is 5.5 per cent.; Spain, where it is 7 per cent.; and Italy, where it is 9 per cent. Is it not time to review the imposition and the rate of VAT on our tourism industry?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The tourism industry has to pay tax just like any other industry—in some member states it is paid at a higher rate and in some it is paid at a lower rate. The tourism industry in this country is doing well. I am advised that in 1994, there were 21 million visitors to the United Kingdom—that figure was up on the previous year, and on the year before that. The industry does not need and will not get a tax privilege. The best thing that Governments can do is to stay out of the way, to stop over-regulation and to try to lower taxes generally, not just on tourism.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Tourism is extremely important for small businesses, especially small businesses of Ribble Valley. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great boosts to tourism is fighting hard to ensure that our small businesses involved in tourism do not suffer from the imposition of the minimum wage or the social chapter?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes. Tourism is, classically, an industry that would suffer from over-regulation and red tape, whether it came from an opposition party or by the back door from the European Community. We are, therefore, adamant in keeping the social chapter out of Britain so that it does not restrict the highly successful growth of the tourism industry noticed by my hon. Friend.

    Fuel Tax
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent estimate he has made of revenues accruing from the increases in fuel tax in the next 12 months. [12644]
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The figures published at the time of the Budget show that the 5 per cent. increase in road fuel duties previously announced and confirmed in the Budget will raise £1,475 million in 1996–97, compared to a non-indexed base, and £850 million compared to an indexed base.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware of the increase in bus fares and other travel charges as a direct result of the increase in fuel tax? Is he also aware that the people who suffer most from that are pensioners, widows and families on low incomes? Does he accept that the increase is a further hidden tax introduced by this Government, which only confirms that the Conservatives are the party of higher taxation?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The transport industry generally must bear its share of any increase in road fuel duties, which were pre-announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. The hon. Gentleman will, however, know that the fuel rebate to the transport industry, and to the bus industry in particular, is still valuable. The help and subsidies given by local authorities mean that buses are still a subsidised form of transport.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if he travelled in Europe, he would find that petrol and diesel are considerably more expensive than they are in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, I can confirm that, despite the recent rise in petrol duty, we still have about the lowest excise duty rates on petrol of any European Union country.
    Mrs. Fyfe: In view of the severe weather experienced in some parts of the country, now and in the recent past, the Treasury must have an unexpected gain from spending on domestic fuel—not so much a windfall gain as a snowfall gain. Can the Minister estimate how much the Treasury has gained from the necessity to spend more on domestic fuel?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Cold weather payments are available and have been paid during periods of cold weather. The hon. Lady knows that help is given where it is most required.

    Economic Growth
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give official growth forecasts for 1996 for (a) the United Kingdom, (b) the EU and (c) Germany. [12645]
    Mr. Waldegrave: As set out in the November "Financial Statement and Budget Report", we expect the United Kingdom economy to grow by 3 per cent. in 1996.

    463
    The European Commission forecasts European Union growth of 2.6 per cent. in 1996, and the latest official forecast for growth in Germany in 1996 is 1.5 per cent.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the level of growth in this country will help the continued fall in unemployment? Is he aware that, in January, unemployment in France hit the 3 million mark and that it is forecast to hit 4 million this month in Germany? When before was British unemployment almost half that of Germany's? Is that not a ringing endorsement of the British Conservative approach of free markets and minimum labour regulation?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly agree with the implication of my hon. Friend's question. I do not think that there has been a time since records began when the relationship between British and German unemployment was so favourable to us. It is no benefit to us that the German economy is slowing down, but it cannot be denied— German leaders are now saying this—that the over-taxing and over-regulation of that economy is largely the cause of its slowing down.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Minister would not want me to nit-pick about the fact that the reunification of Germany has had a significant effect on the figures.
    How realistic are the targets for growth? Surely the Minister should wake up to the fact that manufacturing output is less now than it has been at any time since 1992 and that we appear to be heading for another deflation and another recession under the present Government.
    Mr. Waldegrave: It would be unwise of the hon. Gentleman to nit-pick in the way that he suggests, because unemployment in the former West Germany is increasing too, I am sorry to say, so his argument would be invalid.
    Growth in the United Kingdom in the coming year will outpace that in Germany and in most of our competitor countries. That is happening because the liberal economics that the Government have been following are right, and the type of mid-1960s so-called stakeholder economy favoured by the Labour party is producing exactly the wrong results.
    Mr. Forman: While I warmly welcome the figures given in my right hon. Friend's original answer, does he accept that we have the best possible chance of maintaining our comparative lead in the European Union if we give a high priority to continuing with our supply side policies—deregulation, privatisation and supply side reform?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly agree. I would quote in aid of my hon. Friend's argument the article by Gavyn Davies, an economist who is respected on both sides of the House, I believe, in The Independent on Monday 5 February, headed:
    "No reason to copy the fading German miracle".
    Copying the fading German miracle is exactly the policy of the Labour party—the old social consensus management schemes of the 1960s, which are producing the very problems out of which Germany needs to get.
    Mr. Darling: On growth forecasts, both the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary have told us that they believe that the public spending ratio should be 35 per cent. of GDP, but the Chancellor told the Financial Times that, in his judgment, 40 per cent. was the maximum that we should aim at. Which figure is right, and why cannot the Chancellor bring himself to mention the figure of 35 per cent.?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That is one of the most bogus of the Opposition's soundbites at the moment. It entirely depends on the timing. Let us get to 40 per cent. first and then, if the economy grows, as it continues to grow under the Tories, and if we restrain spending—my right hon. and learned Friend has been one of the toughest Chancellors in recent years in controlling spending—the proportion will fall further.

    Social Chapter
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from business leaders regarding the economic implications of the social chapter. [12648]
    Mr. Waldegrave: The overwhelming majority of British businesses support the Government's decision to reject the social chapter because of its adverse effects on jobs and prosperity.
    Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Tomorrow, a group of senior business men will publish their opinions on the economic implications of various EU policies, including the ludicrous social chapter and the single currency. Will my right hon. Friend examine that publication and consider carefully the opinions therein of those senior business men?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I shall certainly do so. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Confederation of British Industry survey of the year before last, which showed that the majority of companies firmly opposed the social policy measures then under discussion under the social chapter. I am sure that their opinions have not changed.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister recognise that the majority of people want a Government who want fair pay and working conditions, and that they will be glad when the present Government go?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that the majority of people want a fair chance to obtain jobs and that they know that they come in an enterprise economy, not an over-regulated, over-taxed economy, which the Labour party would give us, and did give us when the country had the misfortune to have a Labour Government.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main difference between the Government's approach to the social chapter and the opposition parties' approach to the social chapter is that we want to leave it up to individual firms to decide whether to take up parts of that legislation, whereas they want to impose it on everyone?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That is entirely right. I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition has joined us because he showed himself to be profoundly ignorant of what the social chapter meant when he spoke to the CBI about it.

    VAT (Charity Sales)
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the cost of zero rating for VAT purposes all sales by registered charities; and if he will make a statement. [12649]
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There are no official figures on which to base any firm estimates.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that disability charities play a vital role in helping disabled people, particularly with care in the community? That being so, is it not invidious that disability charities should be used as tax collecting agencies and have their work set back because of the level of value added tax that they must pay?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I readily acknowledge the good work that is done by disability charities. They receive help through the tax system, such as relief from business rates. The whole charitable sector receives tax relief of more than £1.5 billion per year. The hon. Gentleman will accept that VAT is a broad-based tax. It would be wrong to give charities total tax relief on their business activities, which in some cases are in competition with ordinary commercial activities.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that charities have suffered as a result of the decline in the level of tax that they can recover on covenants, the imposition of VAT at the point of sale, and the triple whammy of the loss of money to the lottery?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I do not think that that is a decisive objection to our aim of, and achievements in, lowering taxes generally. The hon. Gentleman will know that lottery funding is welcome and has benefited a great many charities and at least counters any drop in revenue that is experienced across the sector.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February. [12661]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Conservative and Unionist party will always stand four-square behind the Union? Is it not the case that the British constitution has evolved over centuries, but that it could take a matter of months for a meddling, middle-class public school boy to undermine or even destroy it?
    The Prime Minister: We have made some evolutionary changes to the constitution in recent years,
    466
    and I believe that there is scope for more evolutionary change in the years ahead. I do not believe that large-scale changes that would significantly alter the face of the United Kingdom and the Union as we know it are in the interests of the United Kingdom. Frankly, I believe that many of the plans that have been put forward do not address the difficulties.
    I see no reason why Scotland should be taxed more highly than the rest of the United Kingdom. Neither do I see any reason why Scottish Members should vote on Scottish matters that English Members cannot vote on, and then vote in the House on the same matters as they affect England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Those issues need very careful examination. I hope that they will receive that careful examination, as they clearly have not had it yet.
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent newspaper article about education by the Labour transport spokesman, which I shall quote— [Interruption.]—which I shall paraphrase. It refers to public schools producing more social cripples than any other form of education devised by man. Does my right hon. Friend believe that that is yet another veiled attack on the Labour leader and some of his Front-Bench colleagues, or is it simply another example of hypocrisy?
    The Prime Minister: I feel as though I am in an air raid shelter on this occasion, speaking as a grammar school boy. My hon. Friend should not be too hard on the hon. Member concerned. I think that Labour Members are required to put their children down for private school these days so that they can remain in the vanguard of Labour education policy.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree that the Scott inquiry was entirely fairly conducted and that no criticism can or should be made of its processes or procedures?
    The Prime Minister: As I said in the House on a previous occasion:
    "I asked Sir Richard to carry out the report and I have confidence that he will do so"—
    and has done so—
    "thoroughly."
    Mr. Blair: I must press the Prime Minister on that because he will know that, in the past few days, there has been a concerted attempt to rubbish the inquiry. Will he say unequivocally that he accepts that it was entirely fairly conducted?
    The Prime Minister: I just said to the right hon. Gentleman:
    "I asked Sir Richard to carry out the report and I have every confidence that he will do so"—
    and has done so—
    "thoroughly."
    The right hon. Gentleman is saying that neither he nor anybody else can comment fairly on the Scott report until people have had the opportunity to study it. I agree with that point, but it also applies to the past three years. It applies to the fact that the Opposition have made crude and blatant smears throughout those past three years without having had the evidence of the Scott report before

    467
    them. If, in his question, the right hon. Gentleman was making it clear that he believes that those were unjustified attacks without any evidence, I would be pleased for him to withdraw them now and make it clear that he will repudiate them.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister is not even prepared to say whether the report is fairly conducted. When he says that we should await the findings of the report, let me remind him that he and his Ministers will have had the report for eight days, that four Government Departments have units working on it and that we are to get it a few hours before publication. I am not asking him to comment on its findings, but on whether it was fairly conducted. He set up the inquiry. He chose Sir Richard Scott. Is he now prepared to state that he is confident that it was fairly conducted? If he does not say that, the final vestiges of respect will be removed from the Government.
    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. Gentleman had carefully prepared his third soundbite before my first answer, and I am tempted to refer him to the two answers I have just given. I made it clear that
    "I asked Sir Richard to carry out the report and I have confidence that he will do so"—
    and has done so—
    "thoroughly."—[Official Report, 6 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 15.]
    I have now said that three times. Will the right hon. Gentleman now stop preparing his soundbites in advance and listen to my answers before he prepares his questions?
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February. [12662]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Illsley: Why cannot the Prime Minister publish such an important document as the report of the Scott inquiry a few days before the statement on it next week so that the Opposition, and indeed the House, can be properly informed? Is it not disgraceful that a few Conservative Members will have had that report for eight days, but the rest of the House will receive it on the day of the statement?
    The Prime Minister: We plan to follow the precedents for a weighty report of this nature, and to permit Opposition spokesmen to see the report several hours before the statement is made. Of course, the House will also wish to study and comment on the report. That is why we propose to find time in Government time for an early debate on the report a few days after the statement has been made, once the whole House has had the opportunity to study the report and comment on it on the basis of detail, not of innuendo and smear, which has been the nature of the comments thus far from a number of Opposition Members.
    Dame Jill Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House of Lords provides a useful and important advisory service for this country at very little cost? It has
    468
    no power to overrule or frustrate the will of the House of Commons. Has my right hon. Friend heard of the old phrase, "If it ain't broke, don't mend it"?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that this House should treat constitutional reform of any sort with care and consideration, and examine what the outcome of that reform might be before being committed to it. I do not believe that the reforms proposed to the House of Lords are relevant to the problems and opportunities facing this country over the next five to 10 years. It seems to me that the reform in question is irrelevant—and intended to be a spiteful, thoughtless irrelevance.

    Campbell Soups
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit a Campbell Soups exhibition stand at a United Kingdom food trade fair. [12663]
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans at present to do so.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Prime Minister will be aware of the call for an international boycott of Campbell Soups and Fray Bentos products, arising out of the appalling decision by the company to close down the highly profitable Homepride plant in my constituency— having purchased it for £58.6 million only 11 weeks earlier. Are not the real stakeholders in Homepride not the greedy shareholders in America who do not give a damn about the people of Maryport, but the work force who have invested their lives in making that company a success and who are now being put on the scrap heap? Will the Prime Minister join the 341 Members of Parliament—a majority of this House—who have called on the company to reverse its decision?
    The Prime Minister: I realise the extent of the disappointment that must be felt at Maryport over the decision. I understand that Campbell's has offered employees jobs at one of its five other plants—although, self-evidently, that will not be appropriate for many employees. I also understand the depth of the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents, but I hope that he and everyone else will bear in mind the fact that Campbell's has been in the United Kingdom for over 30 years. It employs more than 2,000 people here and has shown its commitment to the United Kingdom by investing more than £100 million here in the past 12 months. I would not wish to threaten and damage those investments, or the jobs that are safeguarded and are being created as a result of those investments.

    Engagements
    Mr. Chidgey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February. [12664]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Chidgey: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Social Security Secretary, who has described today's proposed cuts of £1 billion in the social security budget as devastating?
    The Prime Minister: That is in no sense what my right hon. Friend has said about the outcome of the public expenditure round. The whole House will recall that, in recent weeks, I have been criticised by the Opposition for administrative costs being too high. Here we have a practical illustration of the Government seeking to cut administrative costs, in the interests of the taxpayer, to preserve the resources available for benefits—yet on that point the Opposition criticise me as well.
    The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind: does he criticise the Government for not cutting administrative costs or for making administrative savings? Even though he is a Liberal Democrat, he cannot have it both ways.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the height of hypocrisy to maintain that one is committed to the elimination of state subsidy and then to do the reverse? Do not the recent decisions by the Transport Commissioner show that the Labour party— whether old Labour or new Labour, in Westminster or in Brussels—is committed to state subsidy and to Spanish practices?
    The Prime Minister: The whole House will know of our concern about the Iberia decision. It is certainly not in the interests of the air travellers of Europe, and we have made that known to Commissioner Kinnock and to others.
    Mr. Hoon: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 8 February. [12665]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hoon: In a statement to the House about the setting up of the Scott inquiry, the Attorney-General
    470
    stated that matters of form and procedure were a question for the learned judge. Why will not the Prime Minister condemn unequivocally those, such as Lord Howe, who have sought to impugn the integrity of the learned judge and to attack the contents of his report before publication?
    The Prime Minister: On attacks on the contents of the report, if anyone has predetermined what the contents of the report might be, it is the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and not my noble Friend Lord Howe.
    On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I refer him to what I said on 13 January 1994 at column 332.
    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of Lord Palmerston, who said that to be born British is like winning the lottery of life? Will my right hon. Friend now go further and say that to be born or to live in Milton Keynes is like winning the national lottery, and join me in welcoming the grant of £19 million to build what will undoubtedly be the best theatre outside London?
    The Prime Minister: There may be some challenges about the scheme being the best theatre, but I know that my hon. Friend is proud of the scheme and I congratulate him on it.
    As for being proud of being British, I just hope that we do not reach the situation where to live in Scotland is to lose the lottery of taxation because it has to face extra taxation and a tartan tax.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (5th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on ministerial responsibility. That will be followed by a debate entitled "The Effect of Government Financial Constraints on Local Government Services". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
Motion on section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act.
TUESDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (6th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the morale of NHS staff. That will be followed by a debate on the private security industry. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
WEDNESDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Security Service Bill.
Motion relating to the Local Government Reorganisation (Compensation for Loss of Remuneration) regulations.
THURSDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Motion to approve the agreement between the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the BBC.
FRIDAY 16 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
Motion on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) order.
In the following three days, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, I anticipate taking Government business, including the social security uprating orders. Friday 23 February will be a non-sitting day. On Monday 26 February I propose a debate on the Scott report on a motion for the Adjournment.
One other piece of information that the House might like to have is that, subject to the progress of business, I propose that the Whitsun recess will be from close of business on Wednesday 22 May until Tuesday 4 June.
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. I am sure that the House will welcome the final piece of information and the advance warning. I thank the right hon. Gentleman also for moving the debate on local government regulations from late on Tuesday evening to Wednesday. I think that that will be for the convenience of the House.
What further information can the Leader of the House give us in response to Madam Speaker's statement yesterday about access to the Scott report? Will he confirm that the Government are proposing that Her Majesty's Official Opposition should have only six hours' prior sight of the report next Thursday morning? What are the Government's intentions about providing access to the
472
report to Back-Bench Members, about which I could make some suggestions? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is in the spirit of Madam Speaker's statement yesterday that Ministers should have eight days to consider the report while the Opposition have only six hours?
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the debate that he has announced for a week on Monday will be a one-day debate or the start of a two-day debate? There has been some speculation about that.
The Leader of the House has announced that on Monday the House will debate EU matters covered by section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that that debate does not negate the need for a debate on the items recommended for consideration on the Floor of the House by a unanimous decision of the European scrutiny committees? That is a matter that I have raised with the right hon. Gentleman for the past three weeks. When does he expect that we shall be able to debate them? When can we expect the White Paper on the intergovernmental conference?
Perhaps the Leader of the House will tell us also when there will be further meetings of the European Standing Committees. They were meeting twice a week before Christmas and they still has outstanding business to consider, but it seems that since one of them passed a unanimous decision on the IGC documents, which was embarrassing to the Government, they have been closed down completely. What are the Government's plans for that Committee?
Does the Leader of the House recall the request that I made to him a fortnight ago for a debate on the waste of money due to the mismatch between social security payments and entitlements? Does the right hon. Gentleman think it appropriate to debate the Government's proposals to cut by 25 per cent. the administrative budget of the Department of Social Security? Surely the need for such a debate has become more urgent so that we can ascertain whether what the Secretary of State for Social Security described today as "process re-engineering" will undermine the Government's anti-fraud strategy. We need to debate that issue.
Finally, will the Leader of the House confirm or deny the suggestion that the Government have decided to press ahead with the privatisation of Her Majesty's Stationery Office without any further reference to the House? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the strength of feeling on the issue and will recall that when a debate took place—the House did not divide—right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House said explicitly that the privatisation process should not be finalised without the House being able to make a decision. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a final decision is taken by the House itself and not by Ministers behind closed doors?
Mr. Newton: That was rather a long list. Perhaps I might start by expressing my gratitude to the hon. Lady for her words about the recess announcement and about her response to the usual channels' representations about the local government order, which is now to be taken on Wednesday.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated a few minutes ago that the intention would be, in line with comparable reports in the past, that Opposition spokesmen

473
would be able to see the Scott Report some hours before publication. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] Hon. Members say "disgraceful", but if they take account of numerous precedents, they will find that what is proposed is properly in line with precedent. For Members of the House generally, I anticipate that—again in accordance with comparably weighty reports—the report will be made available when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade makes his statement, which I expect will be at 3.30.
On the debate for Monday 26 February, about which I gave the House early notice, I intended my announcement to be in respect of a one-day debate.
On European Community matters, which the hon. Lady raised, of course I acknowledge that the debate intended for Monday 12 February should not be a substitute for what is being pressed for by the European Standing Committees. We are still considering their recommendations and I hope to be able to respond shortly to the proposals.
On the IGC White Paper, about which the hon. Lady asked me last week, I cannot add to what I said then.
On scrutiny committees, I have written today to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and indicated that I hope to make further progress shortly.
On social security, again the hon. Lady will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. I can assume only that she, like the Liberal Democrats, who have consistently demanded that the Government reduce administrative costs, now wants a debate to press the Government to increase administrative costs, or at the very least to end the effort to keep those costs down. I see no reason to suppose that what my right hon. Friend proposes will in any way diminish or damage the drive against fraud.
On HMSO, as the House knows, there is no need for further parliamentary proceedings before a decision is made, and therefore I do not anticipate such proceedings.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend, who has shown himself to be a thoughtful and sensitive Leader of the House, think again about what he said about making the Scott report available? Is there not a case for allowing Back Benchers access to that report on an embargoed basis at least a few hours before it is discussed in the House? Is it not particularly important that the exchanges on that report should be sensible and based on fact?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend knows me well enough—he was kind enough to make some observations at the outset—to know that I would never simply reject out of hand such a request. I am bound to say, however, that I see the greatest difficulty, in that he asks for something that has no precedent in respect of any report, however weighty, and therefore I would not wish to encourage hopes that I might be able to respond in the way that he would wish.
Mr. Simon Hughes: As my hon. Friends and I have given the House an opportunity on Monday to debate the principle of ministerial responsibility, can the Leader of the House
474
confirm that the Minister who will speak in the debate on behalf of the Government will set out clearly the principles on which ministerial office is held in this country, and confirm that if the independent inquiry, which has the full confidence of the Prime Minister and was set up by the Government, finds that any Ministers have not discharged their responsibilities appropriately, they will, as has constitutionally been the custom in previous Administrations, leave office and resign?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. and hon. Friends who will speak in the debate on Monday will address the Government's policy on these matters with the clarity with which they always address matters.
Mr. Barry Field: May we have an early debate on the over-representation in the House of Members of Parliament from Scotland, for if the people of Scotland have the misfortune to have devolution thrust on them, surely the House would wish to know by how many the number of Scottish Members should be reduced to bring them into line with the rest of the Kingdom? Is there any mechanism in the existing bodies that are examining the representation of Members of Parliament in the House to postulate a hypothetical figure that would bring the number of Scottish Members into line with English representation?
Mr. Newton: I see no sign in the reported remarks of the Leader of the Opposition that those or any other questions have been considered. I am thinking particularly of the question of the tartan tax, and above all—I see the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) rising in his place—the West Lothian question, as it used to be called.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I believe that the Leader of the House is trying hard to protect the interests of ordinary Members, and I therefore beg him to reconsider his answer about HMSO. This is a House of Commons matter: it is fundamental to the House of Commons. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman emphatically to consider the views expressed yesterday by right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) about the reputation of his Government before allowing the matter to proceed without a debate on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady, too, put her question in very kind terms. She will have heard what I said earlier, but I shall of course reflect on the point that she has made.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: The report by Sir Richard Scott, commissioned by the Prime Minister, touches on the most basic responsibilities of the House. It deals with whether the House was misled by Ministers of the Crown, and whether the liberty of the citizen was put at risk by the use of public interest immunity certificates. Will the Leader of the House give careful consideration to whether hon. Members who are elected on an equal franchise, and on the basis of equal representation, may have the same access to the document as the leaders of the Labour party?
Mr. Newton: Again, my hon. Friend will have heard what I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). I am afraid that I cannot add to that.
Mr. John Garrett: Although, strictly speaking, there may be no need for a vote on the

475
privatisation of HMSO, does the right hon. Gentleman— as Leader of the House and defender of its interests— believe that, given the enormous importance of HMSO's services to the House, a vote is morally inevitable?
Mr. Newton: Again, I cannot add to what I have already said. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's constituency interest in the matter, but I hope that he will acknowledge that I took early action to enable the House to debate it, relatively soon after it had become an issue.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging a debate, in Government time, on private education, so that hon. Members can have an opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) on his decision to send his children to private school? In framing the motion for that debate, will my right hon. Friend draw on the words of the hon. Gentleman, who has said that he pays income tax at the higher rate to finance the state system, and is entitled to pay out of his own pocket to educate his children where he wishes? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Gentleman's right will always be protected under a Conservative Government?
Mr. Newton: I can certainly confirm that the right to choice in matters of education will be not only maintained but enhanced under a Conservative Government. As for the rest of my hon. Friend's question, I am sure that there will be further opportunities to debate educational matters, as we are to deal with at least two education Bills during the current Session.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision relating to the distribution of copies of the Scott report to Opposition Members? The report is unique in that it concerns the Government's conduct, particularly that of certain Cabinet Ministers, and we should all be able to read what has been said in advance. I give the right hon. Gentleman a guarantee: if Opposition Members get an advance copy, we shall not sell it for £1,000.
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said earlier, but I will say that, in my view, the time when it will be necessary for hon. Members to study the report thoroughly is when we come to debate it. That is why, although I have announced an early debate, I have allowed ample time for this very long report to be properly studied.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend make time soon for a debate on the Top Salaries Review Body considering Members' pay? I address his attention in particular to the fact that, if certain constitutional changes were to take place, Scottish Members would be unable to ask questions or work on matters that had been devolved to Scotland. Consequently, they would become part-time Members and that would surely influence salary levels and outside interests.
Mr. Newton: If my hon. Friend has in mind a proposal that Scottish Members should be paid less, he might care to put that to Sir Michael Perry.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As it is clear that the Leader of the House and other hon. Members have
476
concentrated their minds today on the scrutiny issue, may we have a statement next week on what seems to be the increasing abuse of planted questions on the Order Paper? I draw particular attention to today's Order Paper, which contains substantial questions relating to public service pay, prescription charges, safety on school buses and many other issues, including water authorities in Scotland. As a Scottish Member, I will be asked to comment by the press, who will no doubt be receiving the answers to those questions about now. I will not have seen them, although it is my duty as a Member of Parliament to scrutinise every aspect of Government legislation. Will he therefore deal with that serious issue quickly?
Mr. Newton: I shall consider the hon. Lady's point, but I am puzzled about how she puts it. There is nothing new about the practice of making announcements through written answers in the way that she appears to suggest is happening here. That has not caused difficulties in the past, and there is no reason why it should this afternoon.
Mr. Wilkinson: Repeatedly at Business Questions, including today, the issue of the scrutiny of European business has arisen. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, if there is a European ministerial Council in the period to 26 February, to which his statement refers, the Minister concerned will report back to the House in a statement? There should, for example, have been such a statement after the recent European Fisheries Council and there was not. That is a thoroughly bad precedent.
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's point. He will agree that it is right to consider such matters on a case-by-case basis, but there is a long history of statements being made when we thought it appropriate.
Mr. David Clelland: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate in Government time on their attitude to the emergency services? He will recall that, on Tuesday, the Prime Minister heaped praise on the fire service and talked of the selfless bravery of firefighters, yet the Government's financial settlement for Tyne and Wear fire authority has left it with a £2.3 million shortfall. Is that not an example of hypocrisy and of the Government saying one thing and doing another?
Mr. Newton: I need hardly say that I do not accept the argumentative thrust of the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I will bring his point on Tyne and Wear to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Bob Dunn: May we have an urgent early debate on the constitutional relationship between Members of Parliament and their constituents, given that some Opposition Members appear to have difficulty deciding where their loyalties lie? Is it to the people who elect them or to the unions who sponsor them?
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bear in mind that topic for debate as, alongside a number of other constitutional issues, a growing number of Opposition Members are not answering questions.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy (Glasgow, Rutherglen): Is the Leader of the House aware that, as a direct result of cuts

477
imposed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, the new City of Glasgow council faces cuts in services of more than £60 million to balance its budget? In view of the crisis facing that council and other councils in Scotland, will the Leader of the House undertake to consider next week's business and allocate some time to bring the Secretary of State here to try and justify his actions?
Mr. Newton: With the relatively new sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland as well as here, increased opportunities exist to bring such points to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I cannot promise to make such a specific opportunity available next week.
Mr. Harry Green way: May we have a debate next week on local government finance, so that the House can consider the certain imposition on the council tax budget of several hundred pounds per household across London, including my constituency, if we had the regional government suggested for this country by the Leader of the Opposition last night? Will my right hon. Friend note that when pressed for detail, as the leading article in the Evening Standard says today, the right hon. Gentleman's words "turn to wool"?
Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend that many unanswered questions remain on such matters. But I am not sure that I can promise an early debate on them, because we have just had one.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the National Audit Office report released earlier this week, which revealed that £40 million had been overpaid to training and enterprise councils? South Thames TEC, which is now in receivership, has received a bill for £9.7 million, largely for courses that were inappropriate or did not take place. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that other training agencies in my borough have not been paid for courses that were carried out? I draw his attention to early-day motions 380 and 381.
[That this House notes with concern the revelation by the National Audit Office that the receivers of South Thames TEC, which collapsed in 1994, have been sent a Bill for £9.7 million of overpayments by the Department of Employment for training courses which were never run or did not qualify for Government help; and contrasts this with the fact that some training organisations, including voluntary bodies, have not been paid for training courses which have been run and which were eligible for government grant.]
The second early-day motion reveals that moneys voted by Parliament for a specific purpose may be applied to a wholly unrelated debt, as a result of the actions of the Department of Education and Employment. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate on that issue at an early stage?
Mr. Newton: I shall ensure that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and I can tell him now that the receiver has been working with the Department to secure appropriate evidence and reduce the bill. Any payments to unsecured creditors are a matter for the receiver.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we, as a matter of urgency, have a debate on what is clearly a crisis in education provision in south-east London? About a fortnight ago we heard of a mother who had to reject all the schools in Labour Southwark and send her child to a grammar school in Conservative Bromley, and today evidence has emerged of a father who has severely criticised schools in Labour Lewisham and is sending his children to a private school. Clearly there is a crisis, but what is particularly odd about the crisis is where the evidence is coming from—both those parents are Labour Members of Parliament.
Mr. Newton: I look forward to my hon. Friend's contribution to subsequent debates on the Bill dealing with grant-maintained schools' borrowing powers.
Mr. Peter Shore: Does the Leader of the House recognise that the Scott report is of exceptional interest to hon. Members? Can he tell us when the report will be made available to Lobby and other journalists? If it can be made available to them under an embargo—and we know that as soon as they receive it they will start ringing up Members of Parliament for their comments—surely it would make sense to make copies available to Members at the same time as they are made available to the Lobby.
Mr. Newton: I do not expect copies to be made available to others before they are made available to Members of Parliament.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Can I persuade my right hon. Friend of the urgent need for a debate on the recent report by the chief inspector of schools? He will agree that too many pupils in state-controlled schools are not reaching their full potential. In the commentary on the report one point seems to have been missed—most education authorities are controlled by the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats. Should not the Government now say what they will do with those education authorities to secure value for money in the teaching of our children?
Mr. Newton: For some time the Government have been pursuing a range of policies to enhance and improve education standards in authorities of all kinds. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made some further announcements earlier this week.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Surely the biggest unanswered question in the House this week is why civil servants who were called to give evidence to the Scott inquiry have not received a copy of the report, although the Ministers in their Departments have. It is understandable that the Government would not wish Opposition Back Benchers to have copies of the report, but is it not indefensible, and a gross misuse of Government power, that civil servants who give dedicated service to the people of this country have been denied access, whereas their Ministers have received copies eight days in advance?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady will know that the arrangements have been agreed with Sir Richard Scott. The position as I understand it is that neither Ministers

479
nor civil servants have access to the report now unless they need it to help prepare the Government's response. There is no difference between the position of Ministers and the position of officials in that respect.
Mr. John Marshall: May we have an early debate on early-day motion 379?
[That this House notes with concern the Evening Standard's report on Islington Council, the local authority in which the Right honourable Member for Sedgefield has his home; understands that the council has been unable to calculate properly its own performance against national indicators, and has published inaccurate information in the local press as a result; notes that financial arrangements are unsatisfactory in several important respects; further understands that the council does not know the nature of its housing stock; congratulates the Evening Standard on its report; believes that the performance of the Labour-controlled authority in which the Right honourable Member resides exemplifies the reality of his party in power; and calls on him to deal with Labour's inability to run councils such as Islington before expressing readiness to govern Britain.]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the incompetence of Islington council demonstrates that new Labour is just as incompetent as old Labour? Anyone thinking of voting for new Labour would be well advised to look at Camden, Hackney, Islington and Lewisham, as they would then realise that new Labour is just as bad as old Labour, and— as has been said before—is hard Labour.
Mr. Newton: I am aware of early-day motion 379. The performance of Islington council is yet another warning to anyone who doubts the risks of allowing Labour to take control.
Mr. Bruce Grocott (The Wrekin): Although I am sure that no Opposition Member feels any personal hostility to the mistresses of Charles II, or to any of their descendants, we are baffled why they should have the same right to make laws as those of us who have been elected. In the light of the Cabinet's bizarre view—as expressed by the chairman of the Conservative party—that the continuation of the hereditary right to legislate is an essential part of British democracy as we know it, will the Leader of the House arrange for the right hon. Gentleman to come to the Dispatch Box and explain those views on behalf of the Government?
Mr. Newton: I would like the Leader of the Opposition to explain why he talks about the constitution without addressing any of the real issues, such as the tartan tax or the West Lothian question. Given that some 30 hereditary peers were among those who voted against the Government in the other place earlier this week, I am mildly surprised that there is so much hostility towards them among Opposition Members.
Mr. Harry Barnes: May I thank the Leader of the House for agreeing to meet some of my constituents from Clay Cross later today? May I also thank him for his replies to two previous business questions that I have raised about the work of the European Standing Committees. Perhaps I will be lucky for a third time. May we have a debate on the work of the compensation recovery unit? The unit takes away
480
masses of benefits that have been paid to people such as a constituent of mine from Grassmoor who received an award of £40,000 following two mining accidents, only to find that £22,000 of that was taken away. There is a threshold of £2,500 before money starts to be taken away, which results in many solicitors advising people only to take awards below that amount. A report on the matter by the Select Committee on Social Security has been produced, so it would be appropriate for us to have such a debate.
Mr. Newton: Having pleased the hon. Gentleman— somewhat unusually—in two requests, I would love to make it a hat-trick. All that I can say, however, is that the Government are carefully studying the Select Committee's report.
Mr. Gerald(St. Helens, South): Will the Leader of the House reconsider the length of time allocated to debate the Scott report on the Floor of the House? In an average debate—even when Madam Speaker imposes a 10-minute rule—the maximum number of speakers who can take part is fewer than 30, or less than 5 per cent. of the Members of the House. The time at which the report will be in the hands of ordinary Back-Bench Members will mean that their ability to ask pertinent questions following the statement of the President of the Board of Trade will be somewhat limited. As this is one of the most important reports since the Franks report in the 1980s and earlier reports in the 1940s and 1950s, would it not be fairer and wiser to extend the debate to perhaps two or three days?
Mr. Newton: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but many important matters are debated in the House on the basis of one-day debates and it is not uncommon for there to be debates in which not everyone who wishes can take part. I certainly cannot promise always to provide enough time in relation to any subject for everyone who would like to participate to do so.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the need for an urgent debate about the devastating changes proposed for the social welfare and support system? As a former Secretary of State for Social Security, he will know that in Tyne and Wear the present Secretary of State's statement puts more jobs at risk than all the jobs that we have lost in coal and shipbuilding in the area in the past 10 years.
Mr. Newton: The Department's aim is to try to improve efficiency in the delivery of the social security system by roughly a quarter in three years. Considering what is being said in other areas—for example in relation to national health service administration—it would seem entirely right that the Government should be trying to keep down administrative costs in the interests of expenditure, in this case on benefits, or, in the case of the NHS, on patient care.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Social Security to make a statement and justify why the War Pensions Agency is taking disability allowance away from war pensioners without there being any recourse

481
to an appeal procedure? Or is it just a scam by the Government to raise revenue, so that they can dish it out in tax cuts for the rich leading up to the next general election?
Mr. Newton: That question verges on the irresponsible. The hon. Gentleman must know that there is nothing new about the way in which the war pensions system operates, going back over many decades. The method of operation has not been changed significantly by the present Administration, apart from the creation of the agency. That said, I will bring his concern to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Leader of the House aware of all the significant developments that are, or could be, taking place in football? There is the possibility of a European Super League, the challenge to the deal between the Premier League, BSkyB and the BBC, and all the problems over the rulings on the transfer system. Those decisions are being taken by unelected people—general supporters have no input. There is no Parliament for football supporters. The people who are taking the decisions are self-appointed. Should we not have that debate here? We are the Parliament for football supporters and we should debate those developments. It would certainly please me and it might even please the Prime minister.
Mr. Newton: I have often thought that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would be rather good on some terraces, but, on the main thrust of the question, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) might like to consider applying for a Wednesday morning debate
Mr. Skinner: I used to play.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very good on the pitch, too. I do not think I would want to run into him, however. I used to play as well. Indeed, I was captain of football at school. Coming back to the question, if the hon. Member for Newham, North-West is proposing a debate on sport, I will add it to what I call my little list.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: At Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister talked about precedents. The Leader of the House has also talked about comparable precedents. What precedents does he have in mind? If it is the Franks report, I gave evidence for an hour and 25 minutes to Lord Franks and his colleagues and I assure the Leader of the House that there is no precedent there. First, what precedents does he have in mind?
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), did we hear the right hon. Gentleman wrong when he said that Ministers and civil servants would be treated in exactly the same way? Therefore, is a civil servant like Sir Stephen Egerton, who gave evidence to Scott, to get a copy of the report eight days before it appears, like the Chief Secretary to the Treasury? The relevant question that my hon. Friend asked was whether civil servants who may be criticised, like Sir Stephen Egerton, were going to be treated like Ministers. What is the answer? Will Sir Stephen Egerton,
482
whom I use as one example, get his report eight days beforehand? If he does not, the Minister's reply is misleading to the House, although doubtless he did not mean it to be.
Mr. Newton: If there is any question of something that I have said being misleading to the House, I will look into what the hon. Gentleman has said and correct it in an appropriate way. My understanding is that neither Ministers nor civil servants have access to the report now unless they need it to help prepare the Government's response. That is what has been agreed with the inquiry.
Mr. Dalyell: Ah!
Mr. Newton: That is what I said. That has been agreed with the inquiry, and any change to that position, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is urging, would similarly need to be discussed and agreed with the inquiry. On the first part of his question, the precedents that I had in mind were the Learmont report, the Nolan report and the report on Barings. I think that what I have suggested this afternoon would be broadly in line with what was done on those occasions.
Rev. Martin Smyth: While I welcome the fact that there will be a debate on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order, does the Leader of the House agree that that will be a wide-ranging rather than a specific debate? Would it be possible for a meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee to be called to consider hospital provision?
Mr. Newton: I cannot make such a promise at the moment, but the hon. Gentleman knows that we are considering the matter, following the representations that he and others have made. I rather doubt that we shall be able to resolve that before the debate that I have announced this afternoon.
Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that I asked last week for a debate on the disgraceful vandalism in schools in my constituency? He said that he would refer the matter to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Has he done so, and has he had a reply? He will be appalled, as I was, to learn that three more schools have been vandalised in my constituency in the past week—Wycliffe community college, New Parks community college and, perhaps worst of all, the Emily Forte special school. Those schools need protection, fencing and closed circuit television. They cannot get them without affecting the education of the youngsters. There should be Government money for that, and we should have a debate soon.
Mr. Newton: I understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—although I am not sure exactly when—to discuss some of those matters. I think that the points that he made last week have been—certainly, I asked that they should be—brought to my right hon. Friend's attention. I have a number of points that I could make to him, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend writes to him.
Mr. Mackinlay: May we have a debate in Government time about Government policy on cautioning offenders?

483
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I raised the matter last week and asked him to have a word with the Home Secretary about whether he would be prepared to answer questions on that during the debate on London policing. He failed to do that, other than to say that I had reached new depths of ignorance—which, of course, is Howardspeak for saying that I am correct.
We should have a debate because there is a Government circular on policy which will be of concern to Labour and Conservative Members. Policy is not being properly and equally applied. Replies have shown that 13 people were cautioned for rape in 1994. There is widespread concern that the Home Secretary is not on top of his brief on cautioning. May we have an early debate?
Mr. Newton: Anyone who thinks that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is not on top of his brief has not been paying close attention. I will certainly bring those further representations to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, who is due to answer questions this day week.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Can the Leader of the House assure me that the terms of reference of the debate on the Scott report will include not only what is in the report but what ought to be in it, and in particular, the fate of the ex-workers of Matrix Churchill, many of whom are constituents of mine or of my hon. Friends who represent Coventry? We want to be assured that we will be able to debate the circumstances that caused the loss of those employees' jobs—and the loss of income for their families—and the need for proper compensation, if that is what would be right as a result of the report.
Mr. Newton: Subject of course to your judgment Madam Speaker, it would be in order to raise in the debate anything that is considered relevant to the report or that arises from it.

Point of Order
4.14 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last year you were helpful and made a ruling that, when a parliamentary question affected an individual constituency, hon. Members should be given notice of it. As far as I know, Ministers have complied with that ruling. Today, during business questions, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) asked a similar question, on which I do not think you have ever been asked to reflect. She asked whether, when a written question is answered which directly affects a large number of hon. Members, the same sort of protection could be given so that we are aware of the answers before the rest of the world and do not face the difficulty that you dealt with last year.
That issue relates to the subject of reports, which was raised with the Leader of the House. I heard your ruling yesterday, Madam Speaker, and I know that reports to Ministers are clearly different, although, as Ministers are accountable to Parliament, those reports are made, indirectly, to Parliament. The Leader of the House gave an assurance that the report would be available to us at the same time as to the press. Perhaps you, Madam Speaker, could reflect on whether reports to Ministers could be encompassed in the same ruling as that on parliamentary answers that are of general interest.
Madam Speaker: On the hon. Gentleman's latter comments, I made my views clearly known yesterday and I have nothing further to add. I shall look at what he said in his earlier remarks, as I want to be helpful.
Mr. Newton: I confirm that I shall look at what the hon. Gentleman said.

Local Government Finance (Wales)
4.16 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1996–97 (House of Commons Paper No. 141), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss also the following motion:
That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1996–97 (House of Commons Paper No. 142), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
The finance report sets out my decisions on the local government revenue settlement for 1996–97. The standard spending assessments specified in the report have been calculated in accordance with a formula agreed with the local authority associations. The notional amounts report sets out the amounts in lieu of budget requirements for 1995–96, which I propose to use to measure the coming year's budget increases for the purposes of capping. Those notional amounts reflect historic spending patterns in unitary authority areas and preserve the spending power of the new authorities.
As the House will recall from my statement in December, I propose to allow total standard spending, or TSS, of £2.867 billion for local government in Wales in 1996–97. That is an increase of £85 million, or 3.1 per cent., on the previous year. It includes £331 million for the four Welsh police authorities— £2.463 billion in standard spending assessments for the 22 new unitary authorities, and £72 million in specific grants such as probation service grant and national park grant. Under my provisional capping criteria, each local authority in Wales can, if it sees fit, increase its expenditure in comparison with its notional amount by at least 3.4 per cent.
The settlement allows police spending to increase by 5.1 per cent., and follows an increase of more than 11 per cent. in police budgets last year. It corrects the historic underfunding of police services by county councils prior to 1995–96, and it enables Welsh police forces to build on their success in combating crime, and to make communities safer places in which to live and work. The chief constables of all four Welsh forces have welcomed the settlement.
I propose to provide £2.517 billion in central Government support, known as aggregate external finance or AEF, in support of total standard spending—an increase of £52 million, or 2.2 per cent., on the previous year. That amounts to £860 per person in Wales—about £130, or 18 per cent., more than the level planned for England. It is 87.8 per cent. of total standard spending, compared with 79 per cent. of total standard spending in England. AEF comprises £1.792 million in revenue support grant, £459 million in distributable non-domestic rates, £237.8 million in specific grants—which includes the police grant to be made by the Home Secretary—and £29 million for council tax damping to cover the impact of council tax increases arising from the disaggregation of budgets last year.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if local authorities increase their
486
expenditure in line with the likely 4 per cent. settlement for public sector pay, do not spend more than the expenditure limits recognised by the Welsh Office, and do not raise their council tax by more than the rate of inflation, they will still have a shortfall of several million pounds—as in the case of the new Caernarfonshire-Merionethshire authority? That would inevitably lead to the closure of rural schools, the retraction of care in the community services, and even the closure of leisure centres for two or three days a week. Is that not inevitable with this settlement?
Mr. Hague: The pay awards announcement will be made separately. I must tell the hon. Member that the settlement level for each authority is the product of the standard spending assessment formula, which is agreed with the local authority associations, the actual level of total standard spending and aggregate external finance, which I am setting out here.
If the hon. Gentleman or other hon. Members say that the amount of support that is given to an individual local authority should be different, they must argue that either the SSA formula should be changed or the total amount of support should be different. The hon. Member for Caernarfon may well be able to do that, but no one has yet told me what is the right amount for local government if the amount that I propose is wrong. I must pose that question to Opposition Members.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not rather disingenuous to say that the pay settlements are separate? They substantially impact on local authorities and on the amount of money available to them. For example, the Welsh Office has information about the effect of the previous teachers' pay settlement on teacher numbers. We know that the teacher settlement for the coming year is 3.8 per cent, which is bound to have an effect on the number of teachers in our schools. What estimate has the Welsh Office made of the likely reduction of teachers as a direct result of the settlement?
Mr. Hague: The total effect will not be 3.8 per cent., because of the way in which the Government propose to stage the increases. We are making a 3.1 per cent. increase in total standard spending and a 2.7 per cent. increase in the amount of money that the Government give to local authorities. That is more than the likely increase in the outturn of expenditure by the Welsh Office, which in turn is more than the increase in expenditure for the Government as a whole.
Local authorities are therefore receiving at least their full share of the increase in Government expenditure for the coming year. We are entitled to expect local authorities to make improvements and administrative savings that are similar to those made by central Government during the coming year, so that they can minimise the consequences for the council tax payer.
Mr. Peter Hain: The sophisticated presentation of the figures will not wash in Neath and Port Talbot, because the new authorities will have to make cuts of £7 million which have nothing to do with their own efficiency or attempts to reorganise services. This punitive, paltry and pathetic settlement will discriminate against the Neath and Port Talbot side of West Glamorgan, and will mean that some council tax payers—

487
in Trebanos village, for example—will pay £50 more than their neighbours across the road. The settlement has nothing to do with local decisions, and everything to do with the Secretary of State's failure to deal with the councils' complaints about this matter.
Mr. Hague: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Neath and Port Talbot is one of the authorities that benefit from the damping schemes that I have announced. The hon. Gentleman is an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, although in this debate he speaks from the Back Benches. Opposition Front-Bench Members have not been able to say—we wait with interest to discover whether they are able to tell us in this debate—what the settlement level should be. The hon. Gentleman thinks that the level I have announced is paltry. We look forward to hearing what the right amount would be, and we look forward to hearing the Labour party committing itself to it.
In addition to the revenue package that I have announced, I am providing local authorities with £508 million for capital programmes next year, and with £42 million towards the transitional costs of local government reorganisation. In all, local authorities will receive £83 million towards their transitional costs over the two years, from 1995 to 1997.
The responsibility for setting budgets and determining council tax levels lies with local authorities. Capping exists to enable me to restrain public expenditure, and capping rules acknowledge that, historically, the majority of Welsh local authorities—not all—have chosen to budget above the standard spending assessment.
However, provisional capping limits are not spending targets that I lay down. Local authorities have the discretion to set their budgets below capping limits, although many authorities seem to want to set their council tax as high as capping limits permit. That is one factor that the Opposition must consider when they advocate scrapping capping limits altogether. There would undoubtedly be an impact on council tax levels.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Surely the Secretary of State recognises that many local authorities have no alternative but to set their budgets at the capping level. If Anglesey county council, for example, had a standstill budget—the same budget as that allocated to Gwynedd and Ynys Mon last year—it would have a budget of £63 million. Under the capping arrangement, the council is not allowed to spend more than £61 million. What alternative does that give the county council? Is it not inevitable that services will suffer?
Mr. Hague: It is not good enough for people responsible for spending public money to say that they have no alternative to courses of action, such as the maximum level of taxation available to them. All of us who are responsible for spending public money have to use that money as efficiently and effectively as we can. I have announced the measures that we are taking in the Welsh Office, and I will refer to them again in a moment. Local authorities vary greatly in how good they are at spending their money efficiently and effectively. I will refer to the record of one or two authorities in a moment.
It was because I was concerned by reports that a majority of local authorities planned to budget up to the limit implied by my provisional capping principles that
488
I announced last week an additional targeted damping scheme. It will ensure that, excluding any increases in community council precepts, no council tax increase can exceed 25 per cent., and I expect the great majority of increases to be well below that level.
The sum involved in the scheme is additional to aggregate external finance. I want to direct the resources to where they are most needed. When taken with aggregate external finance, including the £29.1 million available for disaggregation damping, the total level of Government support for local government revenue spending is brought to £2.533 billion in Wales, which is an increase of 2.7 per cent. The figure is virtually identical to that in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Let us be honest. The Secretary of State knows by now that local government finance is not a science, and that it is a very inexact art. In this year above all years, with all the problems related to disaggregation, and with only notional sums being taken into account, should not the Secretary of State be far more flexible in relation to the capping limits? We may well find that mistakes have been made in the calculation, and that local authorities will have no alternative but to cut significantly services that, in the past, they would have been able to protect.
Mr. Hague: The capping limits this year are more flexible than they were in previous years. That is partly in recognition of the particular circumstances, although we are spending a great deal of money to fund the transitional costs for local government. The hon. Gentleman must remember that, when I make capping limits more flexible, the immediate response of local authorities is to say, "Right, we will spend all the way up to our capping limits, whatever that means for the council tax." I introduced an additional damping scheme in the light of that.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: Will the Secretary of State tell us something about the methodology used in the distribution of the extra moneys provided at the end of January, and tell us whether there was any consultative process to enable unitary authorities to make representations to him? Is it not unreasonable that no additional moneys remain available to the new Ceredigion county council, so that the band D council tax will be £508—£80 more than in Cardiff, which obtained an additional £3.6 million, even though the Ceredigion average income is far less? Is not the distribution extremely inequitable?
Mr. Hague: The decisions that I announced at the end of January 1996 were the result of a process of consultation on my original proposals. That consultation ended on 5 January 1996, so I announced the additional proposals when I had reviewed all responses to the consultation.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. Historically, council tax levels are higher in the area of his constituency, but I have targeted the additional help to places where council tax increases threaten to be the largest, because the anxieties that were expressed to me were overwhelmingly about the level of change that might take place, not the level that existed for historic reasons

489
and because of previous spending decisions, which we cannot go back and unravel now. I allocated the additional money on that basis.
Mr. Nigel Evans: As my right hon. Friend knows, I was a West Glamorgan county councillor for six years. During that time, I spoke to many people in West Glamorgan who were supremely grateful for the fact that the Government had capping in place, because the Labour county councillors were sweating with hope that, at some time, capping would be lifted, so that they could push spending through the roof. Yes, the people of Wales want their services to be protected, but we must do all we can to protect the people of Wales from high-spending Labour councillors.
Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend's experience has too often been the experience of councillors throughout the country. It has shown that, if we did not have capping principles, council tax would be dramatically higher, without necessarily bringing improved services to local populations.
Mr. Don Touhig rose—
Mr. Hague: I must make progress if we are to have time for hon. Members to take part in the debate.
I have been worried about reports of the possible closure of Theatr Clwyd, and I have carefully considered the case made to me and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), by the new Flintshire authority for additional help from central Government. I share its opinion that Theatr Clwyd should continue to provide the high-quality productions for which it is famous. I have decided to provide, via the Arts Council of Wales, a one-off grant of £1.3 million to pay off completely Theatr Clwyd's outstanding capital debt.
My offer is subject to satisfactory assurances from Flintshire and other successor authorities to Clwyd county council that they will give the theatre the support it needs to continue to operate on its present basis for the foreseeable future, and I need such assurances by 8 March 1996. That is a major contribution to securing the future viability of the theatre, and I hope that it will be welcomed by hon. Members.
Mr. David Hanson: As the Member of Parliament representing Mold, where Theatr Clwyd is situated, I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement. Flintshire county council, my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and I made strong representations to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), about the future of Theatr Clwyd. I am sure that today's announcement will give a kick start to the local authorities adjacent to Flintshire to help with those contributions.
It is a first step. There remains a major shortfall of perhaps £300,000 to £400,000, and I hope that the door will not be closed. We also need to consider the ability of the Secretary of State to kick-start the Arts Council of Wales as a "next steps" agency.
Mr. Hague: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. As he says, he and the hon. Member
490
for Alyn and Deeside made representations, as did my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) in the Whips Office, so there was concern on both sides of the House. The sum of £1.3 million in taxpayers' money to write off the theatre's debt completely is a major contribution. I now look to the authorities and others to ensure that the theatre continues to operate in the foreseeable future. That £1.3 million must be the limit of what the Government can provide.
Mr. Barry Jones: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and the right hon. Gentleman and his Parliamentary Under-Secretary for receiving the deputations and considering the strong case that we made. How can the Secretary of State persuade the English local authorities very close to Mold to help meet the £300,000 shortfall? Does he agree that Theatr Clwyd is the jewel in the crown of Welsh theatre production?
Mr. Hague: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. Local authorities in Wales and in England must make their own decisions about the support they give. However, I hope that the people responsible for the management and finances of the theatre will take every opportunity to market it effectively in the future, in terms of obtaining both support and custom. The Government have given the theatre an opportunity for the future, which we want to see it take up.
My settlement proposals give local government the resources it needs to maintain services in the first year of the new unitary arrangements. Inflation is low, and it is forecast to remain so. I acknowledge that difficult choices must often be made—that is true for all who are responsible for spending taxpayers' money. All councils must make every effort to use their resources as wisely as possible. Many councillors try to do that, but not all achieve it.
If we can believe what we read in the newspapers, one local authority—Rhondda Cynon Taff county borough council—proposes to spend more than £20,000 on a new mayoral chain. That is a large sum to spend when the mayor could make use of the regalia of one or more of his predecessors. When things such as that happen—albeit involving a relatively small amount of money—people are bound to question council priorities.
The same authority has ambitious plans for a new headquarters which will cost in excess of £20 million. Of course, the council needs a place to meet and the staff need a place to work, and the Government have assisted the council with accommodation for the time being. I recently announced support for six authorities which plan to build new accommodation or to upgrade existing buildings. However, those six authorities will spend less between them than that one authority plans to spend. Council tax payers have a right to ask for a more modest approach.
I do not want, or need, to single out that one authority: in some areas, leading councillors will be paid allowances as great as £23,000. The Blaenau Gwent county borough council is the 17th largest authority in Wales in population terms, but it has the fifth most expensive chief officers' structure. It has more chief officer posts than any authority, apart from Swansea county council, which serves three times the population.

491
Councillors in Blaenau Gwent have voted themselves allowances which are six times greater than those paid to the elected members of the old Blaenau Gwent authority. We are told that travel and subsistence will be paid in addition, but there is no requirement for councillors to turn up to meetings. That raises questions about the priorities of local government.
Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State will recall my suggestion that he follow the example set by his counterpart for Scotland and introduce a mandatory scheme to stop any existing abuses. I urge him to introduce such a mandatory scheme. If he is so minded, he will have the full support of the Opposition. If he is not, upon their election, a Labour Government will take action to stop any such abuses.
Mr. Hague: That is an interesting position. The hon. Gentleman has said that there should be mandatory schemes because councillors are not fit to decide their allowance arrangements, but he believes that capping should be abolished so that councillors can freely decide on the impositions to be placed on everyone else.
The hon. Gentleman's approach is inconsistent. The Government should not have to instruct local authorities about such matters: they should have the discretion to make those choices. Council tax payers who hear their local councils ask the Government for more money should question whether the councils are spending money wisely, and whether the expenditure is necessary.
Mr. Alun Michael: Does the Secretary of State therefore disagree with the Leader of the House, who announced that an independent means of setting Members' salaries was the right approach? Is it not the same principle that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) suggested should be carried into local government?
Mr. Hague: No, I do not think it is. We have a Welsh Office and a Secretary of State for Wales so that we can judge issues on their merits in Wales. That is what we are doing today.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hague: No, I must get on with my speech.
In the restraint of public expenditure, I am asking no more of local government than of other public sector borrowers. I informed the House in December of my plan to reduce my Department's running costs by 8 per cent. in cash terms over the next three years. Organisations that are responsible for large sums of public money have a duty rigorously to assess their spending priorities and their running costs.
Reorganisation has given Welsh local government a chance to improve management structures and strategies. Some new authorities have worked on establishing cost-effective management teams to provide taxpayers with better value for money, but others still have work to do. Preparing for reorganisation is a complex process. Much has been accomplished, but much remains to be done. In recognition of that, I am making more than £80 million available to fund transitional costs, but
492
for reorganisation of local government to work, we need management discipline as well as financial resources from central Government.
It is clear that we are providing increased resources to local government, that we are making special allowances for reorganisation, and that local authorities are responsible for council tax levels. Only one thing remains unclear—the alternative to the size and shape of the proposed settlement.
Some people have suggested alternatives. To be fair to them, the local authority associations suggested that I should reduce the budgets of the Cardiff Bay development corporation and the housing associations to provide more money for local government. That could in no way have paid for the 19 per cent. increase in revenue funding they sought, but at least they suggested some alternatives, and I respect them for that.
Plaid Cymru Members, some of whom have intervened, will probably suggest the alternative that there should be more money for the Welsh block overall. They would not be able to make that proposition were Wales not part of the United Kingdom, but they will probably advance it anyway, and it is one point of view. However, not everyone seems willing or able to suggest alternative numbers to those in the reports. Opposition Front-Bench Members are conspicuous among those unable to do so, although they are free with their opinions about other matters.
Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hague: I should finish my point.
It is 10 weeks since we published the proposals. It is hard to believe that the Opposition have not thought about what the settlement should be. If they have not thought about it, we are entitled to ask what they have been doing in the past 10 weeks. If they have thought about it, it is time that public were told their conclusions. Tonight, at 7 o'clock, I expect that they will vote against the proposals. If they do that, they must prefer something else. If they prefer something else, we are entitled to ask what it is. Would council tax be higher or lower?
Mrs. Clwyd: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether the Government intend to make a statement, and whether the Secretary of State knows that, in addition to increasing council tax, they will also tax those who are sick. The Government have sneaked through a answer saying that they intend to put 25p on the cost of prescriptions. That is disgraceful.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): It is quite clear to me that this is not a point of order. It is a point of information that the hon. Lady wishes to get over, and she has not been able to do it in any other way.
Mr. Hague: I shall not be distracted from asking Members who are against the settlement whether they think it should be higher or lower. We do not necessarily need exact numbers. They could tell us whether it should be a bit higher or much higher.
Where would they find resources in the Welsh block? Would they come from the health budget that I have increased, the training budget, to which I have directed money, the Countryside Council for Wales, whose budget

493
I have increased, the Welsh Development Agency, which has received an increase in its grant in aid, or, as the local authorities have suggested, the Cardiff Bay development corporation, although that would stop the barrage halfway through its completion?
The problems of financing local government spending would be worse, not better, were we to introduce even a small number of the specific proposals to which Opposition Members have put their names.
Mr. Ainger: Will the Minister give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is quite clear the that Minister is not giving way; therefore, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat quickly.
Mr. Hague: I have given way many times. I want to provide time for Members to take part in the debate, and for the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) to say what he thinks the settlement should be. I should point out that ending compulsory tendering, which is one Opposition policy, would worsen the problem of controlling local government spending. They could finance it by their other policy of ending capping, but that would undoubtedly mean that local authorities would choose to spend a great deal more, and council tax payers would have to pay for it.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hague: In fairness to all Members, I must continue my speech.
The settlement that I have announced gives local government a high priority within the Welsh block. It increases the resources available to local government, and it addresses the issues raised by reorganisation. The Opposition have presented no honest alternative, and on that basis I recommend it to the House for approval.
4.45 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State has been getting in some much-needed practice for his next job in opposition. He is far more concerned to talk about Opposition policies than about his own financial settlement. It is instructive that, although we are discussing a financial settlement dealing with the distribution of some £3 billion of public money, according to the Secretary of State the most important point is the cost of civic regalia in Rhondda Cynon Taff. That reveals his priorities.
The Secretary of State has tried to convey the message that the settlement is reasonable, that it will not lead to service cuts and that any unreasonable council tax increases will be the fault of local councils, not central Government. On all those counts, the truth is the exact opposite.
In reality, it is an unreasonable settlement at a time of economic slump. Despite their new responsibilities and a major reorganisation, councils in Wales will face a reduction in Government support. The settlement increases aggregate external finance by 2.2 per cent.
494
Inflation for the year to December was 3.2 per cent. In real terms, therefore, authorities in Wales face a 1 per cent. cut in their level of support.
Resources for the police increased last year and the Secretary of State took credit for it. Perhaps he will also take responsibility for the fact that the number of serving police officers has fallen by nearly 200 since 1992 and fell by nearly 100 last year, when he took direct responsibility for funding police authorities in Wales. Yet again, the reality falls far short of Tory manifesto commitments and it is clear that we cannot trust the Government on law and order.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: No.
I would have liked to welcome the extra money for community care, but that increase, for which the Secretary of State claims credit, comes entirely from the budget of the Department of Social Security. When the number of elderly people is dramatically increasing—there was a 17 per cent. increase in the number of people aged 65 and over between 1979 and 1994 and it is forecast to increase further—not a penny more is being spent on one of the most vulnerable sectors in our society. That is not the whole picture. Excluding the ring-fenced money for police and community care, Wales faces a 2.6 per cent. cut in real-terms provision for such basic services as education, housing and social services.
Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: No.
Mr. Evans: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State gave way more than 20 times during his speech, yet the Opposition spokesman is not prepared to give way even once.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is entirely a matter for the hon. Member who has the Floor to decide whether to give way. It is not a point of order for the Chair, so that was a bogus point of order which has taken up time.
Mr. Davies: Perhaps I should take this opportunity to explain to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a large number of my hon. Friends who represent Welsh constituencies want to represent the interests of their constituents today, so I shall make my speech as brief as possible to allow them to do that.
Education may be a matter of jest for the Secretary of State, because neither he nor his family nor his constituents have to live with the consequences of the cuts that he is imposing. Will he confirm that, as a result of the Government's decision today to increase teachers' salaries by 3.8 per cent., but not to make any more funding available for authorities in Wales, they will have to face additional burdens of the following order? The counties of Dyfed, Gwent and South Glamorgan, or their successor authorities, will have to find a further £4 million. The counties of Clwyd and West Glamorgan will have to find a further £3 million. The county of Mid Glamorgan will have to find a further £5 million. If the people whom the Secretary of State represents, or his family, were being condemned to the squalor

495
and declining conditions that our children face in their education, I put it to him that he would not be as complacent about this further imposition on Welsh local authorities.
There will be service cuts in these vital areas, and hardly an authority in Wales will be able to fulfil its plans for investment in the social and economic infrastructure which are needed to face the challenge of the new millennium. The capital settlement this year includes a cash cut of 5 per cent.—more than £34 million—and a real terms cut of 8 per cent.; that is £50 million less than what is needed just to compensate for inflation.
I acknowledge that the damping down grant has been introduced, but all that does is put a temporary bandage over the structural and financial crisis facing the poorer Welsh authorities as a result of the per capita redistribution of the former counties' disaggregated budgets. Overall, the Welsh block grant has not been increased, so the £45 million allocated to damping down will have to come from other cuts in Welsh Office expenditure: from the health service and from economic development, for example. Local authorities which this year are benefiting from the damping down grant—especially the poorer counties of Rhondda Cynon Taff, Merthyr and Blaenau Gwent—will face enormous difficulties next year, because no provision has been made for the continuation of the assistance.
It is what I would call typical Tory economics—sacrificing long-term strategic interests for a short-term political fix. That it is a short-term fix, the Secretary of State made absolutely clear in his press release of 30 January:
"I envisage this additional assistance as a one-off, giving authorities time to adjust service expenditure and bring it more in line with their standard spending assessments".
In other words, he intends to sack teachers, spend less on social workers and invest less in the future of our communities. As with so many other areas of Government activity, the problems of today's Tory Government will be left to tomorrow's Labour Government to sort out.
My hon. Friends will be interested to contrast the Secretary of State's press release entitled
"William Hague limits council tax increases"
with the facts. The facts are that average council tax increases across Wales will be 17.5 per cent. Twelve local authorities in Wales face increases of more than 20 per cent., and half of all Welsh council tax payers—more than 550,000 households—face increases of nearly 25 per cent.
The reason for this state of affairs is quite clear: following years of taking power away from local councils and concentrating it in the hands of central Government, the council tax is now a council tax in name only. Nearly 90 per cent. of local authority expenditure is set and met by central Government, so when the Government cut funds, the burden falls on local government—precisely what has happened this year.
Mr. Ted Rowlands rose—
Mr. Nigel Evans: He is not giving way.
Mr. Davies: I shall happily give way to my hon. Friend, because he represents a Welsh constituency and I know that this is a matter of great interest to him.
Mr. Rowlands: On behalf of my constituents I should like to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the fact
496
that a standstill budget for the new county borough of Merthyr Tydfil will still mean a 25 per cent. increase in the council tax. So much for damping down.
Mr. Davies: That is precisely my point. My hon. Friend understands very well that 12 local authorities face increases of more than 20 per cent. The cuts mean that a total of £26 million in real terms—33 per cent. of what is necessary to keep in line with inflation alone—will be lost; and we need look no further than the Secretary of State to attribute responsibility for the crisis facing Welsh local government.
What I really do not understand is why the right hon. Gentleman is so reluctant to take responsibility. After all, this is a right-wing agenda and the Secretary of State is a self-confessed right-wing Minister. So why is he so coy? Why does he not boast of his achievements? It is part of a right-wing policy to cut public expenditure to fund a pre-election bribe. No matter that tax bribes are taken back at a stroke by council tax increases.
It is also part of the right hon. Gentleman's right-wing policy to force more public services into the private sector. No matter that the policy itself, like the ill-thought-out nursery voucher scheme, will undermine existing provision. It is part of his right-wing policy to reduce in absolute terms the level and quality of public services—in his own words, to roll back the frontiers of the state. No matter that the price for that is paid by communities whose collective future is made insecure, and by individuals whose private lives are blighted by misery.
I shall offer the Secretary of State just one example of how the life of an individual can be made a misery. On Saturday, the parents of a 15-year-old terminally ill girl came to see me. Her name is Jade Smith, and she lives in Bedwas in my constituency. The girl is mentally and physically handicapped and has been tube-fed for the past five years. At the moment, Mid Glamorgan county council enables her to attend a special school at Ysgol Ty Coch, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells).
As from April, however, the new Caerphilly authority, which I have the privilege of representing, because of the cash cuts imposed by the Government, will be unable to buy a place in Ysgol Ty Coch, so the authority has had to reclassify one of the homes in which it provides respite care for adults. As a result, my constituent has to go to Ty Gwilym adult respite care centre and share the facility with 30 to 40-year-old adults.
The first time Jade Smith went there, she had to share the reception area with middle-aged men, over 40, who were mentally disturbed and abusive. The next time she went there, the care assistants were committed to taking out the 30-year-old women who were there for respite care, so there was no one there to look after her except a sitter.
I offer that as a clear example of the impact that the Government's cuts are having on the quality of public services in Wales. The Secretary of State appears anxious to intervene. I would ask him to take the smile off his face just for a moment and, in his intervention, to tell me whether he thinks that the girl I have described is getting the sort of care that he would want if he were responsible for a 15-year-old terminally ill child.
Mr. Hague: I shall decide on my own interventions. The hon. Gentleman is clearly unhappy with the budget that I have set. Will he tell us, then, by how much he would increase it?
Mr. Davies: I gave way to the Secretary of State because I had a particular point to put to him. I am sorry that he does not think that the care of a 15-year-old terminally ill child is sufficiently serious to deserve a serious and responsible answer. It is because of such cases that there is so much anger at the Government. They are quick enough to preach to others about personal responsibility; it is a pity that they do not recognise their responsibilities with the same alacrity.
The current settlement has two essential flaws. First, the 2.2 per cent. increase in aggregate external finance from £2.4 billion in 1995–96 to £2.5 billion in 1996–96 falls £26 million short of what is required to keep pace with the 3 per cent. increase in inflation.
Mr. Ian Bruce: How much extra would the Labour party give Wales?
Mr. Davies: Secondly, although total standard spending increases by 3.1 per cent., from £2.7 billion to £2.86 billion, the proportion met by AEF falls from 88.6 per cent. to 87.8 per cent., a 0.8 per cent. drop.
Mr. Bruce: How much?
Mr. Davies: In practice, that is the transfer of responsibility from central to local government that was slipped out in an answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). In a letter to him last year, the Secretary of State said:
"I believe that over time local authorities in Wales should raise a higher proportion of their income from Council Tax. The 11 per cent increase is the result of this approach."
There are many local authorities in Wales that would relish the prospect of reducing their increase to 11 per cent., but far from protecting Welsh interests in the Cabinet the Secretary of State, like his predecessor, has set in train a deliberate policy of disadvantaging Wales vis-a-vis the rest of the United Kingdom.
Last year, Welsh council tax rose by 11.9 per cent. Mr. Bruce: How much?
Mr. Davies: Council tax in Scotland rose by 5.7 per cent., and council tax in England rose by 5.2 per cent. Hon. Members: Bye-bye.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the debate is greatly helped by somewhat childish demonstrations, which are not confined to one side of the House.
Mr. Davies: Now that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) has left, I am sure that the quality of the debate will improve.
This year, that unacceptable gap is widening still further. The Welsh average increase of 17.5 per cent. is much higher than the Scottish increase and more than double the figure that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury
498
mentioned. We know, therefore, that it is now official Conservative policy to force council tax increases, and to force higher increases in Wales than elsewhere.
This year's average increase of 17.5 per cent. has more than wiped out the cut of 1p in the standard rate of income tax in the Budget. The council tax rises will cost Welsh taxpayers about £69 million extra this year. The Conservative party and Conservative party policies have failed Wales.
The dependency culture that has arisen under the Conservatives has placed increasing burdens on local authorities. Reliance on income support has increased by 81 per cent. That is the dependency culture, courtesy of the Conservatives. Reliance on housing benefit has increased by 54 per cent.—the dependency culture, courtesy of the Conservatives. Reliance on council tax benefit has increased by 107 per cent.—the dependency culture, courtesy of the Conservatives. Reliance on family credit has increased by 580 per cent.—the dependency culture, courtesy of the Conservatives.
Since 1979, Welsh local authorities have struggled valiantly to serve their communities. It is predictable that the settlement reflects the failure of Conservative policies, rather than Labour's aspirations for building for the future. Opposition Members hope that it will be a very long time before Wales is ever again served by such an incompetent and uncaring Government.
5.3 pm
Sir Wyn Roberts: The speech by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) was more remarkable for what he did not say than for what he said. He was on the horns of a dilemma, because much of the speech was devoted to more spending and his approval of that, but at the same time he was not quite sure how that spending was to be paid for. The hon. Gentleman seemed to react with horror to the idea of council tax increases, and so one can conclude that the only remedy in his mind to meet the high spending that he proposed was an increase in the aggregate external finance. That, of course, is composed of grant from the Exchequer—in other words, taxpayers' money—and money that comes from businesses in Wales. Therefore, the only conclusion that we can draw from the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which we did not hear, is that commercial rates would go up in Wales.
We should appreciate the full extent of the support given by central Government and businesses to local authority spending in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the fact that 87 per cent. of the total standard spending is provided by the Exchequer and business rate payers. That amounts to some £864 a person in Wales, compared with 79 per cent. or £732 a person in England. Council tax payers in Wales have a head start of £132, which should not be disdained. Of course, that advantage recognises the different circumstances and needs that prevail in Wales. That advantage will be maintained, if local authorities keep their total spending down to the levels set by the Government.
As well as that advantage, we have the capping regime, which is designed to protect the domestic rate payer against excessive demands. We in Wales are very favourably treated, and long may that continue. I wonder how long it will continue, because there is clearly a

499
change in the wind. During a debate on local government finance in England, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said:
"The Labour party … would return the business rate … to local control."— [Official Report, 31 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 1029.]
Some of us remember the days when that was the case. Business people complained bitterly about the rate burden imposed upon them by Labour local authorities. Of course, the business rate was increased, as it was so much easier to sting businesses than domestic rate payers, because business people had fewer votes to cast at local government elections.
We did not hear a commitment to the return of the business rate to local control in Wales, but it was implicit in the speech by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. I have to warn him that there would be dire consequences for businesses. We remember only too well how local control of the business rate had an adverse effect on employment in the past, and there is every prospect that that would happen again in the future. Every commercial rate payer should sit up and take note of what might be in store for them.
If the business rate were returned to local control, there would be enormous disparities throughout Wales. The industrialised areas would be enriched, and the rural areas impoverished, unless there was a very substantial change in the grant system or agricultural land was rated. That is an idea that has never been far from the minds of right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition, so the farmers had better sit up and take notice too.
The return of the business rate to local control is not the only change proposed by the Opposition. Again, I refer to the speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, in which he proposed the abolition of compulsory competitive tendering. That can only mean, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested, increased staff for local authorities and increased costs for council tax payers. That is what will happen. It is all spelt out in the document entitled "Renewing democracy, rebuilding communities", which was issued by the Labour party.
It is not surprising that Opposition Members are minded to change current council tax bands and to abolish the restraint on local authorities that is provided by the capping procedure. The Welsh electorate can contemplate council tax rates soaring under a possible future Labour Government to whatever heights our local masters think appropriate, subject only to the Secretary of State's reserve capping powers, which are to be used only when all else has failed.
I was interested when the hon. Member for Caerphilly made an offer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to put a lid on some of the abuses by local authorities that my right hon. Friend reeled off. The hon. Gentleman offered to assist. What power does he think he has as an Opposition spokesman for Wales? He has no power, and local authorities in Wales can tell him to go to kingdom come.
Mr. Ron Davies: I suggested to the Secretary of State—it was noticeable that he did not respond—that he should follow the example set by his Cabinet colleague, the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is a mandatory scheme in Scotland. I told the Secretary of State that, if he were minded to introduce appropriate legislation, the Opposition would assist its passage through Parliament.
Sir Wyn Roberts: We are talking about directly elected authorities. Surely there is a tradition in Wales that our elected bodies are responsible, and primarily responsible to their electors.
Mr. Davies: Get away.
Sir Wyn Roberts: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Is he referring to the record of Labour local authorities in Wales? Is he not proud of that record? Does he think that there is a great deal to be criticised about the behaviour of his directly elected local authorities in Wales? Does he think that we must take mandatory powers to restrain them?
Mr. Davies: The answer is simple. If the Secretary of State is so concerned about abuse, why does he not do something about it? My party's position is clear. If there are abuses after the next election, Labour will act to stop them.
Sir Wyn Roberts: I am glad to hear that.
There should not, of course, be the abuses that we have heard about. Local authorities are directly elected and they should behave responsibly. The hon. Gentleman and the Labour party clearly have in mind a considerable increase in local authority spending. They are doffing their caps to higher spending. I hope that council tax payers in Wales will take account of that.
We are discussing an important statement for local government in Wales, it being the first for the new unitary authorities. There should be a saving as a result of reducing two tiers of local government to one. I am sure that there will be a reduction in due course. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been able to increase the permissible spend by about £85.6 million, or 3.1 per cent., for next year. I am grateful for the transitional funding that he has provided. My guess is that the new authorities will do well and make a good fist of their responsibilities in time.
Unfortunately, the new authorities have a cloud on their horizon in the shape of the Welsh Assembly that has been proposed by the Opposition and confirmed last night by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the leader of the Opposition. If the unitary authorities are to have their financial allocations decided by the assembly, I can foresee endless troubles ahead. It will be devil take the hindmost—in other words, devil take the worst represented, sparsely populated rural areas.
The equality of treatment secured in Wales by the complicated formulae that are before us will disappear before the massed ranks of the assemblymen from the heavily populated areas. Couple that with the disparity caused by local control of commercial rates, and we have a scene set for civil strife such as we have not seen since the middle ages. If we in the north suffer too much in the proposed scenario, I am sure that we shall produce our Owain Glyndwr, who will take over Caerphilly castle and throw out the robber baron.
The mind boggles at the prospect of the proposed assembly dealing with local government expenditure throughout Wales. Unfortunately, however, the prospect is real enough, as is the unfairness that may result. My right hon. Friend and his officials at the Welsh Office

501
hold the balance between authorities. They are there to ensure fairness in the distribution of resources throughout Wales.
I ask a key question, which I hope the hon. Member for Caerphilly will answer: who will perform the function that I have described if we have an assembly to rule us? If the hon. Gentleman cannot answer the question now, I hope that he will at least give it some consideration. The assembly will be an extra tier of government, and extra tiers do not come cheap. It will have to be paid for in some way, probably with money that might otherwise be spent on local Government services, or perhaps on the health service. Both areas are major consumers of Welsh Office money.
If we are to have an all-Wales dimension to local government, there is much to be said for developing the role of the unitary authorities. We have already established by statute the consultative council that has responsibility for local government finance, with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State discusses resource issues in advance of a settlement. Possibly these discussions need to be amplified. In that context, perhaps there should be greater scope to deal in more detail with specific responsibilities such as education or social services. That is one possibility. It would not be impossible to devise a similar forum for the health service.
We carry responsibility. Whatever happens in local government must be reconciled with our parliamentary system, which must always have ultimate responsibility to the electorate. We would be foolish to try to escape that responsibility by foisting it on others.
We shall hear a great deal about particular needs that should be met, and needs that will have to be paid for. I was delighted to hear the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about Theatr Clwyd. We must remember that those who demand more spending object to council tax increases in the same speech, and almost in the same breath. More expenditure seems to be fine providing that someone else is paying for it. I hope that that is not our approach in our private lives. Unfortunately, it is one that some of us seem to regard as acceptable in our role as public advocates.
The settlement is fair and as sound as we could wish it to be. It represents a challenge to the new authorities to secure good value for the money that the Government, through the taxpayer, have given them.
5.19 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), but I disagree with his master classes. My speech will be briefer than his.
There are many large aging council estates in my constituency and they need urgent regrading, upgrading, modernisation and repair. Built before and after world war two, they are in real need of investment. In the townships of Buckley, Saltney, Shotton, Garden city and elsewhere, windows, doors and roofs are rotting away. My constituents increasingly despair of the situation. Alyn and Deeside district council has a good housing record, but its problems, as I have seen when visiting the localities, are very real indeed, and the new Flintshire county council will inherit them.
502
The terrible cold and ensuing damp, and the mountainous snow and a chilling cold wind have turned my constituents' homes into iceboxes. The cold is literally making some of my constituents who are trapped in their houses ill. I know of distraught mothers who feel that they cannot let their youngsters sleep in bedrooms that are without central heating. The wind and frost penetrate their rooms. Mould grows on the walls of the bedrooms and ice forms on the windows.
Any youngster prone to asthma or any bronchitic disorder does not need those conditions, and neither do elderly tenants who are prone to arthritis. Hundreds of my most respectable constituents dread winter's advance, particularly after the terrible weather that we have had. They are in severe difficulties. In less serious conditions, I have received petitions from constituents in the townships.
Will the Secretary of State give serious consideration to the release of council house sales receipts that have accrued in my local authorities, as the authorities wish to invest them only to bring relief to the beleaguered families that I have described? It would be a powerful intervention if the right hon. Gentleman did that. If he does not do that now, will he do so in the near future?
In terms of the schools service, will the Secretary of State undertake to fund the teachers' pay settlement in full? If he were to say that he will do that, the new unitary authorities would be more confident that they could tackle the real problems that they know that they will inherit. I do not wish to see emergency meetings of school governors and parent-teacher associations desperate to bail out their local schools from the financial problems that they envisage. Nor do I want pupils with special needs to lose. I note the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) made. All of us could give examples of these problems.
I do not want any youngster with special needs to lose as a consequence of the defects of this settlement. I do not want even more pressure to be put on class teachers, who are groaning under the incessant demands of Ministers issuing their latest and ever more demanding curriculum fiats. It is time for Ministers to stop putting the pressure on class teachers. They do a good job. They are doing their best, and the Government have gone too far. Stability is needed and it is time for the Government to rest their case for further change. The morale of class teachers is very low, so the chance of our children getting the best start in life is diminished.
It is the fate of the new unitary councils to start their uncertain lives desperately short of money. It is a very cynical scene that they inherit.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: No, I hope to conclude shortly.
It is a cynical scene. Grants will be cut. The council tax is certain to go up, and will do so in a big way. Services to our constituents—the taxpayers—will be cut. Labour Members know that Ministers on the Treasury Bench have not delivered a top-class financial settlement. We believe that they must take responsibility for these serious shortcomings, and at the very least, to help our new councils, undertake to pay the teachers' salary increase in full.

503
In an election year—that is what we are looking at in the new financial year—the Government expect the councils to carry the blame for the large increases in council tax. In my view, the new Flintshire county council deserves better from the Government, and the large-scale increases in the council tax will surely be seen at home in our constituencies as the consequence of inadequate ministerial allocations.
5.26 pm
Mr. Walter Sweeney: First, in reply to a point made by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who seemed to be following the precedent set by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) in not taking interventions, I should point out that there is a clear trade-off between the level of teachers' pay and the number of teachers who can be employed. That is the economic reality of the education budget, and we ignore it at our peril and to the detriment of our education system.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly clearly believes that interventions can be accepted only from hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies; yet he refused an intervention from me and subsequently took one from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, so there was a certain illogicality there. He then used my right hon. Friend's intervention to argue with something that my right hon. Friend had not said. By that stage I was becoming a little confused by the hon. Gentleman, and not for the first time.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly did not like my right hon. Friend's reference to a Labour authority wasting money on a new mayoral chain when the outgoing authority had a perfectly good chain that could have been used. Perhaps that performance by a new Labour authority—I suppose that they are all new Labour authorities these days—can be contrasted with the new Labour authority in Vale of Glamorgan, which is abolishing the mayoralty entirely. Meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition appears to be espousing the concept of super-mayors. I am not quite sure whether it is new Labour to abolish mayors, buy them new chains or create super-mayors, but no doubt things will become apparent when Labour policy develops in due course.
With regard to rate support, I believe that the settlement is a very good one, against the background of the Government's determination to limit Government spending to a level that the taxpayer can afford. In Wales, we seem to be doing particularly well out of this: total standard spending is up by 3.1 per cent. in 1996–97.
As I am particularly concerned about the level of police funding, I am pleased to learn that the Dyfed police grant has risen by 4.9 per cent. since 1995–96, to £24.2 million. The Gwent figure of £31.3 million represents an increase of 4.5 per cent., and the North Wales figure of £34.7 million an increase of 5.1 per cent. I have saved the best till last: South Wales has been given £75.2 million, an increase of 5.4 per cent. The increases were even larger last year. The South Wales police benefited from a 15 per cent. increase, and the further increase of 5.4 per cent. is clearly good news, notwithstanding what was claimed from the Opposition side earlier.
Mr. Alex Carlile: As the hon. Gentleman is talking about the police, will he give
504
us his opinion of Government policies which have led to a reduction of 1,333 in the number of police officers nationwide since 1992, when an increase of 1,000 that year had been promised?
Mr. Sweeney: In my area, the reduction in real-terms spending on the police is attributable to the three Labour-controlled county councils which provide the membership of the South Wales police authority. Significantly, since the Government hypothecated spending on the police in Wales the police have received a substantial increase in funding. If those Labour authorities had complied with Home Office recommendations on police funding levels, police funding in Wales would not have fallen behind in that deplorable way.
As a general principle, I think it right for local authorities to decide their own spending priorities. However, because of the Labour party's woeful neglect of spending on the police in Wales—which was against the interests of all Welsh people and a good illustration of Labour's being tough on crime in its rhetoric but soft on crime in reality—the Government had no alternative but to hypothecate spending on the police to develop the improved police force that Conservative Members are determined to achieve.
Total standard spending in Wales this year is £984; in England, it is £922. The aggregate external finance is £864 in Wales, and £832 in England. That shows that the Conservative Government see spending in Wales as a priority if services are to continue to improve. It is unfortunate that so many of the local authorities are Labour controlled as the public are not receiving the full benefit of the money because the Labour party is more interested in mayoral chains and increasing councillors' allowances than in improving efficiency and the quality of services.
Although the council tax is likely to rise substantially in Wales, it will still be much lower than it is in England. That will be worth remembering when people receive their council tax demands.
Mr. Touhig: Does the hon. Gentleman share the apparent triumph with which the Secretary of State announced this afternoon that he would place a 25 per cent. ceiling on increases? Without the extra help that the Secretary of State has now offered, council tax in my part of the Caerphilly county area would have risen by 68 per cent. What sort of settlement is that?
Mr. Sweeney: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. I infer from what he said that he would like central Government to impose a lower limit on council tax increases. That would considerably reduce Labour local authorities' freedom. I am surprised to hear such an argument from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Ainger: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sweeney: No, I have already given way three times—unlike some Opposition Members.
Let me make a political point about capping. In the interests of all the people of Wales who pay council tax, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has maintained a capping system. As a Conservative, I wonder whether

505
it might have been a better political move for our Government to do away with capping for this year only in the run-up to the election, thus demonstrating to all the electors in Wales how much Welsh local government spends when it is run by the Labour party. They would then have a good idea of what they could expect under a Labour Government.
My right hon. Friend, however, is too responsible to act in that way. He is intent on protecting the Welsh people against the profligacy of Welsh councillors. Having made my political point, I accept my right hon. Friend's judgment; but I hope that the Welsh electorate will give careful consideration to the implications of Labour demands for the relaxation or abolition of capping. If such action were taken, our council taxes would go through the roof.
The total level of standard spending is tough but realistic. When the poll tax was introduced, Labour local authorities used it as an excuse to raise spending, knowing that they could then falsely blame the Government for the increase in poll tax bills. That is why capping should continue. I would not like the Conservative Government's reorganisation of local government—with widespread cross-party support—to be used as something with which to bash the Government over the head. As it is, local authorities will be under pressure to be careful about how they spend and which services they support.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside rightly stressed the importance of education. I welcome local authorities' continued freedom to give priority to education spending. Returning to the subject of the police, I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend said—
Mr. Win Griffiths: He has said that already.
Mr. Sweeney: It is worth repeating. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is too much running commentary from the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Sweeney: It is worth repeating, because I have another point to make about the police. The funding formula for police pensions has been changed: the Government have increased the allocation to 12 per cent. of available funding. That will help to allay police fears about their pensions. The new sparsity element in the funding formula will help the police to cater for the special needs of isolated, thinly populated rural areas.
More support for local government expenditure, which Opposition Members presumably ask for—although they have not been prepared to specify how much additional expenditure they advocate—would have meant cuts in other Welsh Office projects such as those on health. Presumably, Opposition Members would not have wanted any such cuts yet that is the logic of their request.
Changes in the draft notional amounts may have adversely affected the Vale of Glamorgan compared with Cardiff. I should be grateful for an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that nothing that has been done in amending those amounts will unfairly prejudice my constituents in the Vale of Glamorgan.
506
I congratulate the Government on today's statement by my right hon. Friend. He has produced an excellent deal for Wales.
5.40 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: I offer you, Madam Deputy Speaker, what I hope you will agree is a sincerely felt apology for a kindly but inappropriate gesture as a Conservative Member was departing from the Chamber—a Member representing a non-Welsh constituency. There is, however, a good deal of frustration among Opposition Members at the efforts of Members who represent English constituencies to intervene in debates concerning Wales alone. Even the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who has impeccable personal Welsh credentials, attempts to intervene as a Welsh Member of Parliament manque in such debates. If he wishes to be not a manque, but a real Welsh Member of Parliament, he should attempt once again to be elected to represent a Welsh constituency, although I doubt whether he would succeed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carlile: Of course I will give way to the Minister's brief on the Front Bench.
Mr. Jones: I feel I have been promoted, but I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. If he has an apparent prohibition on non-Welsh Members speaking in the debate, I am curious why he ducked last year's debate and sent the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) to substitute for him?
Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman knows that, in these debates, time is at a premium and that it is extremely unhelpful if Back-Bench Members—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As time is at a premium, it would be more appropriate if the subject in hand were dealt with rather than the question of whether Members of Parliament should or should not put forward their names. Everyone knows that all are equally free to do so.
Mr. Carlile: Of course I will not pursue the matter, Madam Deputy Speaker, save to say that it is extremely important that Welsh Members should have the first opportunity to speak in these debates. Those of us who catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, are those who are called.
I should like to discuss the position in the Powys unitary authority in the next 12 months. I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister replying to the debate will agree that that authority is not smitten by political prejudices of one sort or another. It is politically independent and is attempting to do an honest job and to provide as good a level of service to its inhabitants as possible.
Powys unitary authority is a victim of the use of what appears to be an outmoded formula in the complex circumstances of the reorganisation of local government in rural mid-Wales. In real terms, the real loss to the

507
authority for the forthcoming year is £4 million. That money must be cut from somewhere. It will be from services that affect people. Will the Minister tell the House and the people of Powys why the Government are not only forcing a substantial increase in council tax—although, in Powys, that will be limited to about 20 per cent.—but accompanying that with a cut in services? What services will be cut?
The first thing that Powys county council has sought to cut is administration. It has succeeded in removing £2.5 million from its administrative budget. One's first reaction to that might be to say, "That is very good. We can do without a layer of administration. That is a real saving and it will not affect the services to people." But that is not true. A £2.5 million cut in administration costs in a rural county such as Powys means a significant reduction not only in jobs in local government, but, almost certainly, in the efficiency and response of services provided to local people.
It is one of the facts of political life that Welsh local authorities have little discretion. I do not applaud a position in which central Government give Welsh local government so high a proportion of its expenditure that they have local councils by the throat. I would much prefer a different local government financing mechanism.
We are faced, however, with the current mechanism. That means a reduction not just in jobs as a result of those administrative cuts, but in other services. In my constituency, there is a bridge that is used by school buses, agricultural vehicles and other traffic. Without notice, it was closed and, overnight, its weight limit was reduced. Now, neither lorries nor school buses can go over it. As a result, buses taking children to school must make a 21-mile detour twice a day. That has led to well publicised and not in the least surprising protests by parents of children who travel on those buses. Meanwhile, the highway authority says that it had to reduce the bridge weight limit to make it safe, but that it cannot give any idea of when the bridge will be repaired.
In the vicinity of Garthmyl, near Montgomery in my constituency, a metal Bailey-type bridge has stood for the whole of the 16 years that I have lived in Montgomeryshire and, I believe, for about 20 years before that. There is no answer as to when that will be repaired. The highways budget, which is extremely important for people's mobility in a rural area such as mine, should not face such privation.
I will give two further examples of services that are bound to be cut. The trading standards authority, which is extremely important in rural Wales because of the animal health provisions that it has to enforce, faces severe financial restrictions. Obviously, animal welfare and health take priority for that authority. As a result, virtually no money will be left for the other trading standards functions.
In education, it is inevitable that, as elsewhere in Wales, the increase in teachers' salaries, which teachers merit—many of them do not have the professional status that they deserve compared with other professions and occupations—will mean that class sizes will increase. As a result, schools will not be as good. We are lucky: we have good schools in rural Wales, but why—because the Government do not give them funding—should there be a reduction in education standards and an increase in professional dissatisfaction among teachers?
508
I do not want to take up any more time. I have merely given some examples of the sort of cuts that will have to be made even in a county about which no Minister can make accusations of political prejudice, or have preconceptions on political lines.
That is what is happening in Wales, as objective judgments show. That is what is happening in rural areas where politics plays no major part in the making of spending decisions. That simply is not good enough—for rural Wales, at least. Ministers must try to find a new and fairer formula which takes sparsity and rurality properly into account.
5.49 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate, and also for what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said about my Welsh credentials. I do indeed feel fully qualified to make what I hope may be a useful contribution to the debate.
The most significant aspect of the speeches by Opposition Members was especially true of the speech by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). It was, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) pointed out, the fact that the hon. Gentleman signally failed to answer the simple question that the Secretary of State asked him—if the Labour party is unhappy with the settlement, how much more money would a future Labour Government provide?
That was a simple question, and although the hon. Gentleman did not allow me to intervene on him, I should be more than happy to allow him to intervene on me now, if he is prepared or able to tell a listening nation how much extra money Labour would give. Am I speaking slowly enough? Is the question simple enough? No.
The time that I spent listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech was one of the longest 18 minutes of my life, because in all that time he said so little. He carped a lot, but failed to answer the questions. I do not know whether he has ever been on "Question Time" on BBC television, but if he did appear on that programme it would be a dull affair, because members of the audience would ask the questions, but he would fail to answer them. He is not even prepared to come to the Dispatch Box now.
I was a county councillor in Wales for six years, and I also have a retail business in Swansea. I have lived 34 years of my life in Wales. When I was on the county council, we had consultation periods for business men to come to the local authority and plead with us to keep the business rates as low as we could. When business rates shot through the roof, those businesses, many of them operating at the margins, found it difficult to find the money from their profits.
What a farce that consultation exercise was for many of the business men. After they had made their plea and explained to the leaders of the local authority the problems their businesses faced, and the difficulty that they would have in finding extra money to meet the bills, the local authority put the business rates up through the roof. That was a tremendous slap in the face for local businesses in difficult circumstances.
I am delighted that control has now been taken away from local authorities, to prevent those businesses, which were making such great efforts and providing jobs in

509
Wales—and throughout the rest of the country—from being penalised. They are, of course, the lifeblood of many small villages.
A lot is said about levels of council tax, and we have heard much carping from Opposition Members. However, council tax rates are much lower in Wales than in England; they are certainly lower in Wales than in my constituency. It is also fair to say that, if areas were represented by Conservative-controlled local authorities, their council tax would be that much lower than if they were run by Labour authorities, as many now are. My advice to people in Wales is to reconsider what local authorities spend on their behalf, and at the local elections to choose Conservative councillors, who will spend their money efficiently.
I saw much wasteful expenditure when I was on West Glamorgan county council—
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: No, I shall not, because I tried to intervene several times on the hon. Member for Caerphilly and others, and was told that I could not do so. I am simply doing exactly the same to Opposition Members. The sooner they stop carping, the sooner I shall finish my speech, and they will have the opportunity to have their say.
Mr. Alan Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: I shall not give way. The right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In interjections and during his speech, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has referred to the constituencies of my hon. Friends and myself. I am sure that you will agree that it is a normal courtesy that, when a Member refers to other Members' constituencies in the House, especially if he makes political points about them, he should then give way to one of the local Members.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That may be a courtesy, but it is not a requirement.
Mr. Evans: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I tried to intervene several times during the debate. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) came into the Chamber only recently. He has not been here for the entire debate, although I am sure that he has good reasons for not having been here. I am not prepared to give way to him now.
We have heard some horror stories about local authority expenditure, and of course I saw what happened when I served on the local authority in West Glamorgan. Expenditure on chains of office, new buildings and councillors' allowances was appalling. Last year, I condemned the members of Mid Glamorgan council for trying to put their expenses up through the roof in a disproportionate manner. Their snouts were firmly in the trough.
510
The Labour party may talk about fat cats, but I can talk about the fat cats of Wales—and they are not in business but in Labour-run authorities. The Labour party should do all in its power to condemn local authority members for trying to increase their expenses.
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I trust that this is a genuine point of order.
Mr. Williams: It is, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley is utterly misusing the procedures of the House of Commons by making snide and pathetic attacks on people who cannot defend themselves, and then being afraid to give way to those who seek to defend them.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Evans: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that that was not the intervention that the right hon. Gentleman attempted to make before. If it was, I am delighted that I did not give way to him.
As for education expenditure, I hope that local education authorities will pass the money to the schools to spend, and not keep any of it back for central administration. It was instructive to hear Opposition Members talking about cutting services. They talk about front-line services, and about the customers who will suffer if they lose those services, yet not one of them talked about cutting administration and central bureaucracy.
My advice to Labour-run local authorities is to re-examine their internal running costs, as everybody has had to do, and to find ways of improving efficiency as much as they can. They should not make local service customers suffer simply to make a political point. There was a 45 per cent. increase in expenditure on nursery education between 1979 and 1994, and a 54 per cent. increase in expenditure on secondary education in Wales over the same period.
However, the increase in expenditure is not the only important factor. Also vital is the testing that goes alongside the education that young people receive. The Labour party opposed that policy, and also the introduction of the national curriculum, which is improving standards all the time.
I was pleased to learn of the extra expenditure on law and order. On top of the extra 11 per cent. last year, that is excellent news, especially considering the fact that, when the Labour party was in power, spending on the police was one of the categories that suffered greatly.
I hope that the extra expenditure will result in more police on the beat, particularly in rural areas, and the utilisation of new technology, such as closed circuit cameras, which are extremely useful in reducing crime. I hope also that there will be a continuation of the civilianisation of office posts, which will release policemen and policewomen and enable them to go back on the beat.
Compulsory competitive tendering in local authorities has made authorities far more efficient, and has resulted in those authorities being able to save money to spend on

511
services for local people. The Labour party is totally opposed to that policy, and would chuck out a policy that has saved many millions of pounds while providing excellent services to local people. Labour would replace the system with expensive in-house bids, from which the public would not benefit. That is a spiteful and dogmatic move by Labour that is not in the best interests of Welsh people.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy posed an important question about Labour's pledge to introduce an assembly. We know that there are no current plans to provide a Welsh assembly with tax-raising powers, such as are envisaged for the Scottish assembly. Labour Members who believe in the principle of an assembly ought to ask why a Scottish assembly will be allowed to raise tax, while the Welsh will not be trusted to do so. Having seen the way in which Labour local authorities operate in Wales, I can fully understand why the Labour party is scared of allowing a Labour-run assembly—as Opposition Members would probably see it—to raise taxes.
In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that Opposition Members are enjoying my speech. The speaker who follows me from the Opposition will have an opportunity to tell the House how much extra money he wants to see being spent in Wales, and where he would get that money from.
6.1 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: In reply to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), there are one or two things that my party would do to save money and put it into local government. We would not be paying for nuclear arms for one thing, and we would not be stuffing money into the pockets of people on quangos for another. We would review the operation of the standard spending assessment, which works to the detriment of many councils in Wales. I have no doubt that we would look at other matters over time.
The Secretary of State announced on 18 December:
"the revenue settlement for local authorities for 1996–7 is a fair one in the current climate".
In his press release—in the Welsh Office, government is by press release now—he said that it was based on his view of what the real needs of local government were at the appropriate level. I believe that either he or every single council in Wales is absolutely wrong.
In his apologia for the settlement, he prayed in aid— again by press release—the notion that there would be more use of the private finance initiative, with £360 million of capital investment being produced in the next three years. Where on earth did he get that figure from? If it was conjured up by his merry band at the Welsh Office, he should be circumspect about quoting it.
For example, the Welsh Office recently astounded the new Denbighshire authority by using an inaccurate measurement of the length of roads in the authority. That affected the authority's SSA, and the Denbighshire authority is currently £600,000 out of pocket. So much for a careful evaluation of the spending needs of Welsh local government.
The overall situation in Welsh local government is that authorities feel that they cannot make any further cuts. The latest settlement is again a substantial cut in real
512
terms. It comes after four years of cuts, and authorities now have virtually nothing left to cut. Let us examine the evidence. I referred to Denbighshire, and that authority is very concerned that precepts from the new fire authority—imposed on Denbighshire by the Government—will be very heavy.
The authority is concerned about the spiralling cost of reorganisation. Those of us who served on Committee on the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 warned the Government that their figures for the cost of reorganisation were pie in the sky. Here we are again—1974 revisited. The new authorities are being burdened by crippling debts.
In a parliamentary answer, the Minister of State said that £41 million-plus was being allocated for 1996–1997 to cover
"a proportion of councils' expenditure on compensation, accommodation and information technology."—[Official Report, 5 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 55.]
I do not know where the figure of £41 million comes from, but I hope it is not from the same person who worked on Denbighshire's SSA. The Welsh Office is now graciously saying that councils can spend £41 million of their own chargepayers' money to offset part of the cost of reorganisation. In fact, the Welsh Office does not have a clue about the total cost. It is in the dark—as is everybody else, unfortunately.
This is another abject display of the failure of the Welsh Office adequately to provide for the needs of Wales. The huge rise in the cost of community care has clearly not been adequately addressed by the Government. The increase in the 1996–1997 settlement on last year's is only 1.8 per cent., while the Government's own figures forecast that prices will rise by 2.5 per cent, resulting in a further squeeze on local authorities.
My authority, Caernarfonshire and Meirionnydd—soon to become Gwynedd—has been allocated £365,000 extra cash, leading the council to the inescapable conclusion that it must cut services substantially and impose large increases in council tax for 1996–1997. The current settlement is, in fact, a 1.3 per cent. reduction compared with the 1995–1996 budget. By applying the standstill budget—which comes into effect after four years of cuts—the budget exceeds the capping limits by £2.66 million.
Therefore, my local council has basically three operational choices. First, it can cut services. That will mean closing rural schools and leisure centres, and making teachers and those in social services redundant—workers in both those sectors, I might add, do splendid work, and are already at full stretch. Secondly, it could capitalise its revenue expenditure, and that could obviously entail the deferment of much-needed capital projects. Thirdly, it could use some of the balances. The amount available in Gwynedd will not be known until September, but in any event it will only defer the need to cut, and may give a skewed budget figure to work on next year. Incidentally, such a move would produce an artificially low level of council tax, and would defer the need for a more substantial increase.
There is no doubt that this council's dilemma is typical in Wales. Basic services are under threat, and no one should be under any illusion about who is at fault. In their craven urge to hold on to power, the Tory Administration are happy to cut services for the young and the elderly—

513
and leisure, education, community care and social services, and public transport—while voting for a tax-cutting Budget.
Let no one forget also that the Labour party acceded to the cuts. By allowing the Tories to cut income tax, Labour concurred with the Government's local government cuts. Any fool can realise that these must be paid for, and it is a shame that Labour did not adopt a principled approach, like my party. When Labour councillors blame it all on the Government, they should think again about what Labour should have done—and perhaps, in days gone by, would have done.
Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Gentleman will accept that the Labour party voted against the Budget that cut income tax last November.
Mr. Llwyd: A handful of Labour Members did, but officially Labour did not.
Mr. Davies: I want to make it absolutely clear that the Labour party officially voted against the Budget last year.
Mr. Llwyd: I beg to differ. The Labour party abstained on that vote—a few of the more principled Labour Members went through the same Lobby as I did. But I will leave it there for the time being.
Anglesey county council has had its planned spending capped at £61 million—a cut of £2 million on last year's budget. Again, there will be cuts. Carmarthenshire county council is facing a difficult future. The options being discussed include cutting the repair and maintenance of schools, increasing the cost of school meals, and shutting training centres. In addition, there is a real threat to teaching jobs. A 3.5 per cent. reduction, which is what they are facing, could mean cutting 68 teaching jobs. In Rhondda Cynon Taf, there is talk of increasing the cost of transport to schools and school meals, closing nursery schools, cutting the maintenance programme, closing small schools and reducing clothing and other grants.
So how can the Secretary of State honestly and sincerely state that his main priority has been to increase investment in schools? He says that Wales benefits from the success of our economic policy along with the rest of the UK, but how can that be, when the overall capital package for Welsh local government has been cut by £17.5 million, with cuts in housing, roads and transport, in strategic development schemes, and in personal, social and all other services? How can those cuts honestly relate to a so-called booming economy?
The paltry increase in the education budget will have no effect on the strangulation of local authority education. That disgraceful emaciation is made even worse by the fact that some £6.6 million is being allocated for the ideologically driven, elitist, popular schools initiative—in fact, £2 million more for that initiative, rather than an overall increase for the whole of the education budget.
That is where the Government's priorities lie. No doubt they will blame education standards on whichever political hue they target at the time. That the Government have set their face against local government is accepted by all. Surely the settlement is excellent evidence for that. I regret saying it, but I have no doubt that class sizes will
514
increase, teacher numbers will decrease, public transport will be cut, and social services will undoubtedly suffer a hefty cut. Libraries will close, leisure centres close or be run part-time, and even residential homes will close. Those evils, and many more, will follow this settlement, as night follows day.
In Aberconwy Colwyn, for example, the story is much the same. I received a plea from the Aberconwy and Colwyn women's aid group last week. Despite the amount of work it is doing, and the huge and regrettable increase in demand for its work, that work is in peril, and its very existence brought into question.
The imposed cuts by the Welsh Office will risk the lives of some people. What is even more sure, they will affect the quality of life for tens of thousands of people throughout the length and breadth of Wales. The Secretary of State says that he has thought carefully about the settlement. I say to him, "Think again," and the people of Wales say, "Think again."
The settlement is unworthy, and an insult to Wales. It is small wonder that the Conservatives fared abysmally in the recent local government elections. They probably feel that they have nothing to lose by starving local government in Wales, but the people of Wales will not allow the wool to be pulled over their eyes any longer. The Government will pay heavily for their cynical approach to the delivery of vital local services. Of late, there has been talk of a Tory-free Wales. Surely that speculation must become a reality within the next 12 months.
6.13 pm
Mr. Barry Field: I cannot follow the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and allow him to get away with that. I served on the all-party Select Committee on the Environment, and when we considered standard spending assessments, we found a degree of objectivity in them and that they were not slanted towards the political control of any authority. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that, in the past 20 years, local government has no longer been seen as being government locally, but as a method and vehicle for bashing central Government and, in many cases, as a device for entering this House. A look through the antecedents of many hon. Members will show that there has been a considerable rise in the past 20 years in the number who were councillors, including myself. Sadly, instead of serving their local communities as they used to do—they had a great and proud history—councils have become highly politicised branches of their local parties and are more interested in carping against central Government than in delivering high-quality services to their local council tax payers.
I am taking part in this debate because Welsh Members often argue that there should be so much lower council tax charges in Wales because of pay levels and the general gross domestic product in that area. I refer my hon. Friend the Minister to a written reply in column 118 in today's Hansard. The reply sets out—I do not know whether similar comparisons are available for Wales—the number of normal, basic rate and higher rate taxpayers in every county in England. He will not be surprised to learn that the Isle of Wight is at the bottom of that league.
Having had a lot to do with Wales, particularly when the Isle of Wight unfortunately lost a company which relocated there, I guess that the hon. Gentleman will find

515
that Wales is much higher up the list of averages than many areas in England. Indeed, we learn from the settlement tonight that there is almost a £200 difference for a band D property in Wales, compared with England. That is the subsidy that English taxpayers are putting into Wales. I do not think that that can be justified. Welsh Members regularly tell us that that reflects the lower price of property, to which I say again, make the comparison with the Isle of Wight. I do not think that that argument holds water either.
My hon. Friend the Minister who will reply to the debate may not know—it is probably a well-kept secret— that, until the advent of unitary authorities, the Isle of Wight used one of the Welsh authorities as a comparison, as a typical authority of a similar size for statistical purposes. In every case, we found that, by and large, the Welsh Office was doing better for Welsh authorities than we expected with our English settlement.
We have heard much from Opposition Members about capping, but Welsh Office expenditure on local government amounts to 45 per cent. of its total expenditure. That tells me that the Secretary of State for Wales is certainly not ignoring local government as the Opposition have suggested throughout the debate, but giving it a fair deal out of his total budget for Wales.
I hear the argument about capping propounded by hon. Members on both sides of the House these days, but hon. Members should remember that about a quarter of total expenditure in the United Kingdom goes on local government. There is no way that one could let that rip if one is serious about inflation and wants to keep it under control as this Government do.
With his experience of Wales, my hon. Friend the Minister made a very good case on the uniform business rate. Will my Front-Bench colleagues tell me why, when it was enshrined in the uniform business rate legislation that it was designed to help manufacturing industry and is required to do so, we do not continually stuff that fact down the throats of the Opposition? For years, all that we heard from the Opposition was, "What are the Government doing for manufacturing industry?" The uniform business rate has been one of our greatest successes, especially where, as around the borders of Wales, businesses in high-rate areas were often siphoned off into nearby lower-rate areas. That compounded unemployment. I know that from my experiences on the Isle of Wight.
One helpful thing about the uniform business rate is that it has created uniformity for businesses. More than that, it allows Welsh business men to plan ahead when they draw up their budgets. The sad fact is that rates are the one form of taxation that have to be paid whether the business is making a profit or a loss. That has always been the case. The other problem was that businesses always had to second guess what local councillors would do and could not properly plan their budgets. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced the business rate in his Budget. That is helpful, especially for small businesses that work on such tight margins these days because competition is so strong. They know precisely what their business rates will be and allow for them in their budgets.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has left the Chamber, but he touched on a point about roads that rang a chord with me. I say to the Government that, as
516
one gets to extremities of the kingdom, especially with local authorities that have no trunk roads and so do not get assistance from the Department of Transport, road surfaces tend not be as good as they are in other areas.
I bet any Welsh Member a tin of leek soup that he would find much poorer road surfaces on the Isle of Wight because of the way in which our transport supplementary grant has gone recently than he would find in probably any part of the kingdom. That is to some extent true as one goes from England to Wales. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will put forward in Cabinet the fact that we need to consider those authorities that find it difficult to maintain good road surfaces in sparsely populated areas.
Finally, I want to touch on allowances for councillors, a point which has been much vaunted in this debate. Can my hon. Friend the Minister tell the House—or place information in the Library about it—what precisely the allowances are for the new unitary authorities and what the councillors who have been elected to shadow bodies have fixed for themselves in allowances?
My understanding is that a number of councillors in Wales who have been elected to unitary authorities are already councillors on existing authorities. I hear from my friends in the valleys that they are drawing allowances on the old authorities and the new shadow authorities. They are getting a double dose of the taxpayers' money, which should be spent on the local community and not on them. If my hon. Friend the Minister cannot give me the figures when he replies, perhaps he could pop them in the Library or encourage me to table a parliamentary question so that we can discover how many hon. Members represent constituencies where councillors have their trotters in the trough of taxpayers' money.
Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Caerphilly is no longer here, but I have to tell my Welsh colleagues that he is known as Dai for diagnosis. He is all diagnosis and no delivery of the answers. Colleague after colleague has said to him, "Don't tell us how little, tell us how much you would give and how you would fund it." No answer came.
6.23 pm
Mr. David Hanson: I shall not follow the line of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field). This may be a Great Britain Parliament, but there are Welsh Members who wish to speak about their constituency interests. If the Conservative party is so popular, why is their local council performance in Wales so abysmal? In my local council, three Conservatives were elected with 43 Labour members. We have had the acid test. The hon. Gentleman's philosophy has been tested in many parts of Wales and found to be dramatically lacking. I am sure that many Conservative Members with Welsh seats will find that that will come true at the general election.
I know that my hon. Friends also want to speak, so I shall make only a couple of points. I genuinely welcome the Secretary of State's movement on Theatr Clwyd. It was the least that he could do, given that the abolition of Clwyd county council caused the problem in the first place. The announcement will give a certain kick-start to the local authorities that neighbour Flintshire to enable them to contribute to the maintenance of this excellent facility in north Wales.
I pay tribute to Flintshire county council, which has immediately put £600,000 of local taxpayers' money up front to help support the retention of the theatre and to

517
the members of Clwyd county council, the governors and Patrick Gilchrist, the theatre general manager, and his staff. They have had a difficult time over the past few weeks but played a strong role with me in presenting the case to Ministers for assistance.
My local newspapers, the Daily Post and The Chronicle, have also played a magnificent role in generating public interest. I have been overwhelmed with letters of support for the theatre. A sackful of Daily Post clippings awaits the Secretary of State. They will arrive on his doorstep even though he has made his announcement, and show community support for the theatre.
As I said in my earlier intervention, there is still a shortfall of between £300,000 to £400,000 in Theatr Clwyd's funding compared with what was given by Clwyd county council. While I know that Flintshire will make great efforts to make efficiency savings and ensure that more people come through the doors of the theatre and welcome the movement on Theatr Clwyd's debt charges, there is still a major shortfall. I hope that the Secretary of State's initiative will support the local council to find the funding from other sources. I hope that there will be opportunities to raise the matter again because, although I feel fairly confident about the theatre's future, I would still like to ensure that the present funding continues.
The Secretary of State's statement does what Conservative party statements on local government normally do. The Government cut the grant to local authorities, force local authorities such as Flintshire to face massive council tax rises and shift the balance of spending from central to local government and then maintain, despite all that, the charade of the capping system, which mitigates against local democracy. My local authority was elected with certain mandates. It does not behove the Secretary of State to impose a capping limit on my local authority, which may mean real-terms cuts in local authority services.
The Government's grant statement has reduced Government spending still further. In 1993–94, 64 per cent. of local government spending was met by central government. In 1994–95, it was 62 per cent.; and in 1995–96 it is 58 per cent. The reduction continues. Central Government support is being cut and local government's contribution is having to rise. When the council tax bills go through people's doors in April, the increases that have been made to maintain services will be, in large part, because of reductions of central Government grant.
In a written answer to the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) on 30 January, the Secretary of State stated:
"inflation remains low and the Government have made it clear that pay increases should be met from efficiency savings and other economies."—[Official Report, 30 January 1996; Vol. 270, c. 682.]`
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards)indicated assent.
Mr. Hanson: I see the Minister nodding in agreement. That is all very well, but if teachers are offered a 4 per cent. pay rise it will be a further burden on local taxpayers and will mean that rates are increased or services cut to pay for things outside local authority control.
518
The disaggregated budget in Flintshire is £113,729,000. Its SSA is £1.2 million less than that at £112 million. That is a dilemma for local authorities such as Flintshire. The current budgets of Alyn and Deeside district council, Delyn district council and Clwyd county council, which cover the new Flintshire authority, are more than what the Secretary of State has already said they should spend this year. What does he expect Flintshire not to spend money on that it is currently being spent on? Where will it reduce spending next year to meet the SSA target that the Secretary of State has proposed?
The SSA of our near neighbour, Denbighshire, is lower than its notional expenditure—£78 million as compared with £80 million. The SSA of another neighbour, Wrexham, is £98 million while its notional expenditure is £97 million. At current levels, in its constituent parts, my local authority is already spending more than the Secretary of State says that it should spend in the next financial year. That will present my local authority with difficult choices about whether to increase council tax, cut local public services or find alternative means. The problems will be the result of a poor settlement, which I shall be pleased to vote against this evening.
Those difficulties are fairly clear and straightforward. The county council at Flintshire will undoubtedly experience difficulties with its schools budget and its education funding for next year. I have already received representations from the North-East Wales Education Forum which has expressed grave concern over the potential for future funding of education next year in Flintshire. Local schools in my constituency have already expressed their concerns about education funding next year in Flintshire.
Flintshire county councillors are saying that, while they have the choice to determine their priorities and to spend as they will—as the Secretary of State and junior Ministers will no doubt say—they must deal with their notional expenditure level, which is £1.2 million more than the Government say they should spend. That shortfall will fall heavily on a number of services—of which education will be the most important.
Only this week I received a letter from a school pupil in my constituency who said that he had written to the Prime Minister to tell him that his school class is without paper on which to write letters or school material. That case was originally brought to my attention by a supply teacher in the school in Mold. If school pupils have no paper to write on, that is not just a problem for the local authority as it struggles with funding, but for the Secretary of State. It presents a genuine problem of the underfunding of local government services.
I disagree with the Secretary of State on the notion of capping. The idea of local democracy, of having local government reforms and of holding an election last year— where people from all political parties put forward their policies and programmes before local people—is negated by the idea that the Secretary of State, representing Richmond, Yorks, can protect my local ratepayers from the council that they have chosen to elect. That is a fundamental negation of democracy. Whatever the financial arguments about whether the council should or should not spend, the Secretary of State should do what the Conservative party preaches: trust the people. The people of Flintshire and the people of Wales have chosen certain authorities to fulfil certain election promises.

519
It is a negation of democracy for the Secretary of State to say that he knows best and that he will put a limit on the council services to which my constituents and councillors can aspire. In his statement, the Secretary of State mentioned a notional amount of £113 million for my local authority and an SSA of £112 million. He should cease the capping regime. I shall vote against the settlement tonight because I disagree with the underfunding of my local authority and the principle of capping.
6.33 pm
Mr. Roy Hughes: We have just had a major reorganisation of local government and the wholesale creation of unitary authorities. Many of the areas that are now designated as unitary authorities do not have the resources to carry out such far-reaching functions. It seems farcical that there are now five directors of education in Gwent, where there was previously one.
The local government reorganisation is expensive, but the Government have willed the ends and we are now entitled to say that they must provide the means. Instead, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said, many councils now face increases of 25 per cent. in council tax despite the recent additional £16 million that the Welsh Office has provided. The local government finance system has not withstood the test of local government reorganisation.
The Secretary of State is allowing new councils to spend, and Government support for that spending is being distributed among the new councils in a way that does not match the expenditure on services inherited from the old councils. That mismatch is causing significant variations in council tax increases and will be difficult to explain to council taxpayers throughout Wales.
If Newport spends at the level at which the Secretary of State is minded to cap the authority, Newport's council tax will be among the lowest in Wales. In the borough, the council tax rate is estimated to be about £392 for a band D property. The Secretary of State is minded to cap the authority at its standard spending assessment, which is £117.5 million. But out of the 22 new authorities, 19 are now being allowed to spend in excess of their SSA before reaching their capping level. I am entitled to ask the Secretary of State why Newport has been discriminated against. The Welsh Office is well aware that the SSAs for the new councils are not an accurate reflection of their need to spend. I understand that the Secretary of State has admitted that the SSAs need to be thoroughly reviewed. On the evidence, Newport seems to be being badly treated.
I am sure that none of us would wish to underestimate the complexities of local government finance. One reason for Newport's low capping limit is that Gwent county council drew heavily on reserves in its last year to sustain expenditure on services that could not be sustained within its annual income. The Secretary of State must appreciate that if Newport is to keep its expenditure within the capping limit that he has set, services will have to be drastically cut, particularly education and social services. Surely those two vital services should not be cut—they represent more than three quarters of Newport's total budget expenditure. Will the Secretary of State consider Newport's peculiar and anomalous position?
520
We know that Wales is now the most deprived region in western Europe. The time has obviously come for change: we need the return of a Labour Government and the election of a Welsh Assembly.
6.38 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: Labour Members have given an accurate account of the parlous state in which the underfunding of local government has left Wales—thanks to the Welsh Office. One thing that we know for sure is that everyone in Wales recognises that, despite the fact that total standard spending is to be higher this year than it was last year, once account is taken of inflation and the fact that last year's total made no allowance for factors such as the teachers' pay award, local authorities have already spent as much as the total standard spending that is allocated for the coming financial year that is to start in April. So, at best, there is a standstill.
Last year, local authorities dipped into their reserves to the tune of slightly more than £100 million. My hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) have made a powerful plea for the Government to re-examine the settlement's impact on the services provided by local government in Wales. The one chink of light that we have seen—my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn paid tribute to it—was the action that the Secretary of State has taken in relation to Theatr Clywd in Mold, for which we are thankful. We only wish that he viewed all local government spending in Wales in the same positive and progressive manner.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside pleaded with the Secretary of State to reverse the settlement's effect on teachers' pay. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), said, in a written answer to me, that he expected
"pay awards in the public sector, including those subject to the recommendations of the School Teachers' Review Body, to be met through increased efficiency and other economies."—[Official Report, 18 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 755.]
The Secretary of State ought to say where he believes those economies might be made. He knows that, during the past few years, local education authorities in Wales have cut their administrative expenditure by millions of pounds. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who comes from Wales, should be better apprised of that fact. The Secretary of State also knows that every county council in Wales is currently giving more than 90 per cent. of its education budget to its schools. Councils are doing even better in that respect than the Welsh Office has asked them to do.
Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that local government had been underfunded in Wales. Will he tell the House whether, in his view, the total standard spending should be higher—yes or no?
Mr. Griffiths: I shall return to that point at the end of my remarks. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall examine the issue seriously. After 17 years of disastrous Tory government in Wales, we have serious problems funding the work of local government and other public services. In the past few years, under the Tories, class sizes and pupil-teacher ratios have increased, following

521
a long period in which they decreased. The situation in relation to pupil-teacher ratios is deteriorating, according to answers from the Welsh Office.
Mr. Richards indicated dissent.
Mr. Griffiths: It is no use the Under-Secretary shaking his head. His own written answers have proved that that is the situation; he needs only to check Hansard to confirm it. The figures are marginal in both cases: an increase of 0.2 per cent. in primary schools and of 0.8 per cent. in secondary schools. If, however, we examine the impact of those figures on primary schools in terms of class size, we find that, between 1993–94 and 1994–95, there were more than 7,000 children in classes of more than 30, thanks to the cuts.
The truth about Tory rule in Wales during the past few years is a story of cuts all the way. Ministers' parliamentary answers also provide that information. In 1993–94, revenue support grant was 64 per cent. of local government spending. In 1995–96, it has decreased to 58 per cent. The truth was revealed in a letter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris)—[Interruption.] It has been said before, but it is worth repeating because it is the truth, and the truth needs to be rammed home.
The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) talked about a wind of change. The wind of change has come from the dales of Yorkshire. It is blowing hard into Wales, bringing easterly winds with the ice and the snow that people in the south Wales valleys are currently suffering. Metaphorically speaking, the world of finance—as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) graphically demonstrated—is having an icy effect on the lives of people in Wales. The Secretary of State wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon:
"I believe that over time local authorities in Wales should raise a higher proportion of their income from council tax. The 11 per cent. increase is the result of this approach."
He said that; there was no doubt about it. He wanted and planned for a minimum increase of 11 per cent. He planned for local authorities either to cut their services or to raise disproportionately their council tax.
Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman referred to pupil-teacher ratios. Is he therefore saying that more money should be spent on education in Wales—yes or no?
Mr. Griffiths: I am very happy to answer that question: yes, I do believe that more money should be spent on education in Wales. However, Labour Members are not the people who are examining the books in the Welsh Office, although it will not be too long before we do—and then there will be new priorities. If the Minister is inviting me to come along to the Welsh Office to have a preview of the books, I shall happily take up the offer.
If we are talking about publicly available information about how the Welsh Office is cutting the money it makes available to local government, let us consider revenue support grant which, in constant value terms during the past couple of years, has decreased by more than £37 million. Local government renovation grants have, in
522
the past year, decreased in real terms by almost £4 million. Housing capital provision has decreased by almost £16 million.
It is no wonder that my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside made an impassioned plea for the Welsh Office to release capital receipts so that councils with housing responsibilities—which they will all, of course, have from April—can modernise their housing stock and install central heating so that when the icy winds blow down from the Yorkshire dales, people will be warm. It is cuts all the way.
A Welsh Office press release of 13 December states that, this year, total capital provision in Wales will decrease by more than £17 million. The Secretary of State has tried to present himself as a latter-day Father Christmas by offering £29.1 million and another £15.9 million to dampen the effects of the redistribution of grant to the new local authorities, and by relaxing the capping criteria to enable authorities to raise more money locally.
The Secretary of State knows that if councils in Wales took full advantage of the generous offer and did not cut the services that they provide, but instead sought to fund everything as though there had been no change, seven councils in Wales would have to raise council taxes by more than 30 per cent. Another four councils would have to increase their council tax by more than 20 per cent.; seven councils would require increases of 10 per cent.; and only four councils would require increases of less than 7 per cent. My local authority, Bridgend, is caught in that trap. It will have either to make a huge increase— of more than 36 per cent.—in council tax or to make really serious cuts in services. There is no room for substantial administrative cuts.
I hope that the Secretary of State will look seriously at changing the formula. He asked where more money could be found. I remind him that it was only a couple of years ago that his predecessor returned money to the Treasury. I notice that, in one year, a £59 million underspend was shown in the accounts presented to the Welsh Office. Does the Secretary of State know whether, this year, he is on course for an underspend or an overspend? If there is an underspend, will he give the money to local authorities?
6.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales set out in detail our settlement decisions for 1996–97 and explained the considerations that have informed those decisions. Notwithstanding the fact that the settlement gives local government a real-terms increase in revenue spending, backed up by an aggregate external support package that covers about 87 per cent. of spending, and notwithstanding the fact that, on a per capita basis, the support is 8 per cent. higher than that proposed for England, we have had a predictable barrage of complaints and criticism from the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) was brave enough to give way when he was asked whether he would increase the local government settlement, yes or no. I shall have to read his speech carefully to try to find the answer. He then criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for enabling local government to raise

523
more of its money locally. That is a peculiar criticism when my right hon. Friend is responding to local government requests to be able to do exactly that.
What I noticed particularly in this year's debate, which is being held a year to the day after the previous one, is the change in the Opposition. What has happened to the laughable, bumbling, clueless Ron we remember from last year? Today, he was still clueless—that does not change—but last year he was at least able to include two welcomes in his speech. He welcomed the increase in total standard spending and he welcomed the increase in spending for the police. This time, he gave a tired, jaded, sour performance.
There may be a clue to the decline of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) in his speech last year. He had barely got a paragraph into it when he was pressed by one of his hon. Friends to increase the shadow budget for Wales. Amazingly, he claimed:"There are no restrictions on our shadow budget".—[Official Report, 8 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 361.]
Throughout his speech, then as now, he told us nothing about the shadow budget. Doing one thing and saying another has become the hallmark of the Labour party; in the hon. Member for Caerphilly we have someone who will take it to the nth degree. He is capable of saying one thing, and then another thing, but no one understands what on earth he means. I shall let everyone into the secret. He does not understand either.
The greatest problem arises when the hon. Member for Caerphilly says something positive. Few have failed to notice that his friends in the BBC have been running a campaign to promote a Welsh Assembly. Only this week, a whole programme was devoted to the subject. It tried to claim that a Welsh Assembly would cost less than £15 million.
How much the hon. Gentleman's friends in the BBC must regret it when his loose cannon goes out. Last week, he admitted that a Welsh Assembly would mean about another 500 civil servants. Such bureaucracy creation would take place before a Welsh Assembly did anything. Taking an average salary with the on-costs, I can easily calculate that, with £40,000 per civil servant, £20 million would be spent before the Welsh Assembly did anything.
Mr. Ron Davies: So that the record is accurate, my statement was that it was my estimate that the establishment of the Assembly in Cardiff would create an additional 500 jobs outwith the civil service.
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman has confirmed the warning as given. He has blown what his friends at the BBC were trying to do out of the water.
I appreciate how difficult it is for the hon. Gentleman when he comes to the Dispatch Box. It is an occasion when he is on the record; such occasions are embarrassing for him. I must, however, try to deal with the points of substance that he raised. He claimed that the inclusion for community care was nothing but a transfer from the Department of Social Security. That is not correct; the money being provided is new money. The additional £25.2 million this year takes the figure to £149.6 million additional money for community care. Next year, the figure will be £190.3 million.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly claimed that the damping provision would mean cuts in the national health service. Again, he was not right. The extra money that
524
has been provided for damping is from unallocated resources. In view of his point about cutting the national health service, the hon. Gentleman will not and cannot come clean. "How much more?" is the question that the Opposition constantly face. Where will it come from? They cannot say. However, if they are to be credible when they go into a general election, Labour Members must buy a large sign for the hon. Gentleman. They should hang it in his office where he cannot miss it. The sign should read, "It's the money, stupid." That is the only way in which the point can be brought home to the hon. Gentleman.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been able to announce £1.3 million for Theatr Clwyd, subject to certain provisions. I am grateful for the welcome that the hon. Members for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) have given that announcement. My right hon. Friend and I had very great regard for Theatr Clwyd, and we were much reinforced in that by the lobbying by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) and especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). I am sad that the situation of Theatr Clwyd was precipitated by local government. My right hon. Friend has given the theatre the way forward and it is now for local government to respond properly.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) for his contribution. I cannot do better than use the words of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, who described it as a master class. My right hon. Friend's concerns were well expressed. He explained the threats Labour represents in terms of the effect on the business community and the rates that business would have to pay if local government took over business rates. That point was rightly emphasised by my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field).
Equally, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy asked, would farm land be made rateable? What would the farmers have to fear? What would be the price of ending capping? It is impossible to put a price on all the threats in the unspecific policies of the Labour party. My right hon. Friend did not exaggerate when he talked about the possibility of civil strife in Wales as the consequence of Labour's policies.
Mr. Ainger: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: No, because there is too little time left. The hon. Gentleman has not been here for the whole debate anyway.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside referred to housing. I am sure that he welcomes the substantial provision we have made for housing spending—£1.2 billion for private sector renovation since the current grant regime was introduced and an 84 per cent. higher real-terms spend on capital and revenue for repairs on council housing.
My hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) and for Ribble Valley welcomed our increase in police spending. I know that that was dismissed by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) in his usual elitist way. It is, however, the case, as my hon. Friends said, that the police in south Wales have had to have an approximately

525
22 per cent. increase in just over a year because of the appalling underfunding when the figure was decided by the Labour-controlled councils in south Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan asked about the changes made in the notional amount figures for the Vale of Glamorgan and Cardiff unitary authorities. The changes arose from the provision of more accurate data by South Glamorgan council for the disaggregation of its spending on education to the new authorities. The Vale of Glamorgan authority knows the reasons for the change and accepts the greater accuracy of the new data. The council is understandably disappointed by the reduction in its base position, but it can increase its budget by 3.9 per cent. in the coming year.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) mentioned road mileage lengths being taken into account in calculating Denbighshire's standard spending assessment. The non-financial data that we use in calculating SSAs are carefully validated and verified with all local authorities. They provide the information. We have not received representations from Denbighshire or any other local authority on road lengths. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) feels that the settlement disadvantages Newport county borough council. It enables the council to increase its spending by 5.6 per cent.—the second highest percentage increase of any authority in Wales.
The most noticeable aspect of the debate was the absence of any positive policies from the Opposition. I say to the House and to Wales that we should always remember that council taxes are decided by councillors. It is as that rueful expression says—"We get the councillors we deserve." My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly mentioned some of the crazier spending decisions that have been made, and I warn Opposition Members that they treat the public with contempt at their peril.
Last Saturday's South Wales Echo showed the fat cheques that have been paid out to Labour councillors in back pay for the amounts that they have awarded themselves. That has gone down very badly in Cardiff. The mood is changing in Cardiff which, regrettably, is a one-party state, and it is changing elsewhere in Wales.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 196.

Division No. 47]

[7.00 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Bates, Michael

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Batiste, Spencer

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Bellingham, Henry

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Bendall, Vivian

Amess, David

Beresford, Sir Paul

Ancram, Michael

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Arbuthnot, James

Body, Sir Richard

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Ashby, David

Booth, Hartley

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Boswell, Tim

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Bowis, John

Baldry, Tony

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Brandreth, Gyles

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Brazier, Julian

526

Bright, Sir Graham

Hampson, Dr Keith

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Hannam, Sir John

Browning, Mrs Angela

Hargreaves, Andrew

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Harris, David

Burns, Simon

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Burt, Alistair

Hawkins, Nick

Butler, Peter

Hawksley, Warren

Butterfill, John

Hayes, Jerry

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Heald, Oliver

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Carrington, Matthew

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Carttiss, Michael

Hendry, Charles

Cash, William

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Churchill, Mr

Horam, John

Clappison, James

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Coe, Sebastian

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Congdon, David

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Jack, Michael

Couchman, James

Jenkin, Bernard

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

Jessel, Toby

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Day, Stephen

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Devlin, Tim

Key, Robert

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

King, Rt Hon Tom

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Knapman, Roger

Dover, Den

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Duncan, Alan

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

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

Dunn, Bob

Knox, Sir David

Durant, Sir Anthony

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Dykes, Hugh

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Elletson, Harold

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Leigh, Edward

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Lidington, David

Evennett, David

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Faber, David

Lord, Michael

Fabricant, Michael

Luff, Peter

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Fishburn, Dudley

MacKay, Andrew

Forman, Nigel

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Forth, Eric

Major, Rt Hon John

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Malone, Gerald

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Mans, Keith

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Marlow, Tony

French, Douglas

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Fry, Sir Peter

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Gardiner, Sir George

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Garnier, Edward

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Gill, Christopher

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Gillan, Cheryl

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Merchant, Piers

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Mills, Iain

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Gorst, Sir John

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hague, Rt Hon William

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Norris, Steve

527

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Stephen, Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

Stem, Michael

Ottaway, Richard

Stewart, Allan

Page, Richard

Streeter, Gary

Paice, James

Sumberg, David

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Sweeney, Walter

Patten, Rt Hon John

Sykes, John

Pawsey, James

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Pickles, Eric

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Porter, David (Waveney)

Thomason, Roy

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Rathbone, Tim

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Thomton, Sir Malcolm

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Thumham, Peter

Richards, Rod

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Riddick, Graham

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Tracey, Richard

Robathan, Andrew

Tredinnick, David

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Trend, Michael

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Viggers, Peter

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Sackville, Tom

Walden, George

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Waller, Gary

Shaw, David (Dover)

Ward, John

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Waterson, Nigel

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

Watts, John

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wells, Bowen

Shersby, Sir Michael

Whitney, Ray

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Whittingdale, John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Widdecombe, Ann

Spencer, Sir Derek

Wilkinson, John

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Wolfson, Mark

Spink, Dr Robert

Yeo, Tim

Spring, Richard

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Sproat, Iain

Squire, Robin (Homchurch)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Derek Conway.

Steen, Anthony

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Church, Judith

Ainger, Nick

Clapham, Michael

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Clelland, David

Allen, Graham

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Coffey, Ann

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Cohen, Harry

Armstrong, Hilary

Connarty, Michael

Ashton, Joe

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Austin-Walker, John

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bames, Harry

Cousins, Jim

Barron, Kevin

Cox, Tom

Battle, John

Cummings, John

Bayley, Hugh

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Dafis, Cynog

Bennett, Andrew F

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Bermingham, Gerald

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Berry, Roger

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

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

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dewar, Donald

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

Dixon, Don

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Dobson, Frank

Byers, Stephen

Dowd, Jim

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Eagle, Ms Angela

Campbell-Savours, D N

Fatchett, Derek

Canavan, Dennis

Faulds, Andrew

Cann, Jamie

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Chidgey, David

Flynn, Paul

Chisholm, Malcolm

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

528

Galloway, George

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Gapes, Mike

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Garrett, John

Mowlam, Marjorie

George, Bruce

Mudie, George

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Mullin, Chris

Godman, Dr Norman A

Murphy, Paul

Godsiff, Roger

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Gordon, Mildred

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

O'Hara, Edward

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Olner, Bill

Grocott, Bruce

O'Neill, Martin

Hanson, David

Pearson, Ian

Harman, Ms Harriet

Pendry, Tom

Henderson, Doug

Pike, Peter L

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Pope, Greg

Hinchliffe, David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hodge, Margaret

Primarolo, Dawn

Hoey, Kate

Purchase, Ken

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hoon, Geoffrey

Radice, Giles

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

Randall, Stuart

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Raynsford, Nick

Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

Rendel, David

Hoyle, Doug

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Rowlands, Ted

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Ruddock, Joan

Hutton, John

Salmond, Alex

Illsley, Eric

Sedgemore, Brian

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Sheerman, Barry

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Janner, Greville

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Short, Clare

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Simpson, Alan

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Skinner, Dennis

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

Keen, Alan

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

Soley, Clive

Khabra, Piara S

Spearing, Nigel

Kilfoyle, Peter

Spellar, John

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Livingstone, Ken

Steinberg, Gerry

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Stevenson, George

Llwyd, Elfyn

Straw, Jack

Loyden, Eddie

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Lynne, Ms Liz

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

McAvoy, Thomas

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

McCartney, Ian

Touhig, Don

McCartney, Robert

Vaz, Keith

Maodonald, Calum

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

McFall, John

Walley, Joan

McKelvey, William

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Wareing, Robert N

McMaster, Gordon

Wicks, Malcolm

McNamara, Kevin

Wigley, Dafydd

MacShane, Denis

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

McWilliam, John

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Madden, Max

Winnick, David

Mandelson, Peter

Wise, Audrey

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Worthington, Tony

Michael, Alun

Wright, Dr Tony

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Milburn, Alan

Miller, Andrew

Tellers for the Noes:

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Mr. Joe Benton and Mrs. Bridget Prentice.

Morgan, Rhodri

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1996–97 (House of Commons Paper No. 141), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1996–97 (House of Commons Paper No. 142), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]

Local Government Finance (Wales)

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    NORTHERN IRELAND
    That the draft Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.
    CONTRACTING OUT
    That the draft Contracting Out (Management Functions in relation to certain Community Homes) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 16th January, be approved.
    AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS
    That the draft Agricultural Holdings (Fee) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 17th January, be approved.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    That the draft Leicestershire (City of Leicester and District of Rutland) (Structural Change) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
    Question agreed to.

Audit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Audit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
  Clause 5

    PUBLICATION AT DIRECTION OF EITHER COMMISSION
    7.13 pm
    Ms Hilary Armstrong: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 5, at end insert—
    '(1A) The relevant body may publish the information in accordance with a Code of Practice issued by the Secretary of State under section 2(2) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in page 4, line 8, leave out from '(3)' to end of line 9 and insert 'The relevant body'.

    No. 7, in page 4, leave out lines 14 to 25.

    No. 1, in page 4, leave out line 19 and insert

    'distributed to a number of separate dwellings in their area at least equal to the circulation of the newspaper(s) printed for sale and circulating in their area, in which the information would otherwise be published in accordance with subsection 2 above; and'.
    No. 2, in page 4, line 25, after 'to', insert 'at least 80% of.
    Ms. Armstrong: We have reached Report stage of the Audit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. We had a series of interesting debates in Committee and we have brought these amendments to the House in an attempt to make the Government see sense.
    The amendments address the issue of how and where local authorities will publish their performance indicators. Last year was the first year in which performance indicators were published and we learned many lessons from that experience. It is one of the reasons why the Bill is before the House this evening. However, I believe that we have learnt more lessons than are addressed in the Bill, so we are seeking to amend it.
    Amendment No. 5 seeks to approach the issue in a different way. Local authorities are obliged to publish their performance indicators properly so that the majority of local people can read and understand them. They should not be complicated and they should be easily accessible. I am sure that every hon. Member shares that objective. The information must reach as many people as possible and be easily understood. Tonight we are debating the mechanism which will achieve those ends. I do not believe that the Bill has got it right, and that is another reason why we have tabled the amendments.
    Amendment No. 5 seeks to give the Secretary of State power to issue a code of practice to prescribe the way in which local authorities must publish performance indicators. In other words, the Secretary of State will have the power to issue a code of practice so that he can be absolutely sure that local authorities are not using oblique methods in an attempt to avoid meeting the objective. We have taken methods of practice from other pieces of legislation, which we believe will better achieve our aims, and applied them in this case.

    531
    Under section 3 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the Secretary of State may make regulations to enforce the provisions of such a code of practice. There is an existing code which ensures that the objective is met. I am sure that the Minister knows all about it so I shall not take up the time of the House tonight by going through it. However, I believe that the current provisions in the Bill will not meet the objective.
    The provisions of the 1980 Act were introduced by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, to ensure that local authorities published the information that the Government thought necessary at that time. That included information to accompany local tax demands, annual reports, staffing levels, information on planning applications, information on land holdings and so on. The amendment would bring performance indicators under a similar regime.
    I appreciate that performance indicators must be published separately and that specific attention must be drawn to them. However, as I understand the code of practice, that would not be a problem under existing legislation. The provisions of the 1980 Act specifically permit
    "any such Code to be prepared by some other person on behalf of the Secretary of State.
    any such Code to specify the steps which authorities are to take to inform the public of the availability of the information".
    In Committee, the Minister interpreted the wording of the Opposition amendment as requiring authorities to distribute the information to every household and business. He thought that it would put authorities at risk of legal challenge and
    "would be too hard on local authorities".
    He was anxious that authorities did not abuse the publication of performance indicators to produce partisan material in a local authority publication.
    We pointed out in Committee that if local authorities did that, they would be breaking the law as set out in the Local Government Act 1986. Notwithstanding that, the Minister sought to make it one of his concerns.
    The Minister objected to our amendment asking authorities to distribute the information to every household and business as he thought that would be too difficult. The Bill requires authorities to "take all reasonable steps" to ensure that a free newspaper is distributed to each dwelling and business. That could be equally onerous and create other difficulties.
    We discussed the problems involved in the distribution of free newspapers in great detail in Committee, so I shall not do so today. However, the wording of the Bill may lead to demands that some local authorities are unable to meet.
    The amendment would permit a wide range of practice in publishing performance indicators. We are asking the Government to reconsider the matter. If the amendment were agreed, the Government would retain every possible means of preventing abuse. I know that the Minister is concerned to stop abuse and to ensure that local authorities are not tempted down that road. The amendment would give him the necessary powers, so he and his right hon. and hon. Friends should be reassured that it is not an attempt to make sure that people do not find out about performance indicators, but to give more people access to them.
    532
    Clearly, a code should be used to encourage best practice and to give authorities maximum flexibility in the publication of performance indicators. It could also incorporate such safeguards as requiring a statutory notice in a paid-for or free newspaper publicising the authority's arrangements for distribution of the material and telling the public where additional copies were available.
    Taken with the Bill as presently drafted, the amendment would present authorities with a menu of options for publishing performance indicators in accordance with a code of practice that would permit own newspapers, leaflets, the use of a paid-for or free newspaper or a combination of those options. It is our responsibility to give local authorities the opportunity to develop means that are appropriate to their areas and meet the objectives set out in the Bill.
    It is also important to provide for diversity. In Committee we discussed the diverse nature of local authorities. Although one newspaper may be distributed throughout an entire city area, that is not always so. In order to uphold the proper relationship between central and local government, there should be a balance between diversity and the adherence to a minimum national standard. The amendments give the Government the opportunity to achieve that balance.
    The other amendments in the group would put amendment No. 5 to into effect. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 aim to delete the distribution conditions for free newspapers so that they are treated in the same way as paid-for newspapers when placing a statutory performance indicator advertisement.
    In Committee, there were two main concerns with the Bill's provisions permitting the use of a free newspaper for the statutory publication of performance indicators. First, clause 5(4) places the burden on authorities to ensure that a free newspaper is distributed to dwellings and businesses. The Bill sets a test of reasonableness, but that is not much help to authorities that might need to test the circulation claims made by the publishers of a free sheet. The Minister acknowledged:
    "The local authority, in deciding which free newspaper or other newspaper to select, must be reasonably satisfied that the paper is delivered throughout that area."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 January 1996; c. 48–9.]
    As I have already said, that cannot be assured throughout the country as the distribution and availability of free newspapers is variable. The Bill is likely to deter authorities from using a free newspaper for the statutory advertisement and could effectively vitiate the purpose of clause 4.
    Secondly, the Bill puts paid-for newspapers at a market advantage. Contrary to the Minister's words, no distribution condition applies to paid-for newspapers. A paid-for newspaper with a very small circulation would suffice for the statutory performance indicator advertisement, but a free paper has to meet a very stiff test of being delivered throughout the authority's area.
    The Bill leaves whole issue confused and does not meet our objectives. As it incorporates a minor barrier to free trade, the Bill does not seem consistent with the philosophy and the policy that the right hon. Member for Henley purports to support. The Government seek to make the performance indicators more accessible to the electorate and the council tax payer, but they have drafted the Bill in such a way as to make that objective much

    533
    more difficult to attain. The amendments give the Government a way through and I hope that, even at this late stage, they will consider rethinking the wording of the Bill.
    Mr. Peter Griffiths: I shall not detain the House for long, but I want to express my complete support for what the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) has just said. In particular, I agree with her request that the Minister look at this whole matter again. I also agree with her that the Government have not got it right at this stage. Fortunately, however, there will be discussions in another place which will give the Government time to ponder their previous decisions and what has been said tonight. They will also be able to reflect on what is said in another place before the Bill finally reaches the statute book.
    7.30 pm
    I am speaking on my own behalf this evening, but I also want to echo the concerns expressed to me by Portsmouth city council. Just to show that mine is not a party political point, I might add that, over the past few years, the council has been controlled by all the main parties in succession. So I am describing the view of the city.
    Portsmouth city is disturbed by what was intended to be an extension of freedom and widening of opportunity. Whereas in the past it was specified where notices had to be published—in paid-for newspapers—the widening of choice to include free advertising, give-away newspapers was meant to give local councils greater say in how they distribute information. In Portsmouth, however, this idea does not produce more competition or choice. There is only one paid-for newspaper, and that paper also owns the free, give-away newspaper. So the city has no choice but to use the services of that newspaper—and it does not take kindly to that.
    I hope that I will not embarrass the hon. Member for North-West Durham if I say how strongly I agree with what she said about local authorities being able to publish their own broadsheets. Portsmouth has an excellently printed and published broadsheet which gives information about all the council's activities in an entirely proper, non-political way. It has done that under the control of successive parties. Certainly, it would be illegal if the city council presented the information in such a way as to advance the interests of one political party. That is against the law; it would have serious repercussions, including— rightly—the surcharging of those responsible.
    The information can be published by the city of Portsmouth and be attractively presented, on art paper, for instance. It can be illustrated with charts and diagrams. It is of course possible to pay for such services in newspapers, but the cost has to be borne by the city's funds. I am quite sure that Portsmouth is not the only place capable of producing a satisfactory statement that includes performance indicators and tables, and of guaranteeing distribution to every door. After all, the council already distributes information about elections; it distributes the registration forms necessary for voting. It puts them through front, side and back doors—when that is necessary, such as in houses in multiple occupation. This is probably the most efficient distributive system imaginable.
    534
    Portsmouth is also capable of varying the size and type in which the information is presented. Statutory notices in Portsmouth's evening newspaper—from the Queen's harbour master to mariners, for instance—are typed in small print because they need to be read by only a handful of master mariners. But the whole idea of publishing performance tables for the public is that they should be read by the man and woman in the street, not the expert on local government. They are for people who want to know what is going on and who welcome a format that is clear and easily understood.
    It is possible to do all this by paying a newspaper, but that is very expensive. I therefore suggest that the ideal wording for the clause would be along the lines that local councils should be "responsible" for the distribution of the information. The Bill should not specify how they do it; they should simply be responsible for getting the information to every door, in the manner of their choosing. If, in so doing, they break the law: so be it— they must take the consequences.
    The problem remains that, in the absence of competition, the cost of advertising and printing performance tables of this size and on this scale runs into thousands of pounds. That is a heavy burden; hence, I hope that the Government will consider allowing efficient local authorities to produce their own broadsheets in their own way. That will allow them to present information to the very people who will, in time, express their views on the performance of their councils. That is the most democratic way to go about the job.
    I have a great deal of sympathy with amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) may discuss later. Given that there is an all-party consensus on the matter, perhaps the Government will now treat it with care and consideration.
    Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted to follow that speech, which seems to show that there is concern in all parties about the wording of the Bill and the Government's way of trying to ensure that performance indicators are given wider publication than hitherto.
    The Bill is somewhat lopsided as between the way it treats paid-for newspapers and those which are free. I want to speak, not so much along the lines of the previous two speeches, which have dealt generally with the widening of the ways in which these performance indicators are made known to the public, but more specifically about what I believe are faults in the wording of the Bill which mean that, in practice, the Government will not achieve their aims.
    It is clear that any publication in any paid-for newspaper, however small its circulation, meets the requirements of this Bill. On the other hand, if publication is done in free newspapers, then, as the Minister said in Committee, that will meet the requirements of the Bill only if the free newspapers are available to be distributed throughout an entire area. That may happen in some inner-city or inner-town areas, but it will certainly not happen across large parts of the country. That is why the clause is inadequate as it stands.
    In my area, the Newbury Weekly News is the main paid-for newspaper. It covers a large part of the district, but certainly not all of it. It makes no attempt to cover a significant part of the eastern end of the area. So if publication is to be, as it has been hitherto, in the

    535
    Newbury Weekly News, it will be positively difficult to get hold of the performance indicator information in large parts of the district.
    There are also free newspapers in the area covering large parts of it. Between them they may have a larger total circulation than the Newbury Weekly News. Still, they do not attempt to cover the entire area.
    Equally, the Newbury Weekly News has a small circulation inside north Hampshire, so technically it would be possible for Basingstoke and Deane council to publish its performance indicators in the Newbury Weekly News—and only there. That would mean that the indicators were published to a large number of people with little interest in them and a small number of people with a considerable interest in them, and leaving out a large number of people with an interest in them but not living in the circulation area of the paper. That is the kind of difficulty that the current wording would produce. The two amendments that I have tabled would, to a large extent, overcome that difficulty.
    The Bill should maximise the circulation of performance indicators. In practice, in many areas including my own, the wording of the Bill would make no change to the present situation. In other words, district councils would have to publish their performance indicators in the local paid-for newspapers, because there are not sufficient free newspapers to ensure coverage of the whole area. The Minister made it plain in Committee that many areas would see no change. That might mean that circulation was smaller than it could be, and people who live in those areas might get worse value for money in the information they get about their district councils. We might gain better value for money by ensuring publication in free newspapers that perhaps cover only part of the area, rather than publishing in a paid-for paper which could cover a smaller area.
    The Minister made the point that, if councils are forced to publish in paid-for newspapers, the information is at least available to everyone in the area. That is partly true, although in some districts paid-for newspapers may be quite difficult to obtain. People sometimes have to travel some way into the circulation area of a newspaper. However, free newspapers are also, in almost all cases, available in the local town, if someone is determined to get hold of a copy. So the Minister's point falls, because the free newspapers are as available to those determined to get hold of them as paid-for newspapers.
    Amendment No. 2 makes the point that, as far as possible, the papers containing the relevant information should be distributed to businesses. The Bill, as it stands, suggests that, unless all the business areas are covered by the free newspapers, the publication will still have to be in paid-for newspapers. The amendment would increase the chance that district councils had the opportunity to publish in free newspapers, even if those free newspapers did not cover every business in the area.
    The point of the Bill must be to widen councils' opportunity to publish information in free newspapers as well as in the paid-for newspapers. The Bill does not do that at present. If the Government accepted my amendments, the Bill would do what they want it to do.
    Mr. Ken Livingstone: There is clearly a huge cross-party consensus on this subject. The overwhelming majority of hon. Members believe that
    536
    local residents have a right to have delivered, through their letter boxes, a proper analysis of what services their councils provide and how well they do so in comparison with others. That is what the performance indicators are all about. The Audit Commission's various publications are clear and simple to understand. They usually have bar charts so that people can see how their local authority is performing against a comparable local authority serving a similar area.
    I wish to speak especially in favour of the amendments which would introduce a real code of practice. Whereas the vast majority of the 450 local authorities operate reasonably honourably and straightforwardly, a small handful of completely corrupt, dogmatic and arrogant local authorities will abuse any system that is placed in their hands. For that small minority, a real code of conduct is necessary. It will come as no surprise to the House to know that my personal experience of what happens in Brent prompts me to speak forcefully about the need for a code of conduct. The Opposition are offering the Government more powers: that must surely indicate the depth of concern that we feel.
    I shall give a couple of examples of the way in which Brent council manages, in effect, to avoid the commitment to reporting their performance indicators to their local electors. Like many local authorities, Brent is not well served by local papers any more. The local papers that we have do their best, but the money is not there, compared with 25 years ago when I was first elected to a local authority. They no longer have long-standing members of staff or a substantial staff who are able to report what is going on in detail. Those papers have had to make so many economies and they are far too reliant on handouts from local authorities.
    7.45 pm
    In my own local authority area, the council has chosen to report performance indicators by giving the local free sheet a special deal. The paper appears with a wrap-around bit, like the wrapping around fish and chips, which one immediately discards and moves on to the real fish in the middle. The long-standing local paper, which has been published for more than 100 years, does not get the benefit of that deal because it is often slightly critical of the local authority.
    If the council buys the service, it is able to dictate the format of what is provided. When, once a year, I get my copy of the Brent Recorder—which Brent council has paid to report the performance indicators to every household in Brent—it thuds through the letter box. I pick it up and instead of the usual colourful cover there is what looks like half a dozen pages of Hansard—dull, dead type that nobody would bother to read unless they had a severe case of insomnia. I can hear what happens all over Brent. The paper thuds through the letter box, and that is followed by a scrunching-up noise which works its way through the borough as everyone tears up the so-called performance indicator report and dumps it in the bin so that they can read the contents of the real newspaper. Other than people such as myself, who pore over the report to see where the corruption and fraud have been hidden, nobody else in Brent has any interest in it whatever.
    The council is prepared to discharge its duty to report in that most minimal way, but it can find thousands of pounds to produce a nice glossy magazine with colour

    537
    photographs and endless pictures of the leader of the council. Given what he looks like, that is not necessarily a good idea. The magazine contains wonderful stories about the joys of living in Brent, which imply that everyone in Brent is living on some wonderful tropical island where nobody ever has to work and everyone has a life style like the old Greek gods.
    People in Brent pick up that rubbish every few months and they cannot believe the descriptions of the town that they see around them, with garbage in the streets, and so on: we never see a street-sweeper because, as the performance indicators show, that is not Brent's strong suit. The magazine is an attempt to bypass any real duty to report the performance indicators that Parliament has required, with agreement, to be made available so that local residents can monitor their council's performance.
    Brent has two local papers—the Kilburn Times and the Willesden and Brent Chronicle, which are part of the same group. Because they report things such as the ombudsman's reports, they are under constant pressure from the local authority. The system cannot operate if the council puts completely unacceptable pressure on well established local newspapers not to report anything that the council does not want reported. I have found it especially offensive that the chief executive of the council has written to each local department head to tell them not to advertise in those papers because they write critical stories about the council.
    There are bound to be critical stories about the council. If out of 32 London boroughs, a council spends less on education and social services than every other borough, it will occasionally get a tad of criticism. If, out of the whole of south-east England, including Greater London, Kent, Surrey, and East and West Sussex, a third of all complaints to the local government ombudsman are about one council, that will occasionally get into the local press. I should like to see the code of conduct that we are putting into the Government's hands improved to stop intimidation of the press.
    Many local newspapers are always struggling. The threat is issued that advertising will be withdrawn if they print unfavourable stories. That makes a mockery of any suggestion that there can be fair and honest reporting for local people about the performance indicators that the Audit Commission has produced, which no one questions are good guides to relative performance.
    The process can be taken one stage further. The current chief executive at Brent, a guy called George Benham, circulated a memorandum—this is no wild, manic rumour of the sort that might be read in Socialist Campaign Group News—to all departmental heads in the borough. I should explain that they are called business units now. There are about 140 such units. I write to what used to be the director of education asking, "Can you get little Johnny into a school?" The reply refers to "the customer". We are dealing with little Johnny, not a customer, and little Johnny wants to go to a school.
    We have business units with advertising budgets. George Benham writes to the units telling them, "Mr. Livingstone keeps attacking the council." The atmosphere is fetid. He, George Benham, suggests, "It would be useful if Mr. Livingstone were not invited to any function at which councillors might be present.
    538
    Mr. Livingstone's presence is embarrassing to them." That is the climate in the borough. It is one that puts pressure on local newspapers not to report issues such as performance indicators.
    What happens if an authority gets away with what I have described year after year? I reflect on the past five years. There was a Conservative minority administration, which still hangs on by a casting vote. It has managed to hang on to power. It is helped if it can manipulate information. If an authority gets away with that for five years, it becomes extremely arrogant.
    The ombudsman is undertaking an investigation. Indeed, 17 investigations are being undertaken by the fraud squad, the ombudsman and the council's internal audit. That is going some when there is a Tory group of only 33. Some of the investigations are multiple. Some councillors are being investigated by the fraud squad, the ombudsman and the internal auditors. Everything is being examined from £75,000 grants being handed out in exchange for support in a local government election down to the small stuff such as local builders being employed to clean a councillor's windows. All this stuff builds up.
    At the same time, arrogance increases. There is the example of the AdShop. The issue was discussed in Committee and I was grateful when I was not criticised for raising it. There was no word of support for Brent council from anyone on the Government side. When I reported activities taking place in Brent, no Conservative Member was prepared to stick his neck out by saying, for example, "I am sure that's not true," or to say one word in defence of Brent council. I congratulate the Minister and Conservative Back-Bench Members on their perspicacity and good sense.
    I return to the AdShop. A business unit showed a loss of £400,000. Amazing things were going on. The staff decided that they wanted a meeting. It was thought that it would take an hour. It was decided that everyone should fly to Schiphol international airport at Amsterdam. The VIP lounge had been booked for the staff meeting. Of course, after the staff meetings, the rest of the day was available. These happenings are not reported too well when there is the level of intimidation that I have described. We are offering the Government a code of conduct to enable them to clamp down on abuse. If the code were implemented, local reporting would not be stifled.
    When these matters were raised in council, the committee chair concerned was approached by a reporter from the Willesden and Brent Chronicle, Miss Kamala Hayman. His response was, "If you publish any of this, I shall take you out of the back of the town hall and break your legs." What chance is there of honest reporting of performance indicators when a leading member of the Conservative administration, in front of witnesses at a full council meeting, turns on a young woman reporter and says, "I am going to take you out of the town hall and break your legs"? I rest my case.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): The nicest thing about listening to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) was to note that the tables had been turned on him. I remember reading the Londoner and gnashing my teeth—that is probably an appropriate description—at the gobbledegook and biased propaganda.

    539
    When I reflect on the propaganda, as the hon. Gentleman describes it, that emanates from Brent council, it is almost always eminently fair, straight and above board. If the hon. Gentleman feels that he is living in the Bahamas, perhaps we should get a psychiatrist to help him.
    I understand the thinking behind the amendments. At one stage I was tempted by amendment No. 5. We share a common objective to ensure that local authorities publish information about performance that is unbiased and informative. The Bill achieves that by providing that publication must be subject to independent editorial control. I understand that the approach of Opposition Members might be used to the same ends. However, my memory does not have to go back too far to when I was in local government.
    That leads me to baulk at what they propose, which would land local government and the Government with more regulation. There would be more intervention. We would need yet another code of practice. That would have to specify what information would be included and what might or should not be included. How could we deal with editorial bias? Would we need a stand-alone document, which would mean more expense for local authorities? I do not think that anyone in this place wants that level of interference.
    The Government's approach is preferable. Local authorities and Parliament will be in no doubt about the publication requirements and will not face the possibility of changes to those requirements from year to year.
    Ms Armstrong: The amendments offer a range of options. If an authority were using the most expensive option, it would fall foul of value-for-money and other regulations that are already in place. We are offering a menu of options to enable each local authority to choose the most effective and appropriate approach in its area. That gives force to the amendments. I urge the Minister to think again. If the amendments are agreed to, the options set out in the Bill could still be implemented by a local authority if that were appropriate.
    Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Lady has outlined why there was temptation at an earlier stage, which I am now resisting.
    I suspect that amendments Nos. 6 and 7 are tied closely to amendment No. 5. At the same time, they are surprising. The removal of the distribution requirement flies in the face of arguments previously advanced by Opposition Members and would worsen the various situations highlighted in Committee by the hon. Lady, especially that regarding her father. Local authorities would be given complete discretion on distribution and they could satisfy the requirement simply by using a free newspaper that had only a limited distribution. That would undermine opportunity for those who wish to seek a newspaper and to seek the information within it.
    Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), adopt a different approach to distribution. I understand the hon. Gentleman's reasons for tabling amendment No. 1, but it strikes me as being impractical. How do we assess the number of people who will be reached by a paid-for newspaper? Amendment No. 2 is more onerous than the existing clause in respect of business premises. The amendment would force local authorities to reach 80 per cent. of the business community, whereas the current wording leaves such matters to the judgment of the authority.
    540
    All the amendments illustrate a misunderstanding of the meaning behind clause 5. That leads me to stress two points from the outset. First, the publication provisions are no more than minimum requirements. That answers my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths). It may be that, given its local circumstances, an authority believes that some additional publication over and above the minimum requirements would represent value for money in terms of effective accountability and communicating with its citizens. That was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North.
    If my hon. Friend reflects on the words of the hon. Member for Brent, East and those of some of the authorities that he and I would care to name for having the expertise to get round legislation and codes of practice, for example, he will understand the Government's thinking. In such cases, it is open to an authority to provide such additional publication—for example, including performance information in its own in-house journal delivered to its citizens—and we believe that it would be right for it to do so, particularly in Brent.
    Secondly, there is a simple principle underlying these minimum requirements: whatever forms of publication are chosen by an authority, information about its performance, as measured against the Audit Commission's indicators, is at least available throughout its area in a publication that is wholly independent of the authority. We attach the utmost importance to that information being readily available to all who wish to obtain it, and in a context where an authority cannot seek to put its own gloss on the objective measures of its performance. The hon. Member for Brent, East made that point.
    8 pm
    The Local Government Act 1992 requires publication of an authority's performance information in a newspaper circulating in its area. Such a newspaper is available in shops in the area; it is thus available to anyone who chooses to purchase it, even if they have to travel some distance to do so, as is the case in some rural areas. Such a newspaper is also edited independently of the authority, and the requirement to publish in a newspaper circulating in an authority's area therefore satisfies our underlying principle.
    We now believe that, in the light of the representations that we have received from the Audit Commission and local government, this underlying principle can equally be satisfied in certain cases by publication in free newspapers delivered to dwellings. These cases are where the free newspapers are wholly independent of the authority concerned, and where the free newspapers are distributed throughout the authority's area.
    Where a free newspaper is wholly independent of the authority, it is edited independently of that authority just like a paid-for newspaper. Equally, where free newspapers are distributed to dwellings throughout the authority's area—the situation that the distribution requirement in clause 5 seeks to describe—these newspapers can be seen to be generally available, even though they might not be available in the shops. I have deliberately referred to free newspapers in the plural; if an authority chooses to go down the free newspaper route, it is immaterial whether availability throughout its area is achieved through one or

    541
    several such newspapers. We therefore seek in clause 5 to extend the ways in which an authority can fulfil the minimum publication requirement.
    There remains the established way of using paid-for newspapers. We are now seeking to introduce a new option, as requested by local authorities, of using free newspapers in the circumstances that I have just described, where the use of such newspapers would be consistent with our underlying publication principle. The modest increase in flexibility as to how the minimum publication requirement can be fulfilled is all we seek to achieve.
    I trust that Opposition Members will feel that they can now accept the assurances that I have given and withdraw the amendments.
    Ms Armstrong: I am not entirely content with what the Minister said. I hope that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) is right and that the matter will be dealt with in the Lords. I do not wish to press the issue at this stage for that reason, and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Order for Third Reading read.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time—[Mr. Knapman.]
    8.3 pm
    Mr. Livingstone: One could probably talk about Brent until 10 o'clock without a note, but as I raised most of my points on Second Reading, there remain only a couple to which I wish to draw the attention of the House.
    The Bill is a missed opportunity. We all welcome the steps forward in social services and the chance to have joint investigations and so on. I make a plea only that the Minister makes it clear to the Audit Commission that we would like it to start with Brent, because out of 32 London boroughs, Brent spends the least on social services, although there is massive need in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) that is as bad as anything in the east end. I hope that the Bill will allow us to examine that. In any investigation about Brent, what we see is major neglect. An independent assessment was made of social services—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that on Third Reading he must refer only to what is in the Bill.
    Mr. Livingstone: I hope that the Minister will ensure that we have a rapid investigation of the social services department of Brent and the studies and joint studies that have been mentioned, and that the Bill will give the Audit Commission the power to get involved. The closest that we have come to any comparative investigation was last year. An independent expert in social services was brought in, and discovered on examining the case files in the register of children at risk that 10 per cent. of all the files were illegible. How can Brent social services department be functioning adequately? I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that he shares that concern.
    542
    Nobody can be proud of that record. How can one defend children at risk when in 10 per cent. of cases one cannot even read the files?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying hard, but he is not being successful. He must stick to what is in the Bill, or I shall have to rule him out of order.
    Mr. Livingstone: I made that point because the powers already exist, and I want them used in Brent, which, of all social services departments in Britain, has the most urgent need. I do not believe that any hon. Member would be other than horrified to discover that the constituents whom they represent had to suffer in such circumstances. How does one create such a complete air of neglect? The comparative studies that are now possible and the strengthening of the Audit Commission in social services must give it the ability to step in. Even if it cannot take control, it can at least draw attention through the new powers to areas were one borough council is performing dramatically worse than others.
    As I mentioned in Committee, the question of reporting should have been in the Bill. I shall not repeat on Third Reading everything that I said about it in Committee, but this is a tremendous missed opportunity. I hope that the Bill will be strategically amended in the other place to strengthen the powers that will be given to the Minister. If it is, I hope that the Government will the accept the proposals, because what we have is not adequate.
    My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) made it clear that we are not happy with what we heard from the Minister. If the Bill is amended in the other place, he will have the support of the House to use tougher powers to stop the abuse of the system of reporting on performance indicators. If cannot be right if those indicators are reported in such a way that nobody is interested in looking at them.
    Who would produce an election address of just solid, turgid type? No one would read it. We have nice pictures of ourselves. We have pictures to illustrate local topics. We have graphics. If a council refuses to use those options and just produces dense acres of type, people will not plough through it.
    I hope that, when the Bill goes to the other place, Government amendments will be tabled to strengthen it along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham. If he did that, he would have the support of the Opposition and, I suspect, the Liberal Democrats as well.
    8.8 pm
    Ms Armstrong: I do not wish to detain the House for much longer, but hon. Members should be reminded that the Government were given an opportunity to clarify their wish to use the Audit Commission more effectively to secure probity and the delivery of high-quality services in local government.
    The Bill deals with two fairly minor matters. It proposes that the social services inspectorate should be able to work with the Audit Commission to inspect whole social services departments, an important new power which I welcome. I have always considered it nonsense that no power to ensure both effectiveness and value for money is enshrined in legislation. I also welcome the

    543
    Government's recognition that the current regime for the publication of performance indicators does not meet its objectives. However, I still do not think that the Bill has got it right.
    The Government have not faced up to the problems that local government has asked them to tackle. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) talked about Brent and, on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) spoke of the delay in solving Lambeth's problems, which was due partly to the fact that the auditor had not the necessary powers and partly to a lack of consistency. In Committee, we had a short debate about the importance of consistency among district auditors, and ways of ensuring that were suggested. I am sorry that the Government did not take the opportunity provided by some of our amendments.
    On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras also mentioned Brent and Westminster. He pointed out that in those boroughs, as well as in Lambeth, the public could not feel confident about the way in which matters had been handled, and that the district auditor had continually been thwarted. It is our responsibility to ensure that government at every level is as open, honest and responsive to local people as the House can make it. I am sorry that the Government did not tackle that issue in the Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third Time, and passed.

Edgware General Hospital
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]
8.12 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this topic. As I raised it in April last year, it may seem strange that I have raised it again tonight, but significant developments have taken place in the intervening time. I make no apology for bringing up the subject again, as there is still great public concern about the future of Edgware general hospital.
The issue must be examined again very meticulously: although it is a local issue, it impinges on all the services provided by the NHS in the neighbouring areas of north and north-west London, and, indeed—as some patients are referred from parts of greater London that are a long way away—on services north of the river generally.
I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health for his attendance. I hope that he will be able to reassure me. This has been a long campaign: it began when the last Secretary of State for Health made what we regarded locally as a tragic, unnecessary and unjustified decision to allow local agencies to proceed with the closure of the hospital's accident and emergency unit, and it continues in full force.
It is interesting to reflect on the panoply of local campaigns, which seek numerous objectives. I suppose that nothing is more important than the provision of health services—the services of hospitals, GPs and clinicians, and all the other facilities that are provided by a national health service in which we still take enormous pride. Health is one of the most crucial issues, especially for older people.
Experience suggests, however, that—logically and understandably—once a decision has been made, even local people who disagree passionately with that decision may drift away from their previous strong position. Although their arguments retain their validity, they may say, "There is nothing that we can do. The authorities are determined to go ahead, and we must accept their decision even if we still disagree with it."
In this case, however, that has not happened: if anything, feelings are stronger than they were before. That is a remarkable phenomenon, which I cannot recall observing before in many years of becoming involved in local issues. The passions aroused by this unwise decision are still extremely powerful, and the mass campaign continues—supported by most local politicians, both councillors and Members of Parliament. That must be borne in mind; but it is even more important to bear in mind the tangible underlying reasons why the proposed closure is a mistake.
It was in that spirit that, along with other hon. Members from all parties, I tabled an early-day motion on 22 January. The composition of those who signed the motion reflected approximately the percentage of referrals from constituencies in the area surrounding the hospital. The motion asked the Department of Health and the Ministers concerned to ask Barnet district health authority and the other bodies involved, including the Wellhouse trust itself, to look at the matter again.
In early November, in the House of Lords, my noble Friend Baroness Cumberlege—speaking on behalf of the Secretary of State—repeated emphatically that, in a

545
process of extensive and thorough consultation, Barnet health authority and the Wellhouse trust had consistently sought to involve the public in their deliberations through a series of public meetings and the distribution of leaflets and articles in the local press. My noble Friend went on to say that the Secretary of State would not be reversing decisions made by his predecessor.
I can understand that. That is the normal basis on which a new Secretary of State takes over a portfolio, which will include all the adjustments that have been made in hospital policy. Conservative Members need no lectures from the Labour party, which many years ago, when it was in government, either closed or savagely cut some 60 hospital units per annum.
It is normal, and natural, for Secretaries of State to say, "I cannot go back on the decisions of my predecessor." Officials present the position in those terms when the new Secretary of State takes over. Dossiers are examined, but there is no suggestion of reconsidering closure proposals. That is understandable, but I nevertheless feel that a fundamental mistake has been made in this instance. Given the importance of the issue to local people, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will listen to the details sympathetically.
I was grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter in the lengthy Adjournment debate that took place on 5 April. Once again, tonight's debate has begun before the time when public business normally ends in the Chamber. Let me reassure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker: that does not mean that I shall speak at excessive length. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister has an engagement, and I shall be speaking at a dinner if I manage to arrive on time.
In the previous debate on the Audit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) was, for various reasons, obsessed with the state of Brent council. With even more justification, I am obsessed with the future of Edgware general hospital, although, I hasten to add, it is on the other side of the road shared equally between myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst).
I remind my hon. Friend the Minister of a number of important considerations that, once again, point powerfully to an unusual and demanding position that can irritate any Government, Ministers and officials who, once they have reached a decision, believe that they cannot go back on it. In this case, there are reasons for reconsidering the matter carefully.
I reiterate what I said on 5 April during the previous Adjournment debate. When the accident and emergency facilities at the Royal National orthopaedic hospital in Stanmore were closed about 12 years ago, it was reiterated repeatedly by the local agencies—the Minister will recall that there was a different structure then—and by Government spokesmen—and I can give chapter and verse on this any time the Minister cares to ask for it— that the local public did not need to be concerned about that, because the A and E facilities at Edgware general, which was just down the road, would take care of any substitution.
That important factor persuaded a number of local people reluctantly but gradually to accept the closure of the Royal National orthopaedic hospital's A and E unit—
546
a successful unit, and one close to the Ml motorway. That closure was also a mistake, but it happened a long time ago, and we cannot go back on it.
In that Adjournment debate, if I may quote without taxing the House's patience, I said:
"I am worried about all aspects of the closure proposal. That is why others and I will be fighting hard and relentlessly to persuade the Government to change their mind. I am especially concerned about traffic congestion. It is an extremely congested area. If people are obliged to go to Barnet, Northwick Park"—
the main district general hospital in the middle of my constituency, and located alongside the town centre—
"or the Royal Free Hospitals, their journeys will take a great deal of time."—[Official Report, 5 April 1995; Vol. 257, c. 1792.]
There has been no significant reassurance by anyone that I care to recall—unless the Minister can disabuse me tonight—that that would not be so. The local public are extremely worried about that.
The hospital's A and E services are needed as much as the Barnet hospital must be expanded. Because it is in another region, I shall deliberately refrain from commenting too much in detail on Barnet hospital and its build-up, which I also welcome. No doubt there will be some referrals from my constituency to that hospital, although obviously not many. That would be welcomed by the local public, but it does not negate or reduce the primary requirement for Edgware general to remain a major multi-department medical facility in its own right, and not to be truncated drastically and tragically by closing its most important section—the accident and emergency facilities.
There is no reassurance so far on that point. It remains to be seen what the Government and others responsible for the decision will say in detail about these matters. Traffic congestion is one of the main issues that will arise again and again when these matters are considered.
There is no diminution in the force of the local campaign—I emphasise that. I am not at all reassured by any statements so far from the Wellhouse trust, London ambulance service representatives, other people involved and Department spokesmen. There has been no significant tangible reassurance about the provision of the necessary ambulance services that would take care of additional journeys to the other units instead of Edgware general. That is a glaring gap in the range of information that is needed to reassure the local public as the campaign forges ahead, trying to persuade the Government to change their mind on this important issue.
I referred to that matter last June, when there was a further development in the local campaign. There was an enormous expansion in public anger and resentment that the authorities would in no way reconsider the decision. As I mentioned in that Adjournment debate and elsewhere, the local public consultations, including those of the regional health authority, were extremely inadequate and people did not feel that their points were listened to with care and responded to in any way. They were brushed aside—that is the glaring truth of this sad saga.
After a further stage in the campaign, when a number of meetings took place, I suggested In my June statement:
"we have to stick together to try and persuade the Department of Health to change its mind. This is a gigantic task. We should be firmly united, not seeking narrow Party advantage."

547
The campaign is of the whole of the people, and has nothing to do with political parties in that direct detail.
The statement continues:
"It needs to be a sober campaign not an historical and emotional one."
In that campaign, local politicians should aim to achieve the central objective of persuading the Government to change their mind on the A and E facility, not seek to score points off each other or indulge in gesture politics, which will not save the accident and emergency facilities.
In that spirit, there were various questions from me and hon. Members in the summer months, seeking to get the Government to persuade Barnet health authority to change its recommendation and to reconsider these matters, as it could within its own powers, but we did not succeed, as is well known.
Autumn came. After continued campaigning, there was still no significant response from the Department to, for example, my question in a letter to the Secretary of State for Health on 21 July about traffic congestion and the excessive time needed for ambulance journeys Northwick Park hospital even with the blue light operating. Some informal tests have been done of those journey times, which were disturbingly long.
I again show to the Minister the local map produced by the Canons Park residents association campaign in its newsletter, an effective document. It produced a series of articles about the issue, continuously, up to the latest editions, showing again how congested the area around the Edgware general hospital is, how relatively uncongested the area around Barnet general hospital is, and the difficulty of those various journey times.
In July last year, the Prime Minister was kind enough to reply to my letter to him. I thought it was right to make some of these points to No. 10 Downing street. At the end of his letter, he confirmed that it was necessary to retain "significant" hospital services at Edgware. He did not go into detail—rightly, he left that to the Department and to his colleagues—but it is what "significant" means that is of major concern.
All the medical experts that I have talked to say in some detail say that, if we excise anything other than just the marginal A and E services in a modern A and E unit such as that at Edgware hospital, we inevitably undermine the provision of services in that hospital and its ultimate rationale. We could turn it into a sort of bucket hospital— if that is the right phrase, without alarming people excessively—that just starts running down.
I am sad to say that there are a few examples of the running down of facilities already as people psychologically start preparing for the ominous moment in May 1997, the scheduled date for the closure of this significant facility. They are starting to think of it as a much truncated unit offering a limited range of services.
There is still time, however, for all this to be reconsidered, without anyone being humiliated into a drastic climbdown or a change that is beyond all reasonable expectations. It would be absurd for anyone to expect the Government to say that they are completely reversing a decision that was taken after, I presume they would suggest, considerable thought, but it is the way in which the issue is reconsidered to try and achieve the right solution for the modern A and E facility that we still want at Edgware hospital in 1997 and beyond that is important.
548
That is the key to what the Government can suggest to Barnet health authority and the Wellhouse Trust on how they should handle the matter and reconsider. None the less, I am aware of the absolute need to support the new managers of Wellhouse trust and not to humiliate or embarrass them, or to make them think that their role is being betrayed by a change that goes beyond their expectations for the detailed range of services that the modern hospital will offer.
I acknowledge that Barnet, with its expanded, modern, high-technology facilities, is vital, especially for people in the northern part of that borough. Again, I shall deliberately refrain from annoying my colleagues, if they read my words in Hansard, by commenting too much on what is happening outside my borough of Harrow.
Of course, Northwick Park hospital is central to our requirements in Harrow town centre. It also serves Brent, and takes patient referrals from as far as away as Ealing and beyond. However, Edgware general is in the middle of all those areas, and it should still be a significant major hospital for them, rather than being reduced, as it might be, to a low-facility unit.
The campaign continues. I pay tribute to the enormous power and effect of the Hands Off Our Hospitals campaign, and to all the people who have organised it. They have not given up; they have not reduced their activity and efforts. I shall bring to the Minister's attention information that we received recently through the campaign supporters' newsletter. There will be a campaign consultative meeting on 22 February, and another major rally, to engage the attention of all of the public in that area again, on 19 March, right in the heart of the Edgware general hospital area.
I understand the temptations for Ministers, bureaucrats and officials. If I were in their position, I should probably feel the same, and hope that attrition would account for the campaign, and that there would be a diminution in the intensity of feeling. But that is not happening. I must emphasise that to the Minister as strongly as I can. People want those significant facilities to remain. They want much more than the suggested replacement—that is, the minor accident treatment service now officially proposed by Wellhouse.
The consultations that the trust management said would be undertaken do not seem to have added up to much yet, although my colleagues and I have been offered several meetings. I do not decry that in any way, but I am not sure the trust is doing what it should for the local public.
There was an arresting headline in the local press recently. I hope that I am not showing too many exhibits tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as if we were in a court of law, but we are dealing with a vital issue for the local population, and I am grateful for your indulgence. I should be happy to let the Minister have a copy of the 1 February edition of the Edgware and Mill Hill Times, whose headline is "Closure plans may be illegal".
I have been dealing with many other matters this week, so I have not had the chance to find out whether that charge has been refuted, from whatever quarter, so I quote it subject to those inevitable reservations. Underneath that startling headline is another: "CHC threatens legal action over lack of consultation on Edgware General". The article says:
"Barnet's patient watchdog has accused health chiefs of acting illegally over plans to close Casualty"—

549
that is, the accident and emergency facility—
"and has warned it could take the matter to the courts.
Barnet Community Health Council… believes that Barnet Health Authority … is breaking the law by obstructing it in its duty to be consulted over health care changes."
Much more follows, and what the newspaper says must be of significant concern to the Department of Health when it considers what would be the only drastic reduction or elimination of a major facility in a significant NHS hospital on the outer London fringes. That, among other reasons, is why we feel so steamed up about it.
One reason why I have deliberately raised the subject now is that there are now rumours of possible second thoughts from the Department of Health, and of a possible reconsideration of some aspects. The Wellhouse trust management may be trying to engage the attention and sympathy of local GPs, by holding various consultations to try to find possible ways through the problems.
Provided that the present A and E facilities are to be retained in their basic and major form, any suggestion would be considered fairly and fully by the patient representatives, by the representatives and spokesmen of the Hands Off Our Hospitals campaign, by the local parliamentary representatives, by local councillors and by the many thousands of other local people involved.
It is now for the Government to take on board the serious fact that the campaign will not go away. The campaign has no narrow political axe to grind; it represents literal common-sense reality, and what the local public feel, aided by their medical advisors and by a range of powerful voices from GPs, surgeons and consultants, all of which say that the decision must be reconsidered.
A basic mistake was made. The profound consultation necessary was lacking. There was an unwillingness— possibly inadvertent but, unfortunately, probably deliberate—on the part of the regional health authority and the district health authority to consider the many and voluminous representations of local protestors.
Those people were not simply indulging in the normal knee-jerk reaction, without any consideration of the details, when medical facilities are threatened. The very location of the hospital provides the main reason for the continuing concern. There is an overriding need for the Government to think again and to work out how they can accommodate the demands from Members of Parliament and from the local public.
The campaign will not go away. It will continue. If the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues can give us comfort and say that the services will be maintained, the public will be reassured, even if there are to be some changes. I am speaking theoretically, because I do not want to raise the subject of change deliberately.
For obvious reasons, I refrain from making any specific suggestions tonight. But even if the main high-technology equipment is to be located at Barnet—one can understand the investment priorities of its new programme—none the less, despite that small reduction at the margin, the whole range of existing A and E facilities could be maintained.
There must be a way forward, a way in which the Government can meet the demands of the local public. If not, the campaign, the agitation—I use that word in a
550
respectful sense—and the massive force of the combined voice of the people will continue, and I shall give it my full support all the way, as is my duty as a Member of Parliament.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can say something that will help, because the local press will be waiting for the Hansard report of the debate. I did not suggest that, but that is what I was told. This is a most important occasion. There is still more than a year before the fateful decision is to be made, and before there will be any further damaging rundown of the hospital. Alarming stories are already coming out. I hear messages about them every week, with examples of services that are just beginning to be reduced at the margins, because of the low morale of everybody involved and the plight of the staff, for whom I have much sympathy.
The Government now have a marvellous opportunity to seek to reassure us and to put a new dynamic into the future of the Edgware general hospital, by saying that the important A and E facilities will be kept—because, as I have explained, they make sense. So I look forward with great anticipation to my hon. Friend's words.
8.38 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on his success in the ballot, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate what is undoubtedly an important matter. As always, my hon. Friend spoke forcefully and with eloquence in advocating the best possible health care for his constituents. He has, if I may say so, conducted a long and skilful campaign on the matter.
I should mention in passing that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), who has also been assiduous in this matter, unfortunately cannot be here this evening. I know that he has also played a part in the long-running campaign.
I acknowledge the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East made forcibly about the strength of local feeling on the matter, which is probably running as high as it has been at any stage during the whole lengthy business. I can assure him that the Government are concerned about the matter. Ministerial colleagues and I have devoted a great deal of time and attention to the subject in recent months, and we want to ensure the best possible balance for the future provision in the area. I hope that my hon. Friend will take those commitments and assurances in the spirit in which they are given.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently met deputations about the future of Edgware hospital— including one led by my hon. Friend—and the matter has been the subject of debate in this House and in another place on a number of occasions. I also assure my hon. Friend that the Government's first priority, and that of the Secretary of State, is to put the interests of the patient first. As decisions are implemented and new decisions are taken, our guiding principle will be that the quality of service should be at the very least maintained, and wherever possible improved.
The changes already agreed at Edgware are designed to provide the people of Barnet and Edgware with a high-quality, improved clinical service for patients. The present split-site arrangements at the Wellhouse

551
NHS trust, with the inevitable duplication of facilities between the Barnet and Edgware sites, are not only inefficient, but significantly detrimental to good patient care. That is despite the dedication and hard work of the excellent medical and nursing staff at the Wellhouse trust. To ensure that the best health services possible are provided, patients need modern facilities in hospitals large enough to ensure appropriate levels of staffing and expertise. That is precisely what the development at Barnet general hospital is about.
The changes due to take place at Edgware and Barnet hospitals are part of a long-term programme of improvements to health services provided at the Wellhouse trust. They have been finalised only after an extensive and thorough process of consultation. Barnet health authority has been exemplary in involving the public in its deliberations through a series of public meetings, the distribution of leaflets and articles in the local press. It has gone to great lengths to explain how patients will benefit from the planned changes, and why change is necessary.
Inevitably, when change comes to much-loved local hospitals such as Edgware, there is great public concern. It is also unavoidable that, when changes to any local health services are determined, there will be some who find the new arrangements less convenient. I fully understand that. I say again, however, that we believe that the changes at Edgware and Barnet will lead to an improvement in patient care.
I now wish to refer to the implications for Edgware hospital, which are of such concern to my hon. Friend. Despite any change to its status that may ensue, Edgware hospital will continue to be a significant provider of health care in the area. I note the point that my hon. Friend made about a letter from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which stated that the hospital would be a significant provider of health care. He rightly asked what exactly was meant by the word "significant" in that context.
The Government mean that there will be an extensive provision of out-patient clinics, day-care services, a breast-screening centre and mental health services. These will ensure that the hospital continues to provide an extremely wide range of services. In addition, an accident service will continue at Edgware. My hon. Friend knows that the MATS centre—to use the jargon—was opened by the chief nursing officer in November 1995, and the majority of patients who currently look to Edgware for their health care needs will continue to find them there.
Decisions remain to be taken on the final pattern of services at Edgware. Consultation is under way on various proposals, including the treatment of the elderly and children on the Edgware site. The decisions that have already been taken—never mind those that may be taken following consultation—mean that around four out of every five patients currently attending Edgware will continue to be treated there.
I must also emphasise—quite apart from what I have said about existing and potential services—that the changes at Edgware hospital will not happen immediately. They will only take place once any redevelopment of Barnet general hospital and the expansion of services at Northwick Park and the Royal Free hospital have been completed, and improvements in the ambulance service have started to be delivered. All this is part of a coherent
552
plan, and we must ensure that nothing happens until we are perfectly certain that all the other elements are in place.
The House will be aware that the redeveloped Barnet general hospital will provide the full range of acute services. I can assure the House that the facilities being developed there will be of the highest quality. The £29 million first phase of redevelopment work started in November last year. The second and final phase, costing £33 million, can now go ahead. Once this work has been completed, we will in effect have built an entirely new hospital, which will allow local people access to the highest quality specialist acute facilities. The new accident and emergency department at Barnet will be one of the most up-to-date in the country, capable of treating 70,000 patients a year to the highest clinical standards.
As Edgware hospital changes its role and becomes more of a local hospital, so local primary services will need to adapt to the different circumstances. It is an essential element of the plans that primary care services will be developed. Local GPs will need time to develop human and financial resources to manage the shift from secondary to primary care, and will need to be closely involved in the development of services on the Edgware site.
My hon. Friend did not mention the fact that, in order to facilitate these changes, the local primary health care development fund plans to invest £17 million over a five-year period to improve local primary care services. My hon. Friend knows that the Government believe that the health service should be primary care-led, so we attach great importance to bringing together hospital and primary care.
Projects at present under way include the extension of nursing in the home for the terminally ill, improvements in GP surgeries and an outreach ophthalmology clinic. Projects planned for the future include increases in community nursing staff, further training of GPs to carry out minor surgery, and the introduction of community physiotherapy to improve the care of diabetics. I believe that these developments provide an excellent framework in which to ensure the success of the new Edgware hospital.
My hon. Friend also referred to the problems of transport in the area. I am aware that specific concerns have been expressed about the problem. I do, of course, acknowledge that some patients from the Edgware area will have great difficulty in travelling to Barnet. For this reason, a free NHS bus service will operate between the sites for those patients who require services that are being concentrated at the Barnet site. Special arrangements will be made for elderly and infirm patients who are less mobile. It must be recognised, however, that the majority of the services currently provided at Edgware will remain.
Particular concern has been expressed about the problems of transport in relation to accident and emergency provision. To address these concerns, the health authority intends to provide additional investment over and above the significant increase already agreed this year. Two additional ambulances and crews will be funded at an extra cost of £320,000.
As a former Transport Minister, I have considerable sympathy for my hon. Friend's point about traffic congestion in the area. He said that that was a serious matter that had not been fully addressed. We take that

553
point seriously, and understand local concern that problems could be caused at the congested bottom end of the Ml. I will look at that point.
Mr. Dykes: We are concerned about the specific length of the journey from Edgware general to Northwick Park. The actual time would be a minimum of 45 to 50 minutes in normal traffic conditions, and that is far too long.
Mr. Horam: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and that adds to my concerns about traffic congestion. I will look at that point.
We believe that the proposals approved for the development of hospital services for Edgware and Barnet will lead to improved health care for the local community.
554
They are being brought forward after lengthy consideration and consultation—which has not yet been completed—and will allow Barnet health authority to meet its statutory duty to ensure that residents of the area are provided with a comprehensive health service meeting the full range of their needs.
Some of the current facilities are below the standards that we believe patients should be able to expect. We are engaged in an effort to improve conditions for the people of the Harrow and Barnet area. We believe, therefore, that, if the plans are properly and fully implemented, taking into account the additional consultation, which is in train, that part of London will have facilities that will match the very best in the national health service.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Nine o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will arrange for(a) papers relating to judicial review applications in respect of immigration matters to be lodged at district registries, (b) reference numbers to the applications to be obtained by telephone from the Crown Office by the district registry and (c) the district registry to forward the papers to the Crown Office in London; and if he will make a statement. [14283]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The rules of the Supreme Court do not provide for papers relating to judicial review applications to be lodged at district registries. Applications must be filed at the Crown Office in London. Judicial review is one of the specialist areas being considered by Lord Woolf in the second stage of his review. His final report and proposed new rules are due in July. It would be inappropriate to make significant procedural or rule changes prior to Lord Woolf's recommendations being received.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action he plans to take arising from the consultation on the interdepartmental review of fire safety legislation and enforcement; and if he will make a statement. [13629]

  Mr. Willetts
  The Government have been considering the findings of the review and the views expressed by interested parties, including the deregulation task force. It has also been further considering the fire safety aspects of the EC framework and workplace directives. An announcement on both will be made soon.

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance he plans to issue to Government Departments to ensure that fiches d'impact are properly prepared by the Commission in relation to proposals that result in significant burdens on business. [13642]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster published on 25 January guidance for Government Departments on the preparation of compliance cost assessments for new domestic and EC regulatory proposals. Guidance on the preparation of fiches d'impact by the Commission is contained in this document.

  Private Sector Schemes
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what public bodies he has asked to produce schemes for moving into the private sector under the prior options exercise; what was the original time scale for such schemes; what is now the timetable; and if he will make a statement. [14114]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have not asked any of the public bodies for which my Department is the sponsor to produce schemes for moving into the private sector.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Publications
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of his Department's administrative manuals and internal guidance are now made public; and which remain private. [14032]

  Mr. Hanley
  The FCO code of management, diplomatic service regulations and home service regulations are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Diplomatic service procedure includes volumes which are classified. It is currently being revised, and volumes are being declassified where possible, with a view to sending unclassified sections to the House of Commons Library.

  One-off best practice manuals, covering such subjects as management practices and guidance on the presentation of papers, are unclassified and available on request.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what efforts he is making to encourage the Chinese Government to ensure that the proposed electoral college for Hong Kong will be democratically accountable; and if he will make a statement; [13954]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Chinese Government about the establishment of an electoral college in Hong Kong to oversee the appointment of a chief executive; and if he will make a statement. [13955]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 7 February 1996:]: The Sino-British joint declaration on the question of Hong Kong provides for the chief executive of the Hong Kong special administrative region to be selected by election or through consultations held locally, and then appointed by the Chinese Government. When they adopted the Basic Law, Hong Kong's future constitution, the Chinese National People's Congress also decided on special arrangements for choosing the first chief executive by a selection committee consisting of 400 permanent residents of Hong Kong. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary recently told Chinese leaders—and Chinese officials have made similar public remarks since—that it will be important for confidence in Hong Kong for the chief executive to command the support and respect of the Hong Kong civil service and of Hong Kong people.

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he ensures that the negotiating brief for his officials discussing EU legislation takes fully into account the need to minimise the burdens on United Kingdom business. [13712]

  Mr. David Davis
  Guidance on how officials are to apply deregulatory principles when negotiating EC regulations is contained in the DTF' s booklet, "Getting a Good Deal in Europe". This guidance has been supplemented by the recent publication of guidance on the preparation of compliance cost assessments, which stresses that the likely burdens on business highlighted by United Kingdom compliance cost assessments of EC proposals should be integral to the UK's negotiating strategy. Copies of both pieces of guidance are in the Library of the House.

  Newly Independent Countries
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list of the countries granted independence by the United Kingdom since 1970 showing(a) when a formal decision was taken to proceed towards independence and (b) the actual date of independence day in each case. [14285]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The countries granted independence by the United Kingdom since 1970 are: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Zimbabwe.

  I refer the hon. Member to the "Commonwealth Yearbooks" 1987 and 1993–94 (HMSO, 1987 and 1995) from which the other information may be obtained. Copies of the yearbooks are in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering (Luton)
  Sir Graham Bright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times Luton borough council has been investigated by his Department for possible transgressions related to compulsory competitive tendering; and what has been the outcome in each case. [13628]

  Mr. Curry
  Luton borough council has been the subject of five investigations by the Department. Three of these investigations related to alleged anti-competitive behaviour in the award of refuse collection in 1991, building maintenance in 1993 and grounds maintenance work in 1995, to the council's direct service organisation. In each case, no statutory action was taken after the authority provided my right hon. Friend with an explanation of its conduct.

  The other investigations relate to the authority's failure in 1992–93 to achieve the statutory financial objective for building maintenance work and other—civic—catering. In both of these cases a notice was served, in 1994, under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988 requesting the reasons for the failure. Following receipt of this
  286
  information, a direction was given requiring the authority to achieve the statutory financial objective for other catering in the financial year 1994–95 or close its DSO. The authority's accounts for the year indicate that that objective was achieved, although the external auditor's opinion on these accounts has not yet been received.

  Local Authority Investments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what fiduciary duty councilors have to their council tax payers on decisions concerning(a) the local authority's pension fund and (b) investments in equities. [13941]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The fiduciary duties of a local authority to its council tax payers to exercise prudential care and propriety apply in relation to the exercise of all the authority's functions, including those in respect of superannuation funds and investment in equities. The Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 1995 require local authorities responsible for managing pension funds to have regard to the need to diversify investments, to consider the suitability of those investments and to seek qualified advice at reasonable intervals.

SCOTLAND

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 303–4, if he will give the names of each councillor serving on the non-departmental public bodies. [12433]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information is as follows:

  Councillor

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  Mrs. Val MacIver

  New Town Development Corporations

  Cumbernauld Development

  Tom Barrie OBE

  Corporation

  Rosemary McKenna CBE

  East Kilbride Development

  Stewart Crawford

  Corporation

  Colin Robb

  David Sanderson

  Glenrothes Development

  John McDougal

  Corporation

  Robert Taylor

  Irvine Development Corporation

  Jack Carson

  Thomas Colyer

  Livingston Development

  Isobel Brydie

  Corporation

  Brian Meek OBE

  William Percy

  Joseph Thomas

  Scottish Arts Council

  Keith Geddes

  Janette Richardson

  Scottish Community Education Council

  Mrs. Val MacIver

  287

  Councillor

  Scottish Environment Protection Agency

  Alison Magee

  Corrie McChord

  Jennifer Shaw

  Scottish Enterprise

  Rosemary McKenna CBE

  Scottish Examination Board

  Dr. R. Bull

  T. Farrell

  Mrs. Maginnes

  Mrs. J. P. Orskov

  Ms A. J. Smith

  W. A. Smith

  Scottish Homes

  Daphne Sleigh

  Scottish Sports Council

  George Urquhart

  SCOTVEC

  P. Watters

  Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council

  John Connolly

  Lynn Groundwater

  Rhona Kemp

  Alexander Scott

  The undernoted councillors are members of Health Boards and NHS Trusts:

  Health Boards

  Argyll and Clyde HB

  John Mullin

  Fife HB

  Agnes Smith

  Forth Valley HB

  Keith Harding

  Lanarkshire HB

  John Thomson

  Shetland HB

  Mary Colligan

  NHS Trusts

  Angus NHS Trust

  Pamela Bowman

  George Norrie

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  John Wilson

  Borders General NHS Trust

  George Finlay

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  Alison Magee

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity NHS Trust

  Ernest Gibson

  George Willacy

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Services NHS Trust

  Janette Richardson

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  Patricia Fawcett

  In-patient and day case discharges with a principal diagnosis of asthma by health board of residence, calendar years 1979–1994

  Health board of residence

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Argyll and Clyde

  291

  308

  326

  351

  472

  497

  489

  574

  Ayrshire and Arran

  241

  247

  336

  364

  373

  487

  503

  533

  Borders

  85

  80

  90

  128

  119

  172

  160

  184

  Dumfries and Galloway

  69

  106

  120

  135

  170

  143

  147

  175

  Fife

  192

  292

  292

  313

  374

  416

  377

  424

  Forth Valley

  138

  171

  163

  171

  180

  192

  225

  290

  Grampian

  334

  385

  446

  499

  577

  575

  604

  681

  Greater Glasgow

  845

  951

  1,089

  1,069

  1,235

  1,332

  1,372

  1,366

  Highland

  113

  146

  178

  189

  215

  249

  222

  248

  Lanarkshire

  253

  406

  498

  447

  591

  638

  686

  625

  Lothian

  908

  1,060

  1,099

  1,077

  1,148

  1,182

  1,298

  1,245

  Orkney

  4

  5

  5

  11

  10

  13

  25

  13

  Shetland

  3

  4

  8

  15

  23

  22

  17

  17

  Tayside

  402

  390

  459

  451

  484

  533

  604

  537

  Western Isles

  15

  22

  22

  20

  26

  31

  21

  24

  Scotland total

  3,893

  4,573

  5,131

  5,240

  5,997

  6,482

  6,750

  6,936

  Outside Scot/not known/other

  62

  59

  44

  72

  74

  64

  95

  91

  Grand total

  3,955

  4,832

  5,175

  5,312

  6,071

  6,546

  6,845

  7,027

  288

  Councillor

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse NHS Trust

  Janet Mitchell

  Lanarkshire Health Care NHS Trust

  Mary Smith

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  Murdo Morrison

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  Margaret Davidson

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  Angela Dunbar

  Cherry Young

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  Jean Goldie

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  George Murray

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  Peter Johnston

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to his Department of the study carried out by the department of general practice at Edinburgh university for his Department into general practitioner fundholding. [1251]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office Department of health funded the research project, which was carried out over a period of three years, at a cost of £436,956.

  Asthma
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of asthma have been diagnosed in each health board area in Scotland in each year since 1979. [12512]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Available information relates to in-patient and day case discharges from hospitals and excludes patients treated by general practitioners and in hospital out-patient and accident and emergency departments.

  Details of numbers of discharges, by health board of residence, with a principal diagnosis of asthma, is shown in the table for calendar years 1979 to 1994. The figures for 1995 are not yet available.
  289

  Health board of residence

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Argyll and Clyde

  580

  632

  720

  807

  802

  765

  855

  717

  Ayrshire and Arran

  683

  653

  657

  648

  789

  760

  832

  740

  Borders

  197

  207

  227

  275

  185

  174

  201

  169

  Dumfries and Galloway

  184

  210

  189

  218

  226

  242

  252

  221

  Fife

  475

  532

  486

  465

  475

  483

  536

  445

  Forth Valley

  362

  356

  339

  411

  424

  361

  452

  460

  Grampian

  912

  846

  817

  1,148

  1,017

  1,013

  1,056

  1,009

  Greater Glasgow

  1,574

  1,621

  1,582

  1,839

  1,833

  1,988

  2,058

  1,870

  Highland

  269

  259

  242

  289

  310

  270

  367

  311

  Lanarkshire

  801

  895

  976

  1,032

  1,168

  1,074

  1,087

  979

  Lothian

  1,477

  1,468

  1,532

  1,579

  1,796

  1,702

  1,759

  1,660

  Orkney

  30

  16

  17

  17

  20

  19

  16

  13

  Shetland

  20

  15

  25

  29

  14

  14

  35

  27

  Tayside

  648

  708

  705

  734

  942

  834

  894

  828

  Western Isles

  14

  26

  19

  30

  31

  35

  38

  40

  Scotland total

  8,226

  8,444

  8,533

  9,521

  10,032

  9,734

  10,438

  9,489

  Outside Scotland/not known/other

  99

  133

  105

  129

  129

  155

  146

  137

  Grand total

  8,325

  8,577

  8,638

  9,650

  10,161

  9,889

  10,584

  9,626

  Mortgage Arrears
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many households have mortgage payment arrears of more than three months. [14288]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  This information is not held centrally.

  Murray Green
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make a decision on the complaint raised on behalf of Murray Green under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 in May 1994. [13766]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Secretary of State's decision issued on 6 February 1996.

  Education authority primary schools1

  March 1990

  May 1992

  May 1994

  With school boards

  With school boards

  With school boards

  Number of eligible schools

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number of eligible schools

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number of eligible schools

  Number

  Per cent.

  Scotland

  2,373

  1,901

  80.1

  2,339

  1,789

  76.5

  2,329

  1,723

  74.0

  Borders

  77

  53

  68.8

  76

  52

  68.4

  72

  45

  62.5

  Central

  117

  90

  76.9

  116

  90

  77.6

  116

  86

  74.1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  116

  80

  69.0

  116

  83

  71.6

  116

  86

  74.1

  Fife

  145

  116

  80.0

  145

  95

  65.5

  145

  99

  68.3

  Grampian

  274

  190

  69.3

  274

  183

  66.8

  274

  175

  63.9

  Highland

  205

  140

  68.3

  197

  143

  72.6

  199

  140

  70.4

  Lothian

  243

  190

  78.2

  240

  163

  67.9

  240

  154

  64.2

  Strathclyde

  901

  820

  91.0

  884

  773

  87.4

  883

  741

  83.9

  Tayside

  190

  129

  67.9

  188

  125

  66.5

  187

  119

  63.6

  Orkney

  23

  20

  87.0

  23

  19

  82.6

  24

  17

  70.8

  Shetland

  35

  28

  80.0

  35

  29

  82.9

  29

  28

  96.6

  Western Isles

  47

  45

  95.7

  45

  34

  75.6

  44

  33

  75.0

  Strathclyde Divisions

  Argyll and Bute

  77

  68

  88.3

  76

  66

  86.8

  74

  65

  87.8

  Ayr

  151

  144

  95.4

  148

  133

  89.9

  150

  132

  88.0

  Dunbarton

  117

  109

  93.2

  117

  104

  88.9

  116

  99

  85.3

  Glasgow

  232

  202

  87.1

  228

  186

  81.6

  228

  161

  70.6

  Lanark

  214

  193

  90.2

  208

  183

  88.0

  208

  179

  86.1

  Renfrew

  110

  104

  94.5

  107

  101

  94.4

  107

  105

  98.1

  1 Includes primary departments of secondary schools.

  School Boards
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was, for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools for each education authority area in Scotland and for each sub-division within Strathclyde region (i) the number of schools with school boards, (ii) the total number of schools and (iii) the percentage of schools which had school boards for each year since the establishment of school boards. [13249]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information held centrally is as follows. It is taken from statistical returns by education authorities to the Scottish Office on the results of the first elections to school boards held in 1988–89 and subsequent biennial elections in 1991–92 and 1993–94:
  291

  Education authority secondary schools

  March 1990

  May 1992

  May 1994

  With school boards

  With school boards

  With school boards

  Number of eligible schools

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number of eligible schools

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number of eligible schools

  Number

  Per cent.

  Scotland

  428

  412

  96.3

  410

  389

  94.9

  406

  376

  92.6

  Borders

  9

  8

  88.9

  9

  9

  100.0

  9

  9

  100.0

  Central

  19

  18

  94.7

  19

  16

  84.2

  18

  17

  94.4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  16

  16

  100.0

  16

  16

  100.0

  16

  16

  100.0

  Fife

  19

  18

  94.7

  19

  17

  89.5

  19

  16

  84.2

  Grampian

  39

  34

  87.2

  38

  31

  81.6

  38

  33

  86.8

  Highland

  27

  27

  100.0

  27

  25

  92.6

  26

  23

  88.5

  Lothian

  51

  48

  94.1

  48

  47

  97.9

  46

  43

  93.5

  Strathclyde

  185

  182

  98.4

  171

  169

  98.8

  171

  160

  93.6

  Tayside

  32

  30

  93.8

  32

  31

  96.9

  32

  30

  93.8

  Orkney

  6

  6

  100.0

  6

  6

  100.0

  5

  6

  100.0

  Shetland

  9

  9

  100.0

  9

  9

  100.0

  9

  9

  100.0

  Western Isles

  16

  16

  100.0

  16

  13

  81.3

  16

  14

  87.5

  Strathclyde Divisions

  Argyll and Bute

  9

  9

  100.0

  9

  9

  100.0

  9

  9

  100.0

  Ayr

  31

  31

  100.0

  30

  30

  100.0

  29

  26

  89.7

  Dunbarton

  25

  25

  100.0

  24

  23

  95.8

  24

  22

  91.7

  Glasgow

  50

  47

  94.0

  42

  42

  100.0

  43

  38

  88.4

  Lanark

  38

  38

  100.0

  37

  36

  97.3

  37

  36

  97.3

  Renfrew

  32

  32

  100.0

  29

  29

  100.0

  29

  29

  100.0

  Hip and Femoral Fractures
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) hip fractures and (b) femoral fractures were recorded in 1993–94. [13842]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of hip fractures and femoral fractures recorded for NHS in-patients and day cases treated in Scotland in the year ending 31 March 1994 are given in the table.

  Recorded in

  Principal1 position

  Other position

  All

  Hip fracture (ICD=820)

  8,354

  913

  9,267

  Femoral fracture (ICD=821)

  1,293

  284

  1,577

  1 The SMRI allows six diagnoses to be recorded. The diagnosis recorded in principal is the main condition. Other diagnoses affecting the treatment of the patient are recorded in the remaining five positions.

  Osteoporosis
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost(a) of osteoporosis to the Scottish economy, (b) of running a basic diagnosis and prevention service and (c) of hospital treatment (i) per patient and (ii) in total in each health board. [13843]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of beds in orthopaedic wards have been occupied by osteoporosis fracture patients over the last 12 months. [13844]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The percentage of average staffed beds' occupied by patients with a diagnosis of fracture and osteoporosis2 in the speciality of orthopaedics was 0.2 per cent.—4.1 average occupied 292
  beds out of 2,012 average available staffed beds—for the year ending September 1995. The data on occupied beds are provisional.

  Source:

  1 DS(S)1 31 March 1995.

  2 SMRI for the year ending 30 September 1995—ICD codes 733.0 (osteoporosis) in principal position with fracture (800–829) in a se condary position or fracture (800–829) in principal with osteoporosis (733.0) in a secondary position.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people died in 1993–94 as a result of fractures due to osteoporosis. [13846]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of people in Scotland who died in 1993 and 1994 as a result of fractures due to osteoporosis' is as follows:

  1993: 13

  1994: 15

  Note:

  1 World Health Organisation International Classification of Diseases (Ninth Revision) code 733.1.

  Bone Densitometers
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many bone densitometers are in use in each health board area. [13845]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the annual number of mortgage repossessions since 1979. [14287]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Figures supplied by the Council of Mortgage Lenders suggest that in 1994, 1,791 properties were taken into possession by mortgage lenders in Scotland. This represents 0.22 per cent. of the total
  293
  number of properties with mortgages outstanding. The comparable figures for 1993, were 2,330 and 0.29 per cent. respectively. The equivalent figures are not available for the period 1979–1992, and are not yet available for 1995.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland were(a) of an economically active age and (b) in employment for each year since 1979. [14289]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Thousands

  Spring

  People of working age1 in Scotland Total

  In employment

  1979

  3,021

  2,187

  1980

  —

  —

  1981

  3,062

  2,066

  1982

  —

  —

  1983

  3,102

  2,043

  1984

  3,121

  1,999

  1985

  3,131

  2,060

  1986

  3,128

  2,027

  1987

  3,139

  2,044

  1988

  3,134

  2,119

  1989

  3,137

  2,207

  1990

  3,143

  2,226

  1991

  3,143

  2,204

  1992

  3,145

  2,235

  1993

  3,147

  2,171

  1994

  3,149

  2,203

  1995

  3,149

  2,225

  Source:

  Central Statistical Office, Labour Force Survey.

  Note:

  1 Aged 16–59 for females, aged 16–64 for males.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the opening capital structure of the new Scottish water authorities on 1 April. [14739]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The new water authorities have been set up to enable water and sewerage services to be provided in accordance with commercial principles and disciplines. It is therefore right that the authorities should have a capital structure which reflects these objectives.

  The opening capital of the new water authorities will mainly take the form of debt to the public Works Loan Board. There is likely in addition to be a small amount of debt to the European investment bank. This debt will represent borrowings for water and sewerage purposes by the current regional and islands councils which is transferable to the water authorities under section 91 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.

  The total of such debts at 31 March 1996 is likely to be in the region of £1.7 billion. This is more than will be compatible with the requirement on the authorities, announced on 29 November last year, to earn a real rate of return of 61/2 per cent. on assets amounting in aggregate to £1,000 million. Accordingly my right hon. Friend
  294
  intends to commute up to £700 million of the transferable debt.

  The precise amount and details of the commutation have still to be worked out. Discussions will be held with the local authorities and the new water authorities.

  Commutation is a technical exercise. It will involve no net addition to public expenditure and no increase in the cash available to the water authorities. A reduction will be made in the authorities' external financing limits, previously announced as £274 million, to reflect the reduced debt servicing costs, so that the net effect on the authorities' finances, including their investment and charges will be neutral.

PRIME MINISTER

  Pay Review Bodies
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the reports and recommendations of the pay review bodies. [14718]

  The Prime Minister
  The 1996 reports of the five pay review bodies have been published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. The Government are grateful to the chairmen and members of the review bodies for the time and care that they have put into the preparation of the reports.

  The Government are concerned that pay settlements for these groups should be consistent with the approach to public sector pay. Under this approach, increases should be offset by efficiencies and other economies to help to deliver improved efficiency across the public sector. Specifically, the cost of pay settlements should be accommodated within the resources allocated to programmes. The Government have had to consider the recommendations of the pay review bodies against that background to determine the appropriate response.

  The main pay recommendations are as follows.

  The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has recommended a range of increases in daily rates of 3.2 to 3.8 per cent., plus an increase of 0.5 per cent. in the X factor reflecting the special demands of service life. This gives an average increase of 3.8 per cent. with effect from 1 April. Separately, following a quinquennial review of the value of armed forces pensions, it has recommended a 1 per cent. increase in pay to reflect reduced pension differentials with the private sector, with a further 1 per cent. increase next year.

  The Doctors and Dentists Review Body has recommended general increases of 3.8 per cent. for doctors and 4.3 per cent. for dentists. It has specifically recommended higher increases for junior hospital doctors of 5.3 per cent. for registrars and 6.8 per cent. for house officers, although the latter figure would be partly offset by a reduction in the rate for additional duty hours.

  The review body for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine has recommended that pay for these groups should once again

  295
  be determined locally. The review body also recommended a 2 per cent. increase in the national scales which underpin local negotiations.

  The School Teachers Review Body has recommended a 3.75 per cent. increase in teachers' pay, and other changes in pay structures.

  The Senior Salaries Review Body has recommended:

  a. values for the pay ranges for the senior civil service in the pay structure set out in January 1995 in the White Paper, "Taking Forward Continuity and Change". Under these arrangements, Departments will determine individual salaries within the ranges and will be able to reward the best performers, with a framework in which the overall pay bill is expected to fall by some 7 per cent. next year as staff numbers are reduced;

  b. increases for senior military officers in the range 3.9 to 5.6 per cent. averaging 4.6 per cent. consistent with the AFPRB recommendations;

  c. increases of 3.9 per cent. for the judiciary.

  This is a complex set of recommendations covering a number of different issues that have been addressed in detail by the review bodies in preparing their reports. The Government have said that they will normally accept review body recommendations, and do not intend to reject them on this occasion. Nevertheless, if this year's

  Main pay recommendations percentage

  Pay bill costs £ million

  percentage

  AFPRB—Armed forces

  3.7–4.31

  211

  3.8

  DDRB—Doctors and dentists

  3.8–6.8

  245

  4.4

  NPRB—Nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions Allied to medicine

  2

  —

  —

  STRB—School teachers

  3.75

  421

  3.8

  SSRB Senior salaries

  Senior civil service

  3

  —

  —

  Senior military

  3.9–5.6

  1

  4.6

  Judiciary

  3.9

  6

  3.9

  1 Includes ½ per cent. increase in the X factor which reflects the special demands of military compared with civilian life. AFPRB has also recommended an additional 1 per cent. on pay as part of a staged pensions-related adjustment.

  2 To be determined in local pay negotiations but with a guaranteed 2 per cent. increase in national pay rates.

  3 Recommendations for the senior civil service affect the pay framework within which Departments will set individual pay rates.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 1120–21, if he will list the years since 1966 when crime fell. [13966]

  The Prime Minister
  Between June 1993 and June 1995 there were 572,000 fewer crimes recorded than in the preceding two years—the largest fall since records began last century.

  Complete year figures are available up to the end of 1994. Since 1966 recorded crime in England and Wales has fallen in the following years: 1973, 1978, 1979, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1994.

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he has taken to pay compensation to(a) British and (b) Australian nuclear test veterans from the 1950s. [14145]
  296
  recommendations were implemented as they stand, from the due date, they would represent a marked step up in the level of pay settlements in the public sector, compared with settlements over the past year, and a significant charge on public expenditure programmes.

  Accordingly, the Government intend to stage their introduction and propose that in most cases the settlements to be paid with effect from 1 April should be 1 percentage point less than the review body recommendations, the balance to be paid later this year on 1 December. This meets the requirements on affordability and the approach to public sector pay, while retaining the pattern of increases recommended by the review bodies.

  Staging arrangements will also extend to the awards that Departments will determine for the senior civil service within the framework set by the SSRB recommendations.

  The Government have, however, decided that it would not be appropriate to apply this general arrangement to the recommendations for nurses and other staff covered by the NPRB.

  The following table summarises recommendations of the review bodies.

  The Prime Minister
  In studies carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board of over 20,000 British nuclear test veterans, the incidence of death and cancer has been less than among the general public in the same age groups, and no higher than among a matched control group These facts do not sustain a case for compensation. The handling of claims in Australia is a matter for the Government of Australia.

  Professor al-Masari
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the information(a) made available to the courts about the case of Professor al-Masari and (b) passed to the Government of Dominica about Professor al-Masari; and if he will make a statement. [14130]

  The Prime Minister
  No. It is not my normal practice to do so.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Executive Pay
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures he plans on executive pay. [12641]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) by my hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 25 January 1996,Official Report, column 317.

  British Geological Survey
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what instructions or guidance has been given to the British Geological Survey regarding private sector involvement; when he expects to receive its response; and if he will make a statement. [14115]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  No specific instructions regarding private sector involvement have been given to the British Geological Survey which is a component of the Natural Environment Research Council. The BGS has a long and successful tradition of working in partnership with the private sector which I applaud. Standard conditions, for public sector research establishments working with the private sector, apply.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what ways and according to what timetable he intends to bring about the changes in the organisation and procedures of industrial tribunals he announced on 20 November 1995. [13965]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The majority of the changes require primary legislation and, as mentioned in the reply from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) on 20 November 1995,Official Report, column 20, detailed proposals will be brought forward when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the written questions PQ No. 95/972, PQ No. 95/771, PQ No. 95/770, PQ No. 95/702, PQ No. 95/697, PQ No. 95/692 and PQ No. 95/691 will be answered by his Department. [14236]

  Mr. Lang
  PQ No. 95/770 was answered on 24 January 1996. PQ No. 95/692 was answered on 23 January 1996. The remaining questions will be answered as soon as possible.

  Directors' Pensions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to require disclosure of directors' pensions. [12678]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My Department is currently consulting on proposed changes to the requirements of the Companies Act 1985 relating to the disclosure of 298
  director's emoluments, including their pension entitlements. A copy of the consultative document is available in the Library of the House. Before finalising the proposed changes, my Department will take into account the results of the current consultation by the Institute of Actuaries and Faculty of Actuaries on the method which should be used to calculate the value of directors' pension entitlements.

  Grant Aid (South-west)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many companies have received grant aid from his Department in the south-west region since January 1990; and how many of those companies are still trading. [10112]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: The number of businesses in the south-west receiving grants under the principal current regional and technology support schemes in the period is as follows:

  Number

  Regional selective assistance

  386

  Regional enterprise grant

  575

  Small firms merit award for research and technology

  112

  Support for products under research

  37

  As projets are normally monitored for only a limited number of years after final payment of grant, complete information on grant recipients' trading status is not readily available.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the companies in the south-west which have received financial assistance since 1985 from his Department showing(a) the year assistance was given, (b) how much was given and (c) if the company is still trading. [13109]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 1 February 1996]: A full answer to the question could be prepared only at disproportionate cost. In summary terms, the number of businesses in the south-west receiving grants under the principal current regional and technology support schemes in the period is as follows:

  Number

  Regional selective assistance

  514

  Regional enterprise grant

  639

  Small firms merit award for research and technology

  112

  Support for products under research

  37

  In addition, around 2,000 payments were made under the regional development grant scheme and over 11,600 businesses received support for business reviews under the enterprise initiative consultancy service.

  As projects are normally monitored for only a limited number of years after final payment of the grant, complete information on grant recipients' trading status is not readily available.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  British Geological Survey
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all the contracts or work done by the British Geological Survey paid for by the Overseas Development Administration, the nature of work, and the cost in each case; what arrangements need to be made to continue these programmes if the survey is privatised; and if he will make a statement. [14113]

  Mr. Hanley
  Following are the current contracts that the British Geological Survey has with ODA:

  Contract

  Country

  Value £

  Yaoba Oasis Environmental Project (hydrogeological consultants)

  China

  186,688

  Establishment of coastal geology unit (IT training)

  Albania

  78,525

  Water Resources Management, lake Balkhash (environmental impact study)

  Kazakhstan

  26,046

  Primoyre Mineral Waters (water sampling)

  Russia

  24,973

  Environmental Thematic Mapping

  Slovakia

  36,500

  Resource centre scheme with ODA (call down contracts for ad hoc consultancy work)

  Global

  75,000

  Bapedal Groundwater Project (monitoring consultancy)

  Indonesia

  39,200

  World Bank Mining and Environmental Project (geological information mapping programme)

  Ecuador

  2,319,282

  Coal Bed Methane Pre-feasibility study

  Bangladesh

  44,500

  Land-ocean Contaminant study

  Mexico/Africa/Indonesia

  434,939

  Mitigation of mining related mercury pollution hazards

  Philippines/Ecuador

  268,000

  Protecting groundwater beneath wastewater recharge sites

  Mexico/Thailand

  207,271

  Groundwater management in drought prone areas of Africa

  Africa

  142,527

  Developing new well siting techniques

  Zimbabwe/Egypt

  203,822

  Groundwater resources degradation; socio-economic impacts and their mitigation

  China/India/Thailand/Mexico/Jersey/Palestinian Territories

  94,050 134,000 to BGS)

  1 Joint research project with the Natural Resources Institute

  If the BGS is privatised, the arrangements for continuing these programmes would be reviewed at the time. One option would be to transfer the contracts to the new owner.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the parents with care referred to in his answer of 26 October 1995,Official Report, column 803, lifted off income support following the payment of maintenance assessed by the CSA, were in receipt of mortgage interest payments made in respect of their income support entitlement. [13598]

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

  Although it is possible to give the number of parents with care lifted off income support following the payment of maintenance assessed by the Child Support Agency, it is not possible to identify those who were in receipt of mortgage interest payments as part of their income support entitlement. There is no business need for the Child Support Agency to record this information.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people claimed cold weather payments in the area covered by the benefits offices in Greenock and Port Glasgow in late December; on which dates they qualified; and what was the total amount paid to those whose claims were met. [13161]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 7 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people claimed Cold Weather Payments (CWPs) in the area covered by the benefits offices in Greenock and Port Glasgow in late December; on which dates they qualified; and what was the total amount paid to those whose claims were met.Customers who qualify for CWPs are automatically identified by a scan of the Income Support Computer System. Those customers who are being paid clerically also have their claims examined to identify those who qualify. There is no need, therefore, for a claim to a Cold Weather Payment (CWP) to be made.Data is not held on the number of people who qualified for a CWP, only on the number of payments made and the amount paid out in the area covered by Greenock and Port Glasgow Benefit Offices. This is because a customer may receive more than one payment in a cold weather period depending on the length of the recorded and/or forecasted period. Two recorded periods of Cold Weather were identified from 19 December 1995 to 1 January 1996 inclusive, and two forecast periods were identified from 23 December 1995 to 5 January 1996 inclusive.On 30 December 1995, 9,070 payments were issued by the computer system amounting to £77,095. On 6 January 1996, a further 9,085 payments were made amounting to £77,222.50. Statistics are not yet available for any clerical payments which may have been made.I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time taken to process a new claim for disability living allowance. [13173]
  301
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Gerry Steinberg, dated 7 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what is the average time it takes to process a new claim for Disability Living Allowance. (DLA).The Secretary of State has set two targets in relation to new DLA claims. These are that 68% of new claims be cleared within 30 working days and that 85% be cleared within 53 working days. As at 31 December 1995, the DLA Unit cleared 70.73% new claims within 30 days and 92.57% within 53 days.The average time for processing a DLA claim is not a target set by the Secretary of State. However, at 31 December 1995, the average length of time taken to process a new claim to DLA was 27 days.I hope you find this reply helpful.

TRANSPORT

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he ensures that the negotiating brief for his officials discussing EU legislation takes fully into account the need to minimise the burdens on United Kingdom business. [13713]

  Mr. Watts
  Guidance on how officials are to apply deregulatory principles when negotiating EC regulations is contained in the booklet, "Getting a Good Deal in Europe". This guidance has been supplemented by the recent publication of guidance on the preparation of compliance cost assessments, which stresses that the likely burdens on business highlighted by UK compliance cost assessments of EC proposals should be integral to the UK's negotiating strategy. Copies of both are in the Library of the House.

  Car Phones
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in respect

  Estimated rail privatisation costs at 31 December 1995

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–961

  Total

  Consultancy costs

  DOT

  0.5

  5.5

  10.5

  12.0

  12.1

  40.6

  OPRAF

  —

  —

  1.5

  13.1

  16.2

  30.8

  ORR

  —

  —

  0.6

  2.9

  1.8

  5.3

  Total

  0.5

  5.5

  12.6

  28.0

  30.1

  76.7

  Running costs

  DOT

  0.5

  1.2

  1.5

  2.2

  2.2

  7.6

  OPRAF

  —

  —

  0.9

  3.5

  5.1

  9.5

  ORR

  —

  —

  0.6

  4.7

  3.8

  9.1

  Total

  0.5

  1.2

  4.51

  10.4

  11.1

  127.7

  ORR capital costs

  —

  —

  0.2

  1.4

  0.2

  1.8

  Grand total

  1.0

  6.7

  17.3

  39.8

  41.4

  106.2

  1 To 31 December.

  2 Includes £1.5 million contribution by DOT to costs of setting up OPRAF and ORR.

  302
  of the use by car drivers of hand-held telephones while driving; and if he will make a statement. [14111]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has received 32 letters and other representations over the past 12 months about this issue, the majority requesting legislation to prohibit the use of in-car telephones while driving. However, I believe that existing legislation provides sufficient powers of prosecution.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will published the United Kingdom and EU research that he has(a) undertaken, (b) commissioned and (c) evaluated that indicates the scale and direction of the expected changes in death and serious injury from (i) the new eyesight standards for HGV drivers and (ii) the banning of coaches from the third lane of motorways. [14009]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department knows of no research, either published or commissioned, which could reliably estimate the effect of changes in eyesight standards for drivers in terms of a reduction in death and serious injury from road accidents. Work has begun on assessing the effect of banning coaches from the third lane of motorways, and the results will be made known when available.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what have been the costs of railway privatisation to date, broken down into(a) payments to legal, financial and other advisers and (b) administrative costs within (i) BR, (ii) Railtrack, (iii) the Office of the Rail Regulator, (iv) the Franchise Director and (v) within Government departments; and what estimate he has made of total expenditure under the same headings to the end of financial year 1995–96. [9947]

  Mr. Watts
  Consultancy and administrative costs incurred to date by the Department, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Office of the Rail Regulator are as follows:
  303
  In addition, the Health and Safety Executive incurred administrative costs of some £2.8 million, of which £2.0 million has be paid by the Department of Transport.

  The forecast outturns to the end of the financial year are as follows:

  Estimated costs in the last quarter of 1995–96

  £ million

  Consultancy costs

  DOT

  14.8

  OPRAF

  9.9

  ORR

  2.0

  Total

  24.3

  Running costs

  DOT

  0.8

  OPRAF

  3.3

  ORR

  2.2

  Total

  6.3

  ORR capital costs

  0.4

  Grand total

  31.0

  British Rail and Railtrack have also incurred costs linked to privatisation, covering expenditure on administration, including consultancies, and on assets such as computer equipment and associated systems. Details of these costs are a matter for the industries themselves. However, we understand from BR and Railtrack that they will incur the following costs in the current financial year:

  £ million

  BR

  75

  Railtrack

  27

  1. Forecast expenditure to 31 March 1996.

  This expenditure has been incurred in support of Railtrack flotation and sales of rail businesses, which have so far yielded proceeds in excess of £2 billion.

  Spare Computer Capacity
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all cases where spare computer capacity has been sold to other Departments since 1987, giving the Department and value of each contract. [14075]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has made no sales of spare computer capacity to other Departments. Processing capacity in excess of departmental requirements is not maintained, and redundant IT equipment is relocated within the Department, traded in part exchange or disposed of to the trade on competitive tendering terms.

  Coach Safety (Children)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to introduce regulations to improve the safety of children travelling on coaches and minibuses. [14717]

  Mr. Norris
  I have laid regulations before the House today which will require seat belts to be fitted to minibuses and coaches used specifically to transport 304
  children. I have also laid regulations ending, where seat belts are fitted, the concession that allows three seated children to count as two passengers.

  The regulations on seat belt fitting only apply to a vehicle which is undertaking a journey specifically for the purpose of carrying children. The requirements will apply to:

  all minibuses used from 10 February 1997;

  all coaches used from 10 February 1997, if they are registered from 1 October 1988; and

  all coaches used from 10 February 1988, if they are registered before 1 October 1998.

  The regulations on the "three for two "Seating concession will take effect from 1 May 1996. They will recognise the incompatibility of the concession with the fitting of seat belts to minibuses and coaches.

  I believe that these measures will further improve the good safety record of minibuses and coaches and will go a long way towards reassuring parents who may be concerned for the safety of their children when travelling in these vehicles.

  I am pleased that we have been able to introduce these measures independently and ahead of our partners in the European Union.

  Meanwhile, I will continue to encourage operators to fit all their vehicles with seat belts voluntarily. We intend to require the mandatory fitting to all new minibuses and coaches as soon as the necessary agreement has been reached in Europe.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the powers to make statutory instruments exercisable by the Secretary of State under primary legislation enacted since 1979 are subject to(a) the negative and (b) the affirmative resolution procedure. [9594]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 16 January 1996]: The numbers are as follows:

  (a) 71 subject to the negative, and

  (b) 49 subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

  Detailed tables of the measures have been placed in the Library.

  Immigration (Indian Sub-continent)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his assessment as to the reasons for the increase in arrivals and departures to the Indian sub-continent in the last two years. [13345]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The data on arrivals and departures are given in the table. The reasons for the increase in arrivals and departures between 1992 and 1994 are not known, but increases have occurred for all arrivals in and departures from the United Kingdom.
  305

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Arrivals in the United Kingdom from the Indian sub-continent of overseas residents

  252,000

  273,000

  313,000

  Departures from the United Kingdom to the Indian sub-continent of United Kingdom residents.

  372,000

  427,000

  477,000

  Source:

  CSO, International Passenger Survey. All figures rounded to three significant figures.

  Internet
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 December,Official Report, column 735, what progress has been made by the interdepartmental group on obscenity in examining possible measures to control access to material disseminated via the Internet; and if he will make a statement. [13400]

  Mr. Sackville
  We are discussing with representatives of Internet service providers any concern about the availability of pornographic material on the Internet, and ways of controlling access by children and young people to such material.

  Telephone Tapping
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the law regarding telephone tapping; and if he will make a statement. [13198]

  Mr. Howard
  While the Government keep the operation of the law regarding interception under review, I have no immediate plans for changes to the law in this area.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the practice of intercepting private telephone calls; [13355]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the involvement of newspapers in provoking the interception of private telephone calls. [13356]

  Mr. Howard
  The unauthorised intentional interception of a communication in the course of its transmission on a public telecommunications system is an offence under section 1 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. In addition, the unauthorised intentional use of wireless telegraphy apparatus to obtain information as to the contents, sender or addressee of any message, and the disclosure of such information are offences under section 5 of The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. Soliciting or inciting a person to commit offences under the 1985 Act and the 1949 Act is itself a criminal offence. It is for the police to investigate allegations of unlawful interception.

  Reported Crime Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will express the number of reported crimes in each police authority area in 1981, 1986, 1991 and each subsequent year as a figure per head 306
  of the 18 to 24-year-old males estimated by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to be resident in each police authority area. [13262]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is for 1991–1994 and is contained in the table. Information for 1981 and 1986 is not available in the form requested.

  All offences recorded per head of 18–24 year old males by police force area, 1991–1994

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Avon and Somerset

  2.0

  2.3

  2.4

  2.3

  Bedfordshire

  2.0

  2.1

  2.2

  2.0

  Cambridgeshire

  1.4

  1.6

  1.6

  1.6

  Cheshire

  1.4

  1.7

  1.7

  1.7

  Cleveland

  2.7

  3.0

  2.8

  3.0

  Cumbria

  1.9

  2.0

  1.9

  2.0

  Derbyshire

  1.6

  1.9

  2.0

  2.0

  Devon and Cornwall

  1.4

  1.6

  1.7

  1.6

  Dorset

  1.7

  1.7

  1.7

  1.9

  Durham

  2.1

  2.2

  2.3

  2.3

  Essex

  1.4

  1.5

  1.5

  1.4

  Gloucestershire

  2.0

  2.3

  2.4

  2.5

  Greater Manchester

  2.6

  2.8

  2.7

  2.6

  Hampshire

  1.5

  1.6

  1.6

  1.6

  Hertfordshire

  1.1

  1.2

  1.2

  1.2

  Humberside

  2.5

  2.8

  3.1

  3.1

  Kent

  1.8

  2.1

  2.2

  2.2

  Lancashire

  1.7

  1.9

  1.9

  1.9

  Leicestershire

  1.7

  1.9

  2.0

  2.0

  Lincolnshire

  1.6

  1.8

  1.9

  1.9

  Merseyside

  1.9

  2.0

  1.9

  1.9

  Metropolitan Police1

  2.3

  2.5

  2.6

  2.5

  Norfolk

  1.7

  1.7

  1.7

  1.6

  Northamptonshire

  2.0

  2.0

  2.1

  2.1

  Northumbria

  3.0

  3.0

  2.9

  2.8

  North Yorkshire

  1.4

  1.5

  1.7

  2.0

  Nottinghamshire

  2.5

  2.9

  2.9

  2.9

  South Yorkshire

  1.6

  1.9

  2.2

  2.3

  Staffordshire

  1.5

  1.7

  1.8

  1.8

  Suffolk

  1.2

  1.4

  1.4

  1.3

  Surrey

  1.0

  1.1

  1.1

  1.1

  Sussex

  1.7

  1.9

  1.8

  1.9

  Thames Valley

  1.6

  1.8

  1.9

  1.9

  Warwickshire

  1.7

  1.9

  1.9

  1.9

  West Mercia

  1.4

  1.5

  1.6

  1.7

  West Midlands

  2.0

  2.2

  2.3

  2.3

  West Yorkshire

  2.4

  2.6

  2.7

  2.7

  Wiltshire

  1.3

  1.4

  1.4

  1.4

  Dyfed-Powys

  1.2

  1.3

  1.2

  1.0

  Gwent

  1.7

  1.9

  1.9

  1.9

  North Wales

  1.4

  1.6

  1.5

  1.4

  South Wales

  2.2

  2.4

  2.4

  2.4

  England and Wales

  1.9

  2.0

  2.1

  2.1

  1 Includes the City of London.

  Probation Service
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was- the total staff establishment for the probation service in England and Wales by each grade; and how many from each grade were from an ethnic minority in(a) 1989 and (b) 1995; [13460]

  (2) how many probation staff in England and Wales were from an ethnic minority in (a) 1989 and (b) 1995. [13459]
  307
  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is given in the tables: they are not directly comparable since staff establishment figures are collected in whole-time equivalent terms and those of ethnic minority origin in terms of staff in post.

  Information on the ethnic origin of probation staff in 1989 is not available, but figures for 1987 are shown in table B.

  Table A: Staff establishment of the probation service, by grade, 31 March 1989 and 31 March 1995

  Number of staff, whole time equivalent1

  31 March 1989

  31 March 1995

  Probation grade staff

  Chief officers2

  273

  333

  Senior officers

  1,120

  1,282

  Main grade officers

  5,372

  6,289

  Total probation grade staff

  6,765

  7,905

  Non-probation grade staff

  Probation Services' Officers

  1,728

  2,077

  Clerical/secretarial

  3,392

  4,090

  Administrative and other non-probation grade staff3

  659

  1,030

  Non-probation grade hostel staff

  —4

  928

  Total non-probation grade staff

  5,779

  8,125

  Total staff

  12,544

  16,030

  1 Whole-time staff plus whole-time equivalent of part time staff. Figures rounded to the nearest whole number. Components and totals are rounded independently and so components may not add precisely to totals.

  2 Includes Chief, Deputy Chief and Assistant Chief Probation Officer.

  3 Excludes sessional supervisors.

  4 Figures not available for 1989.

  Table B: Probation staff from ethnic minority groups (full time and part time) in post, by grade

  31 December 1987

  31 March 1995

  Probation grade staff

  Chief officers1

  —

  8

  Senior officers

  3

  42

  Main grade officers

  124

  535

  Total probation grade staff

  127

  585

  Non-probation grade staff

  Probation Services' Officers

  62

  177

  Clerical/Secretarial

  144

  343

  Administrative and other non-probation grade staff2

  32

  86

  Non-probation grade hostel staff

  19

  112

  Total non-probation grade staff

  257

  718

  Total staff

  384

  1,303

  Rate of response (Per cent.)

  84.1

  94

  1 Includes Chief, Deputy Chief and Assistant Chief Probation Officer.

  2 Excludes sessional supervisors.

  Police Cautions (Burglary)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 708, if the 959 people who were cautioned by Metropolitan police for burglary offences during 1994 have been included in the figures for crimes cleared up. [13896]

  Mr. Maclean
  The numbers of persons cautioned are included within the overall statistics for crimes cleared up.

  Licensing Laws
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received following recent relaxation on the licensing laws; and how many have been in favour of the recent changes. [13891]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The Licensing (Sunday Hours) Act 1995, which came into effect on 6 August 1995, relaxed restrictions on the opening hours of licensed premises on Sundays and Good Friday. Since then we have received 14 letters on the subject of Sunday hours, two of which were in favour of this relaxation.

  Registered Drug Users (Blackpool and Fylde)
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many registered drug users there are in Blackpool and the Fylde; and what estimate he has made of the total number of habitual users of prescribed drugs in Blackpool and the Fylde. [13838]

  Mr. Sackville
  Analysis of data held on the addicts index at the Home Office shows that in 1995 a total of 385 drug addicts were notified from the Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde area. Of these, 270 were persons who had been previously notified in the preceding 12 months.

  Asylum
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many without foundation appeals against a refusal of asylum were determined in(a) 1994 and (b) 1995; and how many of these appeals were (i) allowed, (ii) referred back to the Secretary of State for reconsideration under paragraph 5 of schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 and (iii) withdrawn. [13935]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information regarding the decisions on without foundation appeals for 1995 is given in the table. The equivalent information for 1994 is published in table 8.4 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1994", issue 15/95. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  Outcome of without foundation appeals to the adjudicator, excluding dependants, 1995

  1995 percentage

  Total determined1 of which:

  1,115 (100)

  Allowed

  3

  Dismissed

  59

  Withdrawn

  9

  Referred to the Secretary of State

  29

  1 Figures are provisional and rounded to the nearest 5 or percentage.

  309
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum by persons applying(a) at a port of entry to the United Kingdom and (b) after entry were decided in 1995; and how many in each category were granted asylum and exceptional leave to remain. [13989]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Decisions3 on applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom1 excluding dependants, by location of application, January to December 1995

  Principal applicants

  Applied at port

  Applied in-country

  Total

  Asylum applications2

  14,410

  29,555

  43,965

  Decisions3

  10,255

  16,755

  27,005

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  345

  950

  1,295

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain4

  1,945

  2,465

  4,410

  Total refusals

  7,960

  13,340

  21,300

  Refused asylum and ELR after full consideration

  6,665

  11,040

  17,705

  Refused on safe third country grounds5

  1,300

  215

  1,515

  Refused under para 3406

  —

  2,085

  2,085

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Figures exclude information on applications made overseas.

  3 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the period.

  4 Usually granted for a year in the first instance, subject then to further review.

  5 Refused on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from a safe third country.

  6 Paragraph 180F prior to 1/10/94. For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period, including failure to respond to invitation to interview to establish identity.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of without foundation asylum appeals were determined within the time scale prescribed by the Asylum Appeals (Procedure) Rules 1993, in 1995. [13934]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  In 1995, 12 per cent. of all without foundation appeals were determined within the prescribed time scale.
  310
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications are currently awaiting an initial decision by his Department's asylum division; how many appeals against a refusal of asylum are currently being processed by the asylum division; and how many appeals against a refusal of asylum, which have been processed by the asylum division and despatched to the immigration appellate authority, are awaiting hearings by the authority. [13988]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  As at 31 December 1995, 69,650 asylum applications were awaiting initial decisions by the Home Office from people who had been refused asylum and 11,690 such appeals were awaiting hearings by the Immigration Appellate Authority.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons, having been refused asylum,(a) were removed or (b) made voluntary departures from the United Kingdom in (i) 1994 and (ii) 1995. [13990]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  In 1994, there were 2,108 removals, including 566 voluntary departures, of persons refused asylum. The provisional figures for 1995 are 2,629 and 759 respectively.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average time currently taken by his Department to reach an initial decision on(a) all asylum applicants and (b) asylum applications submitted (i) prior to and (ii) following implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993; [13937]

  (2) what is the average time taken by his Department's asylum division to process and despatch to the immigration appellate authority an appeal against a refusal of asylum; and what is the average time taken by the authority to hear and determine such an appeal following its receipt from the asylum division. [13936]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information on the times taken at the various stages of the asylum process are given in the table.

  Average times involved in deciding applications for asylum (June—November 1995)

  Months

  Time taken for an initial decision to be made (pre-act applications)

  40.0

  Time taken for an initial decision to be made (post-act applications)

  8.9

  Time taken by the Home Office to process an appeal

  3.7

  Time taken by the Immigration Appellate Authority to determine an appeal

  6.1

  Mohammed Riaz and Quayyum Raja
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Mohammed Riaz and Quayyum Raja are to be informed of the decision concerning their tariff sentences; and if he will make a statement. [13743]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 5 February 1996]: These prisoners will be informed of their tariff decisions as soon as current consideration of their cases is completed.

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home department how he ensures that the negotiating brief for his officials discussing EU legislation takes fully into account the need to minimise the burdens on United Kingdom business. [13711]

  Mr. Howard
  Guidance on how officials are to apply deregulatory principles when negotiating European Community regulations is contained in the booklet "Getting a Good Deal in Europe". This guidance has been supplemented by the recent publication of guidance on the preparation of compliance cost assessments, which stresses that the likely burdens on business highlighted by United Kingdom compliance cost assessments of EC proposals should be integral to the United Kingdom's negotiating strategy. Copies of both pieces of guidance are in the Library.

  Policing of Football Matches
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the latest figures for payments received by the Metropolitan police from London's premier and football league clubs in the present football season in respect of police services. [14213]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Metropolitan police that the payments are those given in the table.

  Club

  Total paid this season1 (£)

  Arsenal

  112,233.68

  Barnet

  18,516.48

  Brentford

  19,148.18

  Charlton

  16,162.78

  Chelsea

  85,180.53

  Crystal Palace

  81,361.96

  Fulham

  19,454.48

  Leyton Orient

  21,483.75

  Millwall

  51,312.31

  Queens Park Rangers

  41,298.09

  Tottenham Hotspur

  65,323.43

  West Ham United

  63,008.32

  Wimbledon

  84,739.22

  Total

  679,223.21

  1 As at 31 January 1996.

  In addition, sums of £25,000 and £60,000 have been received respectively from the Leyton Orient and Millwall clubs, in respect of outstanding invoices for previous seasons.

  Asylum and Immigration Bill
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Glidewell panel on matters related to the Asylum and Immigration Bill; and if he will make a statement. [14240]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have received no such representations.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for(a) ministerial correspondence and (b) other communications between his Department and members of the Standing Committee on the Asylum and Immigration Bill to be placed in the Library. [14282]

  Miss Widdecombe
  This has been arranged.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have applied to regularise their immigration status; how many such applications were(a) approved and (b) refused; how many are currently awaiting decision in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [14153]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The table gives the readily available information on the numbers of persons accepted for settlement on a discretionary basis in the years 1986 to 1994, after a period of at least 10 years continuous residence in the United Kingdom. The numbers of refusals and the total number of applications made on the basis of long residence are not separately available.

  Grants of settlement on the basis of long residence, 1986–94

  Number

  1986

  1,200

  1987

  1,300

  1988

  2,300

  1989

  3,300

  1990

  2,550

  1991

  2,200

  1992

  2,100

  1993

  2,050

  1994

  1,950

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances people who have lived in the United Kingdom for(a) 10 years and (b) 14 years are able to apply to regularise their immigration status; what are the grounds on which the time limits of 10 and 14 years have been set; and if he will make a statement. [14121]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Under the long residence concession, a person who has 10 years or more continuous lawful residence in the United Kingdom, or 14 years continuous residence irrespective of legality, may be granted indefinite leave to remain in the absence of any strong countervailing factors. The grant of indefinite leave to remain under the long residence concession is discretionary and outside the immigration rules.

  The long residence concession has its origin in the European convention of establishment, article 3(3) of

  313
  which provides that nationals of any contracting party who have been lawfully residing for more than 10 years in the territory of another party may be expelled only for reasons relating to public order, public health or morality. In operating the concession, however, we do not distinguish between nationals of the contracting parties and other overseas nationals.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people(a) applied, (b) were granted and (c) were refused applications to regularise their immigration status in (i) 1974 and (ii) 1977. [14122]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The concession offered in 1974 to allow Commonwealth citizens who had entered the United Kingdom illegally before 1973 to regularise their stay attracted 2,430 applications, of which 1,810 were granted. This concession was extended in 1977 following further court judgments which widened the scope of illegal entry. A further 640 applications were dealt with, of which 460 were granted.

  Bedford Prison
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the practice of dye-stamping the hands of visitors visiting prisoners in Bedford prison started; what is the purpose of this practice; and if he will make a statement. [14125]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Alastair Papps to Mr. Max Madden, dated 8 February 1996:

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

  Dye-stamping the hands of visitors to prisoners was introduced at Bedford in February 1995. It is an additional security measure to reduce the likelihood of the prisoner walking out of the visits area with visitors and escaping.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the arrangements in each European Union state for asylum seekers(a) to apply for social security benefit and (b) to seek employment; what time limits apply; and if he will make a statement. [14127]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information about access to social security benefits and employment in other European Union countries is at paragraphs 17 to 19 of the Home Office memorandum on key asylum measures in other European countries, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that asylum seekers who are granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom are able to apply for reunion with their families in less than the four years as required at present. [14129]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Those granted exceptional leave to remain will not necessarily be here on a permanent basis.314
  They will normally be eligible for family reunion only after four years, although this may be granted earlier in cases with wholly exceptional compassionate circumstances.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy in respect of those seeking asylum in the United Kingdom participating in political activities within the United Kingdom; how that policy has changed over the past 10 years; if such involvement by an asylum seeker may be regarded as being supportive of the application; and if he will make a statement. [14123]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  All applications for asylum in the United Kingdom are considered in the light of all available information and in accordance with the criteria set out in the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees.

  Those seeking asylum in this country are expected to act within the law. If an asylum seeker undertakes activities in the United Kingdom which are inconsistent with his previous beliefs and behaviour and calculated to create or substantially enhance his claim to refugee status, this may damage the credibility of his claim.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the net expenditure implications of allowing asylum seekers to seek employment from the date their asylum application is lodged; and if he will make a statement. [14126]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The opportunity to seek employment is a major incentive for economic migrants and undeserving asylum applicants. We have no plans to relax employment restrictions for asylum seekers.

  Illegal Working
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations supported the proposals outlined in the consultation document on prevention of illegal working; if he will place in the Library responses in those cases where the respondent is willing for their response to be made public; if he will list those respondents who are unwilling for their response to be made public; and if he will make a statement. [14164]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) on 6 February at column 109. I will, however, place in the Library in due course an updated list of those who have responded and a revised summary of the main points made in the responses.

  Association of Circus Proprietors
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations take place between his Department and the Association of Circus Proprietors. [14154]

  Mr. Sackville
  The association was one of a large number of bodies consulted by the Home Office in 1993, in the course of a deregulation review. There have been no other contacts.

  Immigration Officers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration officers there are in each of the immigration and nationality department's administrative areas. [14235]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information is provided in the following table. The figures exclude members of the Immigration Service serving at ports of entry, enforcement offices and detention centres.

  Division/Directorate

  Immigration Officer

  Chief Immigration Officer

  HM Inspector

  Total

  Presenting Officer Units

  —

  10

  —

  10

  Personnel Management Unit1

  18

  12

  3

  33

  Immigration Service (Ports)1

  15

  15

  9

  39

  Immigration Service (Enforcement)1

  33

  15

  6

  54

  Total Staff

  136

  1 Includes staff based at Croydon and West London on administrative duties

  Human Rights Reports
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those organizations whose reports on human rights internationally are routinely considered by his Department; with special reference to those who consider asylum application procedures. [14119]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The asylum division considers a wide range of material relating to human rights including from United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Commission of Jurists, the parliamentary human rights group, the Commonwealth human rights initiative, Human Rights Watch, the Refugee Council, the Minority Rights Group, Asylum Aid, the United States Department of State and the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board. The Department also has access to Council of the European Union Heads of Mission reports and advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on human rights issues. Other non-governmental and media reports are monitored on a regional or country basis.

  UNHCR, Amnesty International, Asylum Aid, the Refugee Council and, in addition, the Council of Europe are known to have issued documents considering asylum application procedures.

  Karamjit Singh Chahal
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will grant temporary release to Karamjit Singh Chahal from Bedford prison; and if he will make a statement. [14124]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  My right hon. and learned Friend is satisfied that Mr. Chahal's continued detention is necessary.

  Illegal Working
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of correspondence from the Data Protection Registrar seeking clarification of the data protection implications of the use of national insurance numbers as envisaged under the consultation document on prevention of illegal working; and if he will make a statement. [14131]

  Miss Widdecombe
  There has been no such correspondence. However, as I made clear to the hon. Member on 6 February, we are in touch with the Data Protection Registrar on this matter.

  Prisoners (Restraints)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates and origins of all representations which his Department received before 25 December 1995 concerning the use of restraints on women prisoners attending hospital; and if he will make a statement. [12418]

  Miss Widdecombe
  This information is not recorded centrally and could be supplied in the required form only at disproportionate cost.

  Prosecutions (Durham)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases have been referred by Durham police to the Crown Prosecution Service in each of the last three years; how many have been prosecuted; and how many have been successful. [13246]

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  The figures shown in the tables represent the number of cases received from the police and the number of defendants whose case proceeded to a hearing in magistrates courts and in the Crown court during the calendar years 1993, 1994 and 1995, and of those, the proportion who were convicted. Convictions are inclusive of guilty pleas, as well as of contested hearings.

  In the magistrates court:

  Table 1 shows the number of defendants whose case was received by the CPS, and the number whose case was finalised; of defendants finalised, the number whose case was referred to the CPS for pre-charge advice, and the number of other, non-criminal, proceedings—such as forfeiture proceedings under the Obscene Publications Acts.

  Table 2 shows the number of defendants whose case was not proceeded with, divided into cases where the prosecution was dropped and cases which could not proceed—for example because the defendant had died, or could not be traced.

  Table 3 shows the number of those cases proceeded with, showing: the number of defendants bound over to keep the peace; the number of defendants' cases heard in the magistrates court; the number of defendants' committed to the Crown court; and the number of defendants' whose case was discharged at committal.

  Table 4 shows the outcome of the cases heard in the magistrates court, showing the number of defendants convicted and the number acquitted.
  317
  In the Crown court:

  Table 5 shows the number of defendants whose case was received and the number finalised. Of the number of defendants cases finalised, the table shows the number of cases which were appeals from the magistrates court or committed to the Crown court from the magistrates court for sentence.

  Table 6 shows the number of defendants' cases not proceeded with, divided into those in which no evidence was offered before the jury was sworn, prosecution dropped, and those which could not proceed and were written off—for example, because the defendant had died, could not be traced by the police, or had been found unfit to plead.

  Table 7 shows the number of defendants' cases proceeded with divided into the number bound over to keep the peace and the number heard in the Crown court.

  Table 8 shows the number of defendants' cases heard in the Crown court which resulted in convictions and the number which resulted in acquittals.

  Table 3

  Proceeded with of which…

  Bind over

  Per cent.

  Hearings in the Magistrates' Court

  Per cent.

  Committed to Crown Court

  Per cent.

  Committal discharged

  Per cent.

  1993

  233

  1.5

  10,027

  65.3

  1,229

  8.00

  34

  0.2

  1994

  291

  2.1

  9,664

  71.7

  1,245

  9.2

  25

  0.2

  1995

  344

  2.4

  9,916

  70.7

  1,073

  7.6

  8

  0.1

  Table 4

  Outcome of which…

  Convicted

  Per cent.

  Acquitted

  Per cent.

  1993

  9,801

  97.7

  226

  2.3

  1994

  9,369

  96.4

  295

  3.6

  1995

  9,709

  97.9

  207

  2.1

  Crown Court

  Table 5

  of which…

  Receipts

  Finalised

  Appeals and committals for sentence

  Per cent.

  1993

  6,591

  5,138

  986

  19.1

  1994

  1,538

  1,448

  271

  18.7

  1995

  1,402

  1,644

  309

  18.8

  Table 6

  Not proceeded with of which…

  Prosecution dropped

  Per cent.

  Written Off

  Per cent.

  1993

  222

  5.3

  37

  0.9

  1994

  56

  4.7

  6

  0.5

  1995

  94

  7.0

  8

  0.6

  318
  The Crown court figures for the year 1993 include Northumbria cases as it is not possible to distinguish the Durham cases from the Northumbria cases from the statistics available.

  Magistrates Court

  Table 1

  Case numbers

  Received

  Finalised

  of which…

  Pre-charge advice

  Per cent.

  Other proceedings

  Per cent.

  1993

  16,296

  16,381

  1,035

  6.3

  2

  0.1

  1994

  14,963

  14,654

  1,173

  8.0

  12

  0.1

  1995

  14,354

  15,110

  1,074

  7.1

  18

  0.1

  Table 2

  Not proceeded with of which…

  Prosecution dropped

  Per cent.

  Written Off

  Per cent.

  1993

  2,144

  13.9

  1,677

  10.9

  1994

  1,852

  13.7

  392

  2.9

  1995

  1,811

  12.9

  866

  6.1

  Table 7

  Proceeded with of which…

  Bind over

  Percentage

  Hearings

  Percentage

  1993

  75

  1.8

  3,818

  91.9

  1994

  11

  0.9

  1,104

  93 8

  1995

  21

  1.5

  1,212

  90.7

  Table 8

  Outcome of which…

  Convicted

  Per cent.

  Acquitted

  Per cent.

  1993

  3,494

  91.5

  324

  8.5

  1994

  1,032

  93.4

  72

  6.6

  1995

  1,126

  92.9

  86

  7.1

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many vessels are under investigation for failing to comply with their licence conditions in 1995. [13667]

  Mr. Baldry
  At 31 December 1995, 84 fishing vessels were under investigation by the Ministry for suspected fisheries offences, including breaches of licence conditions.

  Genetic Modification
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to monitor the long-term effects of the sale of genetically modified foods. [14151]

  Mrs. Browning
  The safety of foods produced using genetic modification is thoroughly assessed by the independent Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes before approval for their use is given. As a condition of this approval applicants are required to monitor routinely the genetic stability of the products that they market and provide this information to the committee.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to set up an ethics committee to examine proposals to develop and market genetically modified plants and animals. [14152]

  Mrs. Browning
  This matter has already been examined by two Government committees, the Committee on the Ethics of Genetic Modification and Food Use which reported in September 1993, and the Committee to Consider the Ethical Implications of Emerging Technologies in the Breeding of Farm Animals, which reported in February 1995. Both reports are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Local Veterinary Inspectors
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the inquiry chaired by Divisional Veterinary Officer Hugh Morris in regard to certification procedures carried out by local veterinary inspectors. [11691]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: The report of the working party chaired by Mr. Morris, DVO was an internal discussion document not intended for publication. A copy will not, therefore, be placed in the Library.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many people were employed by the Student Loans Company on 1 January in each of the last five years; what were the grades of those employed; and how many loans were being administered on 1 January in each of the last five years; [13847]

  (2) if she will set out (a) the number of cases in which the Student Loans Company has issued county court summons against students, (b) the number of cases which have proceeded to a court hearing, (c) the number of cases in which the defendant has been either (i) ordered or (ii) agreed to repay the loan and (d) the
  320
  number of cases in which the Student Loans Company has agreed to withdraw a summons, and the reason for that decision. [13848]

  Mr. Forth
  These are matters for the Student Loans Company. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member with the information.

  Nursery School Inspections
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place in the Library the names of the nursery schools visited by registered inspectors of education in school year 1994–95 under section 9 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992; and what is the public document which sets down the criteria used for these inspections. [14286]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

  Nursery Vouchers Scheme
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 983, concerning agreements entered into with non-statutory bodies or persons concerning her proposed extension to early years education, on what statutory authority she entered on 22 January into contract No. 0414/118/02 with Capita Managed Services Ltd. relating to the administration of phase 1 of a voucher scheme; how many responses were received to the published advertisements; and what is the value of the contract. [14284]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Secretary of State entered into the contract on behalf of the Crown in pursuance of the Crown's ordinary common law right to enter into contracts. This right does not depend on statute. One hundred and seventy companies expressed an interest in the contract. The contract was awarded by competitive tender. Its value is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what budget has been allocated for phase 1 of the nursery voucher scheme in each of the four pilot authorities; and if she will give a breakdown of this budget with respect to(a) funding for new places, (b) publicity, (c) administration and (d) inspection. [14116]

  Mr. Squire
  The estimated cost of new places in the phase one authorities is shown in the table. The budget for publicity in phase one is £750,000. The estimated cost of inspection and administration in phase 1 is £5 million, much of this is expected to be accounted for by the preparations for inspection in phase 2.

  Local authority

  Estimated cost of new places £

  Wandsworth

  770,000

  Westminster

  880,000

  Kensington and Chelsea

  935,000

  Norfolk

  3,300,000

  321
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the proportion of providers participating in(a) phase 1 and (b) phase 2 of the voucher scheme, capable of meeting the premises' requirements set out in the Children Act 1989 and the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981. [14117]

  Mr. Squire
  It is the responsibility of local education authorities and the governors of grant-maintained schools to ensure that all school premises comply with the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981. They will also be responsible for ensuring compliance with the revised regulations that we expect to lay before the House later this month.

  The Children Act 1989 does not prescribe premises standards for registration. Local authority social services departments have regard to the space standards guidance set out in local authority circular LAC(93)1 when registering institutions.

  Reception Classes
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the(a) average class size, (b) average pupil-teacher ratio and (c) average pupil-adult ratio of reception classes in England. [14110]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information about pupils and staff in reception classes is not collected centrally.

  Under-fives Education
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the number and percentage of three-year-olds in(a) maintained nursery schools and nursery classes, (b) reception classes in primary schools, (c) private or voluntary sector provision an (d) pre-school provision overall. [14118]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information for schools in England is shown in the following table. We have no reliable estimates on three-year olds in voluntary or private provision.

  Pupils aged three years of age (1) in schools in England: January 1995

  School type

  Pupils

  Percentage of population2

  Maintained nursery schools and nursery classes

  277,353

  42

  Infant classes in primary schools

  1,309

  —

  Independent schools3

  22,075

  3

  All schools4

  303,467

  46

  —negligible (i.e. less than 0.5)

  1Full-time and part-time pupils aged three years of age at 31 August 1994.

  2 Full-time and part-time pupils aged three years of age at 31 August 1994, expressed as a percentage of the population aged three at 31 August 1994

  3 Includes pupils in direct grant nursery schools.

  4 Includes pupils in maintained nursery, primary and special schools, non-maintained special schools and independent schools.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress St. Helen's chamber of commerce, training and enterprise and Greater Peterborough and Kent TECs are making in meeting the criteria for the award of a three-year licence. [14640]

  Mr. Paice
  I am pleased to announce the award of three-year licences to St. Helens chamber of commerce, training and enterprise, Greater Peterborough and Kent TECs, which have now completed the process of meeting the rigorous standards that we set.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing Bill
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons the provisions of the Housing Bill do not extend to Northern Ireland [12827]

  Mr. Moss
  Provisions on housing benefit in the forthcoming Housing Bill will extend to Northern Ireland. Separate Northern Ireland legislation on homelessness and other related issues is likely to be brought forward in due course in a way which accommodates the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland.

  Movilla Cemetery
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Old Movilla road, Newtownards, is designated as an access to Movilla cemetery, Newtownards; what assessment he has made of the gradient; what research he has evaluated into the impact of snow and frost on the road; if he will make it his policy to implement gritting the Old Movilla road during periods of frost and snow; and if he will make a statement. [12941]

  Mr. Moss
  The main entrance to Movilla cemetery is on the Old Movilla road, Newtownards. The 120m section of Old Movilla road between Movilla road and the cemetery's entrance has a very slight gradient; the remaining 390m section has a gradient of approximately 1:8. The impact of snow and ice on this road is not considered to be significantly different from many other comparable minor roads and traffic volumes are not high enough to justify its inclusion in the winter maintenance programme. However, the Department proposes to provide a grit bin along the steepest section of the road.

  Strangford Ferry
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many days each of the two car ferries operated on the Portaferry-Strangford route during the month of January 1996: on how many days the passenger ferry operated in that month; what factors led to the absence of a ferry service on Monday 29 January 1996; if he will arrange an internal inquiry about the management of this ferry service; what proposals there are to provide a new ferry boat; and if he will make a statement. [12901]
  323
  Mr. Moss
  During January 1996 the MV Strangford was in service for 22 days, while the MV Portaferry was not in service at all as it was, and still is, receiving its annual refit, which is required for marine safety purposes; the passenger vessel, MV Isle O'Valla was in service for six days.

  No ferry service was in operation on 29 January 1996, when the MV Strangford and the MV Isle O'Valla suffered major mechanical breakdowns.

  While there are no proposals to carry out an internal inquiry into the management of the ferry service, a report on the recent breakdown is presently being prepared.

  Last year marine consultants carried out a review of the ferry service and, in the light of that, the Department is exploring the possibility of replacing the MV Portaferry. However, as this proposal will have to compete with other priorities it is not possible to state at this stage when a new vessel could be provided.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the net cost to public funds of the operation of the Strangford ferry, including maintenance and repairs, in the last financial year. [13170]

  Mr. Moss
  Approximately £333,000.

  Film Posters
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy in respect of the

  £000

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  a. Not applicable in Northern Ireland

  b.

  217

  474

  628

  587

  528

  1,712

  4,335

  4,381

  c.

  6,376

  6,276

  4,749

  6,255

  6,249

  3,960

  2,390

  1,549

  d.

  —

  —

  0

  69

  113

  163

  272

  324

  e.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  350

  350

  f. Not applicable in Northern Ireland

  g.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  350

  350

  h.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  58

  60

  i. Not applicable in Northern Ireland

  Midwives
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many midwives are employed at each hospital in Northern Ireland in(a) permanent and (b) temporary posts; and how many of those employed in these posts are (i) Roman Catholic, (ii) Protestant and (iii) in non-determined categories; [13938]

  (2) how many midwives were appointed to (a) permanent posts and (b) temporary posts at each hospital in Northern Ireland to date during 1996; and how many of those appointed were (i) Roman Catholic, (ii) Protestant and (iii) non-determined at each hospital; [13940]

  (3) how many midwives were appointed to (a) permanent and (b) temporary posts at each hospital in Northern Ireland during the last 12 months; and how many Roman Catholic, Protestant and non-determined midwives were appointed at each hospital. [12939]
  324
  display of posters of an explicit sexual nature at (a) the property of the Department of Environment and (b) the property of Ulsterbus; what posters for the film "Showgirls" are on display at the bus stop at Carryduff; and if he will make a statement on the display of posters in public areas. [12914]

  Mr. Moss
  Neither the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland nor Ulsterbus permits the display of posters of an explicit sexual nature at their property; a poster advertising the film "Showgirls" on display at the privately owned bus shelter at Carryduff was removed by the owners in mid-January. The content of advertisements is controlled by a voluntary code of conduct supervised by the Advertising Standards Authority. It is an offence under the Indecent Advertisements Act 1889 to display publicly material which is of an indecent or obscene nature.

  Conservation Schemes
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the annual expenditure figures and forecasts for the(a) countryside access scheme, (b) environmentally sensitive areas, (c) farm conservation grant scheme, (d) farm woodland premium scheme, (e) habitat scheme, (f) nitrate sensitive areas, (g) moorland scheme, (h) organic aid scheme and (i) countryside stewardship for each year between 1990–91 and 1997–98. [13637]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 5 February 1996]: The information is as follows:

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Cookstown Bypass
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to implement the provision of a Cookstown bypass. [12590]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 7 February 1996]: A scheme to complete a bypass of Cookstown—the Cookstown eastern distributor road—is included in the Department's six to 15-year major road works programme, but its precise timing will depend on future funding levels.

  Omagh Bypass
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to
  325
  provide the finances necessary to conclude the Omagh bypass. [12591]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 7 February 1996]: The final stage of the Omagh throughpass is included in the Department's six to 15-year major works programme, but its precise timing will depend on future funding levels.

  Volunteer Drivers
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations his Department carried out with the voluntary sector before announcing the discontinuance of exemptions for public service vehicles and road service licensing of volunteer drivers and their vehicles; and what account was taken of the decision to be in line with the 1993 strategy document of the volunteer activity unit in coming to this decision. [13799]

  Mr. Moss
  The health and personal social services executive has had no consultations with the voluntary sector. However, it wrote to voluntary organisations on the 20 December 1995 informing them of the Department of the Environment's intention to withdraw, probably from May 1996, exemptions from public service vehicle and road service licensing requirements for volunteer car services under the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. The HPSS executive at the same time indicated its intention to discuss ways of facilitating this change with the minimum impact on volunteers. The Department of the Environment is aware of the 1993 strategy document, but it has an overriding duty under section 6(1)(i) of the Transport Act (NI) 1967 to ensure fair competition among persons providing facilities for the carriage of passengers for reward. Volunteer car services which operate for reward are not at present exempt from road service licensing.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will specify those current European laws designed to promote fair competition which his Department assesses to be preventing volunteer car services from retaining public service vehicle exemptions; and if he will publish the legal opinion he has obtained on the subject. [13800]

  £000

  1979–80

  1989–90

  1991–92

  1993–94

  1994–95

  11995–96

  11996–97

  Northern Ireland Departments and Northern Ireland Office

  2372

  6,874

  6,157

  7,184

  7,072

  7,030

  33,842

  Agencies

  —

  —

  1,237

  1,959

  1,826

  1,655

  4105

  1 Estimated.

  2 Figures available for DHSS and DENI only.

  3 Excludes DED, DOE and DHSS as budgets have not been agreed to this level of detail.

  4 Figures available for the Valuation Lands Agency only.

  These figures include capital expenditure. Figures for the Compensation Agency are included in the departmental returns.

  Within the Northern Ireland Office, agencies have their own internal directories. The NIO internal directory is available to NIO core staff but not to staff in the agencies.
  326
  Mr. Moss: Whether the exemptions from public service vehicle regulations currently granted to volunteer car services conflict with European competition law has not been tested in the courts. However, the Department of the Environment has a duty under section 6(1)(i) of the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 to ensure fair competition among persons providing facilities for the carriage of passengers for reward.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will amend the Transport Act 1967 formally to exempt volunteer car services from the road service licensing requirements of that Act. [13801]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of the Environment is examining the possibility of amending the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 with a view to creating special licensing arrangements for volunteer car services while continuing to provide for the proper regulation of public transport services to ensure fair competition among persons providing facilities for the carriage of passengers for reward. The Department does not intend to proceed with plans to phase out the existing concessions until it is known whether suitable arrangements can be made.

  Junior Sports Club Scheme
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost to the Sports Council of the review by Price Waterhouse of the junior sports club scheme. [13801]

  Mr. Ancram
  The cost to the Sports Council was £5,500.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the annual telephone costs to(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) his Department's non-departmental public bodies staff for each of the years (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1991–92, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1994–95, (vi) 1995–96 and (vii) 1996–97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c). [11402]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 25 January 1996]: The information for the Northern Ireland Office, Northern Ireland Departments and agencies is as follows.

  Within Northern Ireland Departments, departmental internal telephone directories are available to all staff within those Departments and their agencies. In addition, the Department of Finance and Personnel's Telecoms branch produce a paper network telephone directory for all Northern Ireland civil service buildings connection to the DIAL telecommunications network within Northern

  327
  Ireland. These directories are distributed at a ratio of one directory per three people. Government telecommunications network directories are also distributed for all buildings in the network.

  Information on non-departmental public bodies could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated level of Government financial

  Government financial support for unitary authorities

  Central government support at constant 1995–96 prices (£ thousands)1

  Net of community care

  Inclusive of community care

  Unitary authority

  1995–962

  1996–973

  Percentage change

  1995–962

  1996–973

  Percentage change

  Anglesey

  48,805

  47,280

  -3.1

  51,847

  50,792

  -2.0

  Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire

  84,787

  84,493

  -0.3

  90,412

  91,115

  0.8

  Aberconwy and Colwyn

  68,819

  67,493

  -1.9

  74,766

  73,804

  -1.3

  Denbighshire

  61,226

  63,680

  4.0

  66,039

  68,712

  4.0

  Flintshire

  89,704

  87,472

  -2.5

  95,474

  93,694

  -1.9

  Wrexham

  78,626

  76,836

  -2.3

  84,010

  82,639

  -1.6

  Powys

  92,555

  90,351

  -2.4

  98,001

  96,859

  -1.2

  Cardiganshire

  46,862

  49,953

  6.6

  49,926

  53,605

  7.4

  Pembrokeshire

  79,745

  78,432

  -1.6

  84,412

  83,879

  -0.6

  Carmarthenshire

  120,020

  115,764

  -3.5

  128,068

  125,339

  -2.1

  Swansea

  156,525

  151,340

  -3.3

  166,929

  163,108

  -2.3

  Neath and Port Talbot

  98,393

  99,205

  0.8

  105,028

  106,790

  1.7

  Bridgend

  88,495

  85,476

  -3.4

  93,399

  91,705

  -1.8

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  74,708

  71,330

  -4.5

  79,263

  76,550

  -3.4

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  172,578

  176,136

  2.1

  182,725

  189,516

  3.7

  Merthyr Tydfil

  46,985

  46,759

  -0.5

  49,505

  50,081

  1.2

  Caerphilly

  120,393

  119,816

  -0.5

  126,734

  127,684

  0.7

  Blaenau Gwent

  54,145

  57,144

  5.5

  57,285

  60,801

  6.1

  Torfaen

  64,245

  63,311

  -1.5

  67,720

  67,289

  -0.6

  Monmouthshire

  48,917

  47,089

  -3.7

  52,245

  50,924

  -2.5

  Newport

  96,171

  93,107

  -3.2

  101,632

  99,485

  -2.1

  Cardiff

  197,087

  198,101

  0.5

  208,794

  211,832

  1.5

  Wales

  1,989,794

  1,970,570

  -1.0

  2,114,214

  2,116,203

  0.1

  (1) Comprises revenue support grant and the distributable amount from non-domestic rates, and, for 1996–97, grant under the council tax reduction scheme.

  (2) Derived from indicative unitary authority standard spending assessments issued on 27 October 1995.

  (3) Estimates derived from the final 1996–97 local government revenue settlement.

  Provision for reorganisation costs is separate from, and additional to, the revenue settlement. For 1995–96 the Welsh Office has issued supplementary credit approvals—SCAs—of £23.1 million to county and district authorities and unitary authorities and is paying special grant of £17.6 million to the new unitary authorities to cover their running costs. For 1996–97 a further £40.0 million in SCAs is being provided to the new authorities and £2 million in special grant to meet the balance of 1995–96 running costs.

  The distribution of special grant resources is given in the following table. The distribution of SCAs for 1996–97 will not be known until later in the year.
  328
  support for each of the new unitary local authorities and for Wales as a whole in constant prices for (a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97, indicating the percentage yearly change in each case and the overall cumulative change (i) net of community care and the estimated cost of local government reorganisation and (ii) including community care and the estimated cost of local government reorganisation. [8885]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: The figures for 1995–96, redistributed on a unitary authority basis, and final figures for 1996–97 estimated at 1995–96 prices are set out in the following table. No estimates are available for 1994–95.

  Special grant paid to unitary authorities

  £000

  Grant paid in 1995–96

  Balance to be paid in 1996–971

  Anglesey

  717

  80

  Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire

  848

  94

  Aberconwy and Colwyn

  843

  94

  Denbighshire

  782

  87

  Flintshire

  813

  90

  Wrexham

  801

  89

  Powys

  825

  92

  Cardiganshire

  715

  79

  Pembrokeshire

  795

  88

  329

  Special grant paid to unitary authorities

  £000

  Grant paid in 1995–96

  Balance to be paid in 1996–971

  Carmarthenshire

  881

  98

  Swansea

  867

  96

  Neath and Port Talbot

  862

  96

  Bridgend

  753

  84

  Vale of Glamorgan

  747

  83

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  921

  102

  Merthyr Tydfil

  711

  79

  Caerphilly

  881

  98

  Blaenau Gwent

  719

  80

  Torfaen

  730

  81

  Monmouthshire

  724

  80

  Newport

  758

  84

  Cardiff

  857

  95

  Wales

  17,550

  1,950

  1 Subject to submission of audited claim.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the annual increase in the 1996–97 standard spending assessment for each unitary authority excluding funding for the police and community care; [10281]

  (2) if he will list the standard spending assessment for each local authority and for Wales as a whole excluding the amount specifically provided for community care (a) for 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [10282]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: The information requested is given in the following tables. Table 1 gives the 1995–96 standard spending assessments excluding allocations for community care for counties and districts. Table 2 shows the indicative 1995–96 SSAs for unitary authorities and compares them to the final SSAs for 1996–97—excluding allocations for community care.

  Table 1: Standard spending assessments 1995–96 (excluding community care)

  £ thousand

  Alyn and Deside

  10, 296

  Colwyn

  8,520

  Table 2: Standard spending assessments (excluding community care)

  (£ thousand)

  1995–961

  1996–97

  Difference

  Percentage difference

  Anglesey

  56,029

  57,194

  1,164

  2.1

  Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire

  97,151

  99,599

  2,449

  2.5

  Aberconwy and Colwyn

  81,199

  83,563

  2,365

  2.9

  Denbighshire

  71,146

  73,384

  2,238

  3.1

  Flintshire

  104,391

  106,166

  1,775

  1.7

  Wrexham

  90,503

  92,595

  2,092

  2.3

  Powys

  105,907

  108,961

  3,055

  2.9

  Cardiganshire

  54,124

  56,162

  2,038

  3.8

  Pembrokeshire

  91,748

  94,833

  3,085

  3.4

  Carmarthenshire

  136,410

  138,519

  2,109

  1.5

  Swansea

  178,516

  181,451

  2,935

  1.6

  Neath and Port Talbot

  110,739

  112,657

  1,917

  1.7

  Bridgend

  100,955

  101,186

  231

  0.2

  Vale of Glamorgan

  87,991

  89,270

  1,280

  1.5

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  190,489

  193,338

  2,850

  1.5

  330

  Table 1: Standard spending assessments 1995–96 (excluding community care)

  £ thousand

  Delyn

  9,339

  Glyndwr

  5,473

  Rhuddlan

  8,900

  Wrexham Maelor

  16,574

  Carmarthen

  7,869

  Ceredigion

  10,446

  Dinefwr

  6,027

  Llanelli

  13,294

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  11,477

  South Pembrokeshire

  8,104

  Blaenau Gwent

  15,568

  Islwyn

  11,729

  Monmouth

  9,879

  Newport

  22,305

  Torfaen

  13,584

  Aberconwy

  8,609

  Arfon

  9,890

  Dwyfor

  6,035

  Meirionnydd

  6,187

  Ynys Mon

  11,242

  Cynon Valley

  13,659

  Merthyr Tydfil

  12,135

  Ogwr

  21,279

  Rhondda

  17,622

  Rhymney Valley

  15,879

  Taff Ely

  14,662

  Brecknock

  6,631

  Montgomeryshire

  7,679

  Radnorshire

  3,486

  Cardiff

  45,787

  Vale of Glamorgan

  15,063

  Port Talbot

  9,004

  Lliw Valley

  9,039

  Neath

  10,389

  Swansea

  32,710

  Clwyd

  247,421

  Dyfed

  225,558

  Gwent

  273,652

  Gwynedd

  149,413

  Mid Glamorgan

  345,059

  Powys

  85,432

  South Glamorgan

  252,734

  West Glamorgan

  224,574

  Total Districts

  466,373

  Total counties

  1,803,842

  Total local authorities

  2,270,215

  331

  Table 2: Standard spending assessments (excluding community care)

  (£ thousand)

  1995–961

  1996–97

  Difference

  Percentage difference

  Merthyr Tydfil

  51,315

  52,446

  1,131

  2.2

  Caerphilly

  134,227

  136,242

  2,014

  1.5

  Blaenau Gwent

  59,832

  60,738

  906

  1.5

  Torfaen

  72,584

  73,709

  1,125

  1.5

  Monmouthshire

  58,768

  60,104

  1,335

  2.3

  Newport

  108,999

  110,963

  1.963

  1.8

  Cardiff

  227,193

  230,924

  3,731

  1.6

  Wales

  2,270,215

  2,314,005

  43,790

  1.9

  1 Indicative SSAs released on 27 October 1995.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in(a) cash and (b) real terms the amount available to local authorities in Wales from non-domestic rates in each year from 1990–91 to 1996–97; and what proportion of local government revenue this was in each year. [10286]

  Mr. Jones
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: The information requested is given in the following table.

  Distributable non-domestic rates (£ million)

  Cash terms

  At 1990–91 prices

  As a proportion of local government net revenue expenditure (per cent.)

  1990–91

  443

  443

  19.9

  1991–92

  525

  494

  21.1

  1992–93

  536

  485

  20.2

  1993–94

  470

  413

  17.9

  1994–95

  464

  400

  16.5

  Table 1: Standard spending assessments for Welsh local authorities 1990–91 to 1995–961

  £ thousand

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–962

  Alyn and Deeside

  6,910

  7,960

  8,882

  9,696

  10,125

  10,296

  Colwyn

  5,367

  6,117

  6,704

  7,655

  8,253

  8,520

  Delyn

  5,796

  6,811

  7,580

  8,615

  9,262

  9,339

  Glyndwr

  3,686

  4,422

  4,829

  5,377

  5,501

  5,473

  Rhuddlan

  5,807

  7,014

  7,603

  8,458

  8,717

  8,900

  Wrexham Maelor

  11,221

  13,935

  14,864

  15,671

  16,372

  16,574

  Carmarthen

  5,488

  6,421

  6,952

  7,723

  7,762

  7,869

  Ceredigion

  6,581

  8,030

  8,700

  9,684

  9,979

  10,446

  Dinefwr

  3,542

  4,335

  4,977

  5,602

  5,866

  6,027

  Llanelli

  8,366

  10,624

  11,581

  12,539

  12,868

  13,294

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  7,019

  8,624

  9,747

  10,844

  11,273

  11,477

  South Pembrokeshire

  4,675

  5,526

  6,376

  7,342

  7,740

  8,104

  Blaenau Gwent

  9,934

  12,667

  13,843

  14,880

  15,185

  15,568

  Islwyn

  7,952

  9,390

  10,231

  11,133

  11,534

  11,729

  Monmouth

  6,570

  7,777

  8,574

  9,394

  9,765

  9,879

  Newport

  16,354

  18,905

  20,537

  22,585

  22,472

  22,305

  Torfaen

  9,717

  11,769

  12,256

  13,417

  13,702

  13,584

  Aberconwy

  5,341

  6,672

  7,410

  8,488

  8,740

  8,609

  Arfon

  6,174

  7,963

  8,394

  9,290

  9,826

  9,890

  Dwyfor

  3,734

  4,729

  5,108

  5,882

  5,996

  6,035

  Meirionnydd

  3,911

  5,099

  5,282

  5,757

  6,068

  6,187

  Ynys Mon

  7,218

  8,943

  9,539

  10,812

  11,248

  11,242

  Cynon Valley

  8,517

  10,524

  11,675

  12,966

  13,374

  13,659

  Merthyr Tydfil

  8,266

  10,192

  10,937

  11,974

  12,226

  12,135

  Ogwr

  14,782

  17,218

  18,121

  20,287

  20,598

  21,279

  Rhondda

  11,992

  14,739

  15,921

  17,225

  17,746

  17,622

  Rhymney Valley

  10,610

  13,426

  14,128

  15,410

  15,882

  15,879

  332

  Distributable non-domestic rates (£ million)

  Cash terms

  At 1990–91 prices

  As a proportion of local government net revenue expenditure (per cent.)

  1995–96

  520

  437

  17.6

  1996–971

  459

  375

  n/a

  1Revenue expenditure figures are not available for 1996–97.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the total standard spending allocated to and (b) the amount spent by each local authority in each year from 1990–91. [10280]

  Mr. Jones
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: Table 1 shows the standard spending assessments for each local authority from 1990–91 to 1995–96, table 2 shows the standard spending assessments for 1996–97 and table 3 shows the net revenue expenditure for authorities over the same period as table 1. No data on expenditure are available for 1996–97.
  333

  Table 1: Standard spending assessments for Welsh local authorities 1990–91 to 1995–961

  £ thousand

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–962

  Taff Ely

  9,991

  11,701

  12,771

  14,253

  14,644

  14,662

  Brecknock

  4,132

  4,904

  5,337

  5,960

  6,257

  6,631

  Montgomeryshire

  4,682

  5,420

  5,987

  6,669

  7,132

  7,679

  Radnorshire

  2,074

  2,493

  2,971

  3,281

  3,283

  3,486

  Cardiff

  30,461

  37,265

  41,644

  44,209

  45,765

  45,787

  Vale of Glamorgan

  10,325

  12,086

  13,309

  15,017

  15,257

  15,063

  Port Talbot

  6,348

  7,901

  8,336

  8,790

  8,896

  9,004

  Lliw Valley

  5,983

  7,322

  7,854

  8,647

  8,827

  9,039

  Neath

  6,991

  8,151

  9,284

  10,088

  10,148

  10,389

  Swansea

  23,580

  28,427

  29,857

  32,346

  32,781

  32,710

  Clwyd

  225,384

  258,105

  278,847

  266,580

  280,306

  266,705

  Dyfed

  202,326

  232,562

  251,704

  242,976

  253,355

  241,288

  Gwent

  248,388

  286,174

  302,433

  295,230

  306,932

  291,717

  Gwynedd

  142,239

  159,307

  168,892

  162,795

  169,002

  160,883

  Mid Glamorgan

  320,076

  363,783

  381,246

  376,664

  388,857

  366,613

  Powys

  77,653

  87,670

  93,187

  90,374

  93,656

  90,776

  South Glamorgan

  228,696

  258,854

  273,622

  269,164

  280,920

  268,620

  West Glamorgan

  205,437

  236,544

  254,570

  243,329

  255,622

  241,661

  Dyfed-Powys Police Authority

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  23,431

  Gwent Police Authority

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  25,280

  North Wales Police Authority

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  33,329

  South Wales Police Authority

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  77,734

  Total district councils

  310,100

  375,500

  408,100

  447,964

  461,071

  466,373

  Total county councils

  1,650,200

  1,883,000

  2,004,500

  1,947,112

  2,028,650

  1,928,262

  Total police authorities

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  159,775

  Total Wales

  1,960,300

  2,258,500

  2,412,600

  2,395,076

  2,489,721

  2,554,410

  1 No adjustments made for functional changes.

  2 For years prior to 1995–96, the SSAs for police authorities are included in the amounts for county councils.

  Table 2: Standard spending assessments for Welsh local authorities: 1996–97

  £ thousand

  Anglesey

  60,802

  Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire

  106,403

  Aberconwy and Colwyn

  90,048

  Denbighshire

  78,555

  Flintshire

  112,559

  Wrexham

  98,558

  Powys

  115,649

  Cardiganshire

  59,915

  Pembrokeshire

  100,430

  Carmarthenshire

  148,358

  Swansea

  193,543

  Neath and Port Talbot

  120,451

  Bridgend

  107,587

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  94,634

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  207,086

  Table 3: Net revenue expenditure for Welsh local authorities 1990–91 to 1995–96

  (£ thousand)

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 outturn

  1992–93 outturn

  1993–94 outturn

  1994–95 revised estimate

  1995–96 budget1

  Alyn and Deeside

  5,875

  9,296

  9,750

  9,866

  10,509

  11,807

  Colwyn

  6,219

  7,091

  7,179

  7,672

  8,955

  9,070

  Delyn

  7,530

  6,247

  8,552

  8,473

  12,542

  11,138

  Glyndwr

  3,875

  4,036

  5,275

  6,075

  5,791

  6,815

  Rhuddlan

  6,964

  9,207

  9,162

  8,786

  9,378

  9,355

  Wrexham Maelor

  12,645

  13,301

  14,880

  15,988

  16,909

  18,061

  Carmarthen

  4,800

  5,019

  5,091

  6,598

  8,690

  11,560

  Ceredigion

  6,546

  8,968

  9,279

  9,693

  10,637

  11,361

  334

  Table 2: Standard spending assessments for Welsh local authorities: 1996–97

  £ thousand

  Merthyr Tydfil

  55,859

  Caerphilly

  144,327

  Blaenau Gwent

  64,496

  Torfaen

  77,796

  Monmouthshire

  64,045

  Newport

  117,516

  Cardiff

  245,034

  Dyfed-Powys Police Authority

  24,338

  Gwent Police Authority

  31,419

  North Wales Police Authority

  34,659

  South Wales Police Authority

  75,827

  Total unitary authorities

  2,463,649

  Total police authorities

  166,242

  Total Wales

  2,629,891

  335

  Table 3: Net revenue expenditure for Welsh local authorities 1990–91 to 1995–96

  (£ thousand)

  1990–91 outturn

  1991–92 outturn

  1992–93 outturn

  1993–94 outturn

  1994–95 revised estimate

  1995–96 budget1

  Dinefwr

  3,332

  3,878

  4,877

  5,667

  5,695

  6,410

  Llanelli

  8,795

  10,557

  11,775

  13,054

  15,544

  17,397

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  6,971

  6,867

  7,275

  9,945

  12,632

  14,854

  South Pembrokeshire

  2,784

  4,346

  5,019

  6,959

  7,299

  8,349

  Blaenau Gwent

  12,336

  14,605

  16,443

  14,913

  16,260

  17,613

  Islwyn

  9,496

  9,401

  10,015

  10,079

  13,199

  16,499

  Monmouth

  7,516

  7,758

  8,507

  9,181

  11,183

  11,818

  Newport

  16,240

  20,587

  19,444

  17,727

  22,669

  25,038

  Torfaen

  14,251

  14,978

  12,688

  13,657

  14,124

  14,669

  Aberconwy

  6,478

  8,450

  9,129

  9,428

  9,087

  9,490

  Arfon

  4,980

  7,751

  8,672

  8,571

  10,752

  10,978

  Dwyfor

  5,699

  4,692

  5,106

  5,217

  7,138

  8,172

  Meirionnydd

  5,495

  6,505

  6,257

  6,003

  6,399

  7,075

  Ynys Mon

  9,688

  9,686

  10,253

  10,735

  12,514

  14,287

  Cynon Valley

  8,783

  10,334

  11,845

  12,078

  13,027

  15,248

  Merthyr Tydfil

  8,648

  10,580

  11,404

  12,033

  12,340

  12,240

  Ogwr

  18,657

  17,545

  18,747

  19,952

  20,697

  21,697

  Rhondda

  12,630

  12,287

  12,911

  16,746

  19,251

  23,543

  Rhymney Valley

  12,826

  13,988

  15,202

  16,863

  16,175

  16,178

  Taff Ely

  9,733

  10,429

  12,195

  15,443

  16,938

  16,183

  Brecknock

  4,273

  4,698

  5,077

  5,513

  7,502

  8,266

  Montgomeryshire

  4,476

  5,341

  5,671

  6,093

  7,683

  7,978

  Radnorshire

  2,095

  2,817

  2,948

  3,310

  3,733

  3,561

  Cardiff

  38,739

  41,397

  41,279

  44,737

  48,269

  48,945

  Vale of Glamorgan

  8,831

  12,057

  13,280

  15,579

  16,593

  17,330

  Port Talbot

  8,042

  8,212

  6,368

  6,282

  13,145

  13,737

  Lliw Valley

  4,903

  5,506

  6,585

  7,717

  8,432

  9,319

  Neath

  6,753

  8,942

  9,513

  10,699

  14,269

  15,160

  Swansea

  31,486

  36,201

  35,091

  32,116

  35,300

  35,904

  Clwyd

  241,714

  269,547

  291,250

  261,453

  288,281

  280,517

  Dyfed

  210,684

  234,897

  258,161

  253,894

  266,584

  261,088

  Gwent

  251,273

  283,716

  304,684

  299,215

  313,523

  301,405

  Gwynedd

  144,793

  158,369

  168,423

  164,470

  175,719

  170,079

  Mid Glamorgan

  323,255

  361,185

  378,157

  381,519

  408,049

  391,938

  Powys

  75,332

  86,954

  95,386

  92,917

  97,015

  97,284

  South Glamorgan

  232,522

  259,964

  272,136

  270,076

  280,334

  274,040

  West Glamorgan

  219,065

  238,965

  261,812

  252,306

  268,065

  258,048

  Dyfed-Powys Police Authority

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  23,031

  Gwent Police Authority

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  25,280

  North Wales Police Authority

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  33,328

  South Wales Police Authority

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  74,733

  Total district councils

  349,390

  393,560

  412,744

  439,448

  501,260

  537,105

  Total county councils

  1,698,638

  1,893,597

  2,030,009

  1,975,850

  2,097,570

  2,034,399

  Total police authorities

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  156,372

  Total Wales

  2,048,028

  2,287,157

  2,442,753

  2,415,298

  2,598,830

  2,727,876

  1 Police authority budgets adjusted to exclude police grant. For years prior to 1995–96, the expenditure for police authorities is included in the amounts for county councils.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each unitary authority area and for Wales as a whole in 1996 prices the overall central Government support net of community care costs in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [12431]

  Mr. Jones
  The figures for 1995–96, redistributed on a unitary authority basis, and final figures for 1996–97, estimated at 1995–96 prices are set out in the following table.
  336

  Government financial support for unitary authorities

  Central government support net of allocations for care in the community at constant 1995–96 prices (£ thousands)1

  Unitary authority

  1995–962

  31996–97

  Anglesey

  48,805

  47,280

  Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire Aberconwy and

  84,787

  84,493

  337

  Government financial support for unitary authorities

  Central government support net of allocations for care in the community at constant 1995–96 prices (£ thousands)1

  Unitary authority

  1995–962

  31996–97

  Colwyn

  68,819

  67,493

  Denbighshire

  61,226

  63,680

  Flintshire

  89,704

  87,472

  Wrexham

  78,626

  76,836

  Powys

  92,555

  90,351

  Cardiganshire

  46,862

  49,953

  Pembrokeshire

  79,745

  78,432

  Carmarthenshire

  120,020

  115,764

  Swansea

  156,525

  151,340

  Neath and Port Talbot

  98,393

  99,205

  Bridgend

  88,495

  85,476

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  74,708

  71,330

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  172,578

  176,136

  Merthyr Tydfil

  46,985

  46,759

  Caerphilly

  120,393

  119,816

  Blaenau Gwent

  54,145

  57,144

  Torfaen

  64,245

  63,311

  Monmouthshire

  48,917

  47,089

  Newport

  96,171

  93,107

  Cardiff

  197,087

  198,101

  Wales

  1,989,794

  1,970,570

  1 Comprises revenue support grant and the distributable amount from non-domestic rates, and, for 1996–97, grant under the council tax reduction scheme.

  2 Derived from indicative unitary authority standard spending assessments issued on 27 October 1995.

  3 Estimates derived from the final 1996–97 local government revenue settlement.

  Community Care
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each unitary authority area and for Wales as a whole in 1996 prices the budget for community care(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [12430]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is not available. Local authorities' budget returns do not distinguish estimated expenditure on care in the community from expenditure on other social services. Local authorities have not yet set their budgets for 1996–97.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sums were earmarked for(a) the treatment of, and (b) publicity about, osteoporosis in (i) 1994 and (ii) 1995. [12992]

  Mr. Richards
  (a) This information is not available centrally. The responsibility for providing services for osteoporosis is a matter for district health authorities. (b) No Welsh Office funds were earmarked for publicity about osteoporosis in 1994 or 1995.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning the identification and treatment of sufferers from osteoporosis. [12994]

  Mr. Richards
  The responsibility for the assessment and provision of services for sufferers of osteoporosis is a matter for district health authorities in the light of local priorities and resources.
  338
  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of(a) the number of sufferers from osteoporosis and (b) the number of people treated for osteoporosis in Wales in each of the last three years. [12995]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional promotional measures he plans in connection with osteoporosis. [12991]

  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh Office does not at present have any specific plans for promotional measures aimed at reducing the impact of osteoporosis.

  School Transport
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which local authorities in Wales provide free transport to schools and colleges for pupils beyond the compulsory school-leaving age. [12894]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Elderly People's Homes
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning safety and security and the prevention of accidents in homes for the elderly. [13183]

  Mr. Richards
  The Health and Safety Executive is responsible for developing and providing guidance on health and safety standards nationally and for the enforcement of health and safety legislation in all nursing homes and in residential homes owned by local authorities. Local authority environmental health departments are responsible for enforcement in private and voluntary residential homes.

  Under the Registered Homes Act 1984 local authority social services departments are responsible for the registration of residential homes and health authorities are responsible for the registration of nursing homes.

  Baglan Hospital
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has so far been expended on the site proposed for the Baglan hospital; and which body is bearing the interest charges for costs incurred. [13733]

  Mr. Richards
  West Glamorgan health authority has invested £5.1 million in the acquisition and initial preparation of land at Baglan moors. The funds were allocated as part of the authority's capital allocation and, as such, do not attract interest charges.

  Sheep (Radioactivity)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what considerations have led him to take the view that sheep in the area of north Wales hitherto restricted post-Chernobyl are now fit for human consumption. [13679]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Statutory restrictions are in place to prevent sheepmeat containing levels of radiocaesium in excess of 1,000 Becquerels per kilogram from entering the
  339
  food chain. A continuing assessment programme enables suitable areas affected by restrictions to be identified for an intensive monitoring survey to determine the level of radiocaesium activity in the sheep grazing there.

  When it can be shown, following intensive monitoring at the time of year when levels of activity are expected to be at their peak, that residual radioactivity has declined to acceptable levels restrictions may be removed from that area. The latest removal of restrictions form part of the north Wales restricted area follows the successful outcome of such an assessment.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the shortfall of junior doctors in each of the health districts in Wales. [13810]

  Mr. Richards
  The Department has been discussing with NHS trusts what action can be taken to address the problems arising from a shortage of junior doctors in some specialities. Information on the extent of the shortfall in each health district in Wales can be provided by individual trusts and is not held centrally.

  Spare Computer Capacity
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all cases where spare computer capacity has been sold to other Departments since 1987, giving the Department and value of each contract. [14074]

  Mr. Hague
  There are no cases in which the Welsh Office has sold spare computer capacity to other Departments.

  Health Service Materials Management
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 980, if the sale proceeds of the existing Welsh Health Common Services Authority stores will be available for meeting (a) redundancy costs of existing authority employees in the procurement section, (b) costs of removal of the contracts division from Crickhowell house and (c) other restructuring costs. [14270]

  Mr. Hague
  Proceeds from the sale of stores will be available to meet restructuring and redundancy costs associated with the market test of materials management. The location of the contracting staff is a separate matter and is for the authority to decide.

  NHS EstateCare
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 898, if he will list the date and means by which his predecessor's decision to privatise the EstateCare group of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority was (a) first formulated and (b) communicated to (i) NHS trusts and (ii) others with an interest; and if he will make a statement. [14272]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department wrote to health authorities and NHS trusts on 11 April 1994 letting them know that the privatisation of the EstateCare group was under consideration. Detailed proposals were subsequently 340
  drawn up by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority with the involvement of health authorities and NHS trusts.

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts (Statistics)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce into NHS hospital trusts annual information on(a) the percentage for re-admission after treatment, (b) the number of patients who get infections and (c) the number of times the hospital has been closed to emergency admission. [13230]

  Mr. Horam
  No.

  NHS Pension Scheme
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the policy of payment of NHS pensions to employees who are certified as long-term sick and unable to return to their employment with the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [13564]

  Mr. Malone
  The purpose of the national health service pension scheme is to provide pension benefits to employees on retirement. I am satisfied that it should continue to be the case. Where satisfactory independent medical opinion states that he or she is permanently incapable of efficiently discharging the duties of his or her employment an employee shall be entitled to an ill health retirement pension.

  Adoption Home Studies
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each English local authority the amount currently charged for inter-country adoption home studies. [13477]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Fundholding Savings (Ownership of Assets)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who legally owns assets bought from fundholding savings; and if he will make a statement. [13720]

  Mr. Malone
  It depends on the use to which the savings have been put. For example, if equipment was bought for use in a trust, ownership would probably be with the trust; if the savings were used for developments in the practice, ownership would probably be with the practice.

  Such expenditure has to be approved by the regional health authority to ensure benefit for patients and value for money.

  Oral Cancer
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the annual costs to the national health service of surgery for oral cancer; and what assessment he has made of the potential savings from earlier diagnosis of oral cancer; [13768]
  341
  (2) what steps are being taken by his Department to (a) set targets for reducing oral cancer incidence and to reduce death rates from oral cancer and (b) launch an extensive nationwide public awareness campaign of oral cancer and its risks factors and a programme for dentists to aid early identification of high-risk individuals. [13807]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the annual cost of oral cancer is not available centrally. There are no plans at present to introduce set targets for reducing oral cancer morbidity or mortality rates. Dentists are trained in the early recognition of abnormalities in the mouth and will refer patients for the appropriate treatment. Oral cancer can result from excessive alcohol and tobacco consumption, the risks of which are widely publicised and recognised. The Chief Dental Officer chairs the National Advisory Group on Screening for Oral Cancer which was set up last October. The group seeks to co-ordinate various strands of work being undertaken in the field of detecting and preventing oral cancers.

  Department of Health

  Medicines control agency

  NHS estates

  Grade (including professional equivalents)

  Posts advertised

  Number applied

  Posts advertised

  Number applied

  Posts advertised

  Number applied

  UG2

  1

  24

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UG3

  3

  94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UG5

  2

  90

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UG6

  1

  58

  —

  —

  6

  258

  UG7

  4

  106

  2

  104

  1

  71

  NO

  5

  104

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SEO

  —

  —

  1

  19

  5

  174

  HEO

  —

  —

  2

  108

  2

  18

  EO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  220

  Unit Manager

  1

  14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Groupworker

  6

  83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  AO

  7

  377

  4

  58

  —

  —

  AA

  —

  —

  1

  12

  —

  —

  PES

  —

  —

  1

  27

  —

  —

  City and East London Health Authority
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the difference between the spending plans of the health service providers in City and East London and the available budget. [13789]

  Mr. Horam
  Health authorities and general practitioners fundholders negotiate and fund an agreed level of service provision with national health service trusts. It is for each trust to provide those services using the available resources.

  Accident and Emergency Units (Doctors)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number of doctors from overseas working in the accident and emergency units of NHS hospitals. [14105]

  Mr. Malone
  There were 533 overseas-qualified doctors working in accident and emergency in England as at 30 September 1994.

  Note The total includes permanent paid, locums and honorary doctors, ie those in the field of academia and research.

  Newham Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure early resumption of routine and clinically urgent operations by Newham Healthcare NHS trust. [13790]

  Mr. Horam
  This is a matter for the trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Rosemary Walters, for details.

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many jobs have been advertised in each grade in his Department during the last three months for which records are available; and how many people have applied for each such job. [13831]

  Mr. Horam
  The following posts in the Department of Health and its agencies have been advertised externally since 1 November 1995:

  NHS Charges
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase NHS charges and the value of optical vouchers; and if he will make a statement. [14830]

  Mr. Malone
  I shall shortly lay before the House regulations to increase national health service charges in England and Wales from 1 April 1996. The prescription charge will increase by 25p, from £5.25 to £5.50 for each quantity of a drug or appliance dispensed. The fees for prescription prepayment certificates will also rise by £1.30, from £27.20 to £28.50 for a four-month certificate, and by £3.60, from £74.80 to £78.40, for an annual certificate. This will result in savings for those needing more than five items in four months or 14 in one year.

  Charges for elastic stockings and tights, wigs and most fabric supports supplied through the hospital service will be increased proportionately with the rise in the prescription charge.

  There will be an increase in the maximum patient charge for a single course of dental treatment begun on or after 1 April 1996. Everyone under 18 will continue to receive free treatment and about 25 per cent. of adult treatments are provided free or at reduced cost. The

  343
  maximum patient charge will increase from £300 to £325. More than 99 per cent. of courses of dental treatment will not be affected by this change because fewer than three in 1,000 courses of treatment attract the maximum charge.

  From 1 April 1996, the range of optical vouchers issued under the NHS optical voucher scheme will increase in value by 1 per cent. on average. The old values reflected the application of value added tax to the full cost of finished spectacles. A recent decision means that VAT should not be applied to the part of this cost which relates to dispensing the spectacles.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will lay regulations to increase charges in Scotland by the same amounts. Similar arrangements will apply in Northern Ireland.

  Details of the revised charges have been placed in the Library.

  Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the occasions on which(a) the Licensing Authority, (b) the Medicines Control Agency and its predecessor division of the DHSS and (c) the Committee on Safety of Medicines have taken legal action with respect to matters relating to the Medicines Act 1968; and what injunctions on what occasions have been sought preventing publication of any material relating to the efficacy or safety of medicines. [12977]

  Mr. Malone
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1995 to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce),Official Report, column 1153, if he will publish the full text of the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines to the Licensing Authority. [12979]

  Mr. Malone
  Such advice is confidential. The recommendations made by the Committee on Safety of Medicines at the meeting on 13 October 1995 were published in a letter from the chairman dated 18 October 1995 which was sent to doctors and pharmacists. Copies of this letter are available in the Library.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) under what legislative provision the opinion of the committee for proprietary medicinal products on the safety of combined oral contraceptives, which was requested on 11 October 1995, is being obtained; [12976]

  (2) if he will publish the text of the formal referral made on 11 October 1995 by the licensing authority to the committee for proprietary medicinal products; and if he will state the legal basis for that referral. [12973]

  Mr. Malone
  The Medicines Control Agency has an obligation to keep other member states informed of issues on the efficacy, quality and safety of medicines. In accordance with these obligations, on 11 October 1995 the MCA requested in writing that the safety of combined oral contraceptives be placed on the agenda of the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products meeting of 17 to 18 October, after important new evidence about this 344
  issue became available. It is not normal practice to publish such documentation. The matter was not referred to the Committee for an opinion under article 12 of directive 75/319/EEC.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if those who made arrangements on 11 October 1995 for the meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 13 October 1995 were made aware of the formal referral regarding safety concerns relating to desogestrel and gestodene to be considered by the pharmacovigilance sub-committee of the Committee on Safety of Medicines; and what factors led to the referral. [12965]

  Mr. Malone
  No such referral was made to the pharmacovigilance sub-committee. I presume the hon. Member is referring to the written request made on 11 October 1995 that the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products place the issue on the agenda of its meeting of 17–18 October. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 19 December 1995,Official Report, columns 1149–50.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) of 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1149, if the outside experts who attended the working group of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 10 October and the meeting of the CSM on 13 October were informed that the proceedings were subject to the Official Secrets Act 1989. [12966]

  Mr. Malone
  No. Attendees of the meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 13 October 1995 and the working group meeting of 10 October 1995 were informed that the papers and proceedings of the meetings were confidential and should not be disclosed. The papers and proceedings are subject to section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors precluded consideration between July 1995 and October 1995 of safety concerns relating to desogestrel and gestodene by the pharmacovigilence sub-committee of the Committee on Safety of Medicines. [12967]

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

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the licensing authority took prior to issuing the "Dear Doctor" letter of 18 October 1995 to establish the availability of oral contraceptives deemed to be suitable alternatives to those oral contraceptives which had given rise to safety concerns. [12972]

  Mr. Malone
  Appropriate steps were taken. The Committee on Safety of Medicines did not advise that all women on oral contraceptives containing gestodene or desogestrel should be switched to alternative preparations immediately. In a press release issued by the Department, women taking these pills were strongly urged to continue taking them, but to see their doctor, preferably before finishing their current cycle, to discuss whether a change of pill was necessary. Women who could not visit their surgery or family planning clinic before the end of their present cycle were advised to start the next pack. Discussions regarding supply were held with
  345
  pharmaceutical companies. We are not aware of major difficulties in the supply of alternative preparations that arose as a result of the CSM's advice.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received relating to safety concerns on combined oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene; and what steps he has taken in response to any such expressions of concern. [12974]

  Mr. Malone
  My Department has received representations from a number of sources, including doctors and other health professionals; bodies representing health professionals; members of the public; the pharmaceutical companies concerned and representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, and has responded to the issues raised.

  Medicines Commission
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the chairmen of the Medicines Commission since the inception of the Medicines Commission and give for each chairman the dates on which the chairmanship started and finished, together with the total duration of the chairmanship and if the individual concerned had served as a member of the Medicines Commission other than as chairman. [12921]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is as follows:

  Start and finish date

  Sir Derrick Dunlop MD FRCP FRCPed

  (Chairman) 1969 to December 1971

  Lord Rosenheim KBE MD FRCP

  (Member) 1969 to December 1971 (Chairman) January 1972 to December 1972 (1 year)

  Professor A. Wilson CBE PhD MD FRCP FPS

  (Member) 1969 to October 1974 (Acting Chairman) December 1972 to mid 1973

  Sir Ronald Bodley Scott GCVO MA MD

  (Chairman) Mid 1973 to December 1975

  Professor W. Butterfield OBE MA MD DM FRCP FACP

  (Member) January 1975 to December 1975 (1 year) (Chairman) January 1976 to December 1981 (6 years)

  Professor Dame Rosalind Hurley DBE LLB MD DUniv(Surrey) FRCPath FFPM(Hon) FRCOG

  (Chairman) 1982 to December 1993 (12 years)

  Professor D. Lawson CBE MD FRCPEdin FRCPGlasg FFPM

  (Chairman) January 1994 to Present (2 years 1 month)

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the occasions when the Medicines Commission has exercised its powers under section 3 of the Medicines Act 1968, and for each occasion give the date and nature of the issues examined, at whose request the powers were exercised, and if the results of the deliberations of the commission were published. [12923]

  Mr. Malone
  Section 3 of the Medicines Act 1968 sets out all of the general functions assigned to the Medicines Commission by or under the Act. To provide the information in respect of all the matters considered by the commission since it was established in 1969 would incur 346
  disproportionate cost. Details of matters considered by the commission are published in annual reports which are laid before the House and copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the occasions since 1968 when the Medicines Commission reviewed the committees established under section 4 of the Medicines Act 1968. [12975]

  Mr. Malone
  Under section 5 of the Medicines Act 1968, all section 4 committees are required to report to the Medicines Commission annually with respect to the performance of their functions. Copies of the reports are placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Clinical Trials
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what clinical trials conducted under a clinical trials exemption certificate were terminated between 1 October 1995 and 30 November 1995 at the request of the licensing authority on grounds of safety; [12922]

  (2) if regulatory action relating to clinical trials involving the use of medicinal products containing (a) desogestrel and (b) gestodene has now been completed. [12971]

  Mr. Malone
  Any company, or investigator, wishing to conduct a clinical trial with third generation progestogens or their metabolites, would have to apply to the Medicines Control Agency in accordance with the Medicines Act 1968 and its secondary legislation, and would have to provide a justification for the use of third generation progestogens taking into account the recent advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines in its letter dated 18 October 1995. Any regulatory action relating to clinical trials is treated in confidence between the licensing authority and the company or investigator concerned.

  Medicines Act
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the sub-committees established under powers conferred by section 1 (c) of schedule 1 to the Medicines Act 1968 or section 6 of the Medicines Commission and Committees Regulations 1970, giving for each sub-committee the date on which ministerial approval was given for the establishing of the sub-committee, which Minister or Ministers gave such approval, the date on which the sub-committee first met and, where applicable, the date of the final meeting of the sub-committee. [12924]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information for sub-committees established by powers conferred by section 1(c) of schedule 1 to the Medicines Act 1968 is contained in the annual reports of the section 4 committees of the Medicines Act 1968, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date arrangements were made by the Medicines Control Agency for the meetings with Professor Walter Spitzer and colleagues which were held
  347
  on Monday 9 October 1995 and Tuesday 10 October 1995. [12925]

  Mr. Malone
  The arrangements were made in late September 1995.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what written reports from the transnational study were received by the licensing authority before to the meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines held on 13 October 1995. [12968]

  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 1149.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the scheduled and actual meeting dates between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 1995 of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and its pharmacovigilance sub-committee. [12969]

  Mr. Malone
  The scheduled and actual meeting dates of the Committee on Safety of Medicines were as follows:

  26 January 1995

  23 February 1995

  23 March 1995

  27 April 1995

  25 May 1995

  22 June 1995

  20 July 1995

  21 September 1995

  13 October 1995

  26 October 1995

  23 November 1995

  14 December 1995

  The scheduled meeting dates of the pharmacovigilance sub-committee were as follows:

  3 January 1995

  31 January 1995

  28 February 1995

  28 March 1995

  2 May 1995

  6 June 1995

  4 July 1995

  5 September 1995

  3 October 1995

  31 October 1995

  28 November 1995

  The meetings scheduled for 31 January 1995 and 28 March 1995 were cancelled.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list travel and subsistence expenses paid to the members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines for journeys in October 1995; and if, for each payment, he will identify the committee members concerned, the starting point, starting date, finishing point and finishing date for each journey, and list separately the sums of travel and subsistence expenses paid; [12920]
  348
  (2) if he will list travel and subsistence expenses paid to outside experts who advised the Licensing Authority of the Committee on Safety of Medicines for journeys in October 1995; if he will identify the recipient of each payment, the starting point, starting date, finishing point and finishing date for each journey and if he will identify separately the sums of travel and subsistence expenses paid. [12970]

  Mr. Malone
  No. This information cannot be provided for reasons of confidentiality.

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on which occasions in the last three years officials have vetoed draft EC legislation on the grounds that a fiche d'impact had not been correctly prepared. [13643]

  Mr. Horam
  The correct preparation of fiches d'impact is a very important part of our consideration of proposals for EC legislation. It is one of the factors taken into account when Ministers consider the United Kingdom's negotiating position on a particular proposal.

  Renal Services
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of patients who die each year due to renal failure through the non-availability of dialysis machines to treat them; and if he will make a statement on the remedial measures he is taking. [14061]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available. It is for individual health authorities to allocate resources to renal services based on an assessment of the needs of their population and taking account of local priorities. Good practice guidance has been issued to help authorities to carry out a proper assessment of need for patients with renal failure. Purchasing guidance will be issued to health authorities shortly.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date he received the national review of renal services; and if he will now publish it. [14062]

  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State received the report of the national review of renal services in December 1994. We are currently considering a number of issues as to how to take this forward. This includes related guidance on purchasing renal services to be issued to health authorities in time for the next contracting round.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide(a) for each region and (b) for the trusts in each region for each of the last three years (i) the original capital cash limits (ii) the net amount of subsequent transfers or adjustments, (iii) the consequent final cash limits, (iv) receipts from the sale of fixed assets and (v) capital cash payments to acquire assets excluding donated assets. [10933]

  Mr. Horam
  National health service trusts do not have capital cash limits. Total cash payments are controlled by external financing limits which represent the difference between trusts' internally generated resources and approved capital spend.
  349
  Health authorities and national health service trusts are not required to distinguish between the cash flows for purchased and donated assets in their accounts.

  The other information requested will be placed in the Library.

  Over the period the number of NHS trusts increased. As a consequence the capital resources available to trusts increased and there was a corresponding reduction in the capital resources available to health authorities.

  NHS Trusts (Return on Capital)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the target figure in cash terms for the return on capital for each NHS trust annually since their inception and the actual return on capital annually; and how much of the actual surplus was(a) retained by the NHS trusts and (b) returned to the Government. [12621]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 30 January 1996]: National health service trusts are required to make a six per cent. return on their net relevant assets, not a target figure in cash terms. Tables showing the actual return achieved in percentage terms by each trust, and their retained surplus, for the financial year 1991–92 and 1992–93 will be placed in the Library. The equivalent information for the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95 is already available in the Library within reports on national health service trusts financial performance. Tables showing amounts paid by national health service trusts to the Consolidated Fund in interest and dividends for each financial year since 1991–92—the first year national health service trusts were established—will also be placed in the Library.

  NHS Trusts (Legal Costs)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions the Department has met the legal costs of workers of the boards of health trusts; which trusts were assisted; what was the cost to the Department in each case; and where provision was made for these costs in his Department's estimates. [13806]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department contributed towards the legal costs incurred by the non-executives of Cornwall Healthcare national health service trust in the libel action brought against them by Mrs. Abigail Kirby-Harris the former chairman. The contribution made by the Department towards the legal costs of all the litigants was £250,000 for which provision was taken in the winter supplementary estimates for 1995–96 presented to Parliament on 16 November 1995.

  This is the only case in which such a payment has been made by the Department.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rules govern the payment by NHS trusts of legal costs incurred in actions involving members of the boards of trusts; and what sum has been incurred to date in meeting these costs. [13808]

  Mr. Malone
  National health service trusts meet their directors' litigation costs where required to do so under the National Health Service Act 1977, or where vicariously liable at common law for the directors' actions, or where—in appropriate cases—they have indemnified the directors against such costs.
  350
  No central record is kept of sums paid by NHS trusts towards legal costs.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  British Library
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to the letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, JH/95/M/688, what actions he is taking to pursue the issue of oral scientific history with the national sound archive of the British library. [8247]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: I propose to discuss the subject of oral scientific history with the chief executive of the British library.

  Built Heritage
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects to publish a Green Paper on possible reforms of legislation to protect the built heritage. [13677]

  Mr. Sproat
  I hope to do so within the next couple of months.

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many jobs have been advertised in each grade in her Department during the last three months for which records are available; and how many people have applied for each such job. [13830]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department has not advertised any jobs in the last three months.

  Departmental Publications
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which of her Department's administrative manuals and internal guidance are now made public; and which remain private. [14029]

  Mr. Sproat
  The following internal Departmental guidance is available to the public on request:

  DNH Procedural Note on Open Government

  Code of Best Practice for Board Members

  DNH Finance Guide

  Historic Buildings Conservation Guidance for Government Departments

  Guidance for Departments on Disposal of Surplus Historical Buildings

  Guidance on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

  Design Guidelines

  Miscellaneous Guidance on Briefing and Drafting

  Miscellaneous Guidance on Personnel Policy

  Health and Safety Guidance

  "Green" Policy Guidance

  The following material is not available for public dissemination:

  DNH Security Instructions

  DNH Bomb and Fire Instructions

  DNH IT Security Policy

  DNH Guidance on Honours

  Spare Computer Capacity
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list all cases where spare computer capacity has been sold to other Departments since 1992, giving the Department and value of each contract. [14085]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage has never sold any spare computer capacity to other Departments.

  Teletext
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to ensure that providers of Teletext and other additional services, receive parity of treatment with other public service broadcasters in the allocation of guaranteed increased capacity in the digital environment. [13819]

  Mr. Sproat
  Teletext, the holder of the public service teletext licence, has been guaranteed sufficient digital capacity to simulcast its existing service. The Secretary of State recently met Teletex to discuss its digital service, and is considering further its request for increased capacity.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Prosecutions (Police Officers)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list in each of the last 10 years the cases where the Crown Prosecution Service decided that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute police officers for(a) assault, (b) wrongful imprisonment and (c) malicious prosecution where a private prosecution subsequently produced a conviction; what damages were paid in each such case; and what disciplinary action was taken against each police officer in each of these cases. [13436]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service came into existence in 1986. It does not maintain statistics of allegations of criminal offences committed by police officers broken down by type of offence. Nor does it collect or maintain statistics about any private prosecution that may follow a decision not to prosecute whether or not that prosecution results in a conviction. Damages are normally only paid in the context of civil rather than criminal proceedings but are, like disciplinary proceedings, matters for the police force concerned and do not involve the Crown Prosecution Service.

DEFENCE

  Porton Down Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what have been(a) the nature and (b) the period of the collaboration between the Porton Down Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment and the common cold unit at Harnham Down, Salisbury since 1966; [13000]
  352
  (2) what research the Porton Down Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has carried out into the common cold since 1966; and what were the conclusions of this research; [12998]

  (3) what experiments in conjunction with the common cold unit in Salisbury volunteers from the service volunteer programme organised by the Porton Down Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment have taken part in since 1966; what was the purpose of these experiments; how many volunteers were involved in these experiments; and what were the conclusions of these experiments. [12999]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  These matters are for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 8 February 1996:
  Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what research the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has carried out on the common cold; about collaboration between CBDE and the Common Cold Unit at Harnham Down; and about which experiments volunteers from the Service volunteer programme and the Common Cold Unit worked in conjunction, have been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE. I am answering all three questions in this letter.CBDE has never carried out research into the common cold. We understand that research on this subject was primarily undertaken by the Common Cold Unit at Harnham, Salisbury which is now closed. That unit was administered by the Medical Research Council and had no connection with CBDE. No collaborative work has been carried out between the two establishments and no experiments were conducted which involved the use of volunteers at CBDE in the work of the Common Cold Unit, nor did volunteers at the Common Cold Unit take part in studies at CBDE.I hope this information is helpful.
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 January,Official Report, columns 528–30, if he will give the full title of each research contract and the university department involved for each of the contracts listed. [13105]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 8 February 1996:

  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if he will give the full title of each research contract and the university department involved for each of the contracts listed in my letter to you of 16 January has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  As stated in my letter of 16 January nineteen contractors in ten universities have agreed to make their contractual relationships know to the public. The full titles of the agreements and the department in which they are being conducted are given below.

  University of Birmingham—three contracts

  Gas Phase Ion Molecule Reactions—School of Physics and Space Science

  Decontamination of Chemical Warfare Agents with Dendrimers—School of Chemistry

  Identification of the Biological Composition of Ambient Aerosols—School of Biological Sciences

  353

  University of Bristol—two contracts

  Behaviour and Sleep patterns—Department of
  Psychopharmacology

  Ocular Hazards from Microwaves—Department of Ophthalmology

  University of Durham—one contract

  Solid State Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Study of Adsorption Processes—School of Chemistry

  University of Hull—two contracts

  Chemiluminescence Based Detection Systems for Liquid Chromatography—School of Chemistry

  Development of Chemiluminescence Based Detection Systems for Organophosphorus Compounds—School of Chemistry

  University of Leeds—one contract

  Effect of Infusion Fluids on the Host Defence Mechanisms—School of Medicine

  University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne—one contract

  Synthesis and Reactions of Therapeutic Nucleophiles—Department of Chemistry

  University of Southampton—two contracts

  EEG, Drugs, Brain Mapping and Cognition—Clinical and Neurological Sciences Group

  Adsorption and Desorption of Methyl Salicylate on Colpro Wall Finishes—Department of Chemistry

  University of Warwick—one contract

  Structural Studies of Peptides using Mass Spectrometry—Department of Chemistry

  University of Manchester Institute of Science & Technology (UMIST)—five contracts—all with the Department of Chemical Engineering

  Evaporation of Thickened Agency Simulant Droplets from Porous Surfaces

  Field Experiments on Secondary Source Generation by Obstacle Wake Entrainment

  Atmospheric Dispersion around Elemental Structures

  Wind Flow and Dispersion Model Evaluation

  Pressure and Temperature Swing Adsorption Model

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 317, how many times in (a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995, the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment placed requirements for volunteers in "Defence Council Instructions"; and if he will place copies of these in the Library. [13092]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 8 February 1996:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many times in 1993, 1994 and 1995, the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment placed requirements for volunteers in Defence Council Instructions; and if he will place copies of these in the Library has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE.Requests for volunteers were published in Joint Service Defence Council Instructions (DCIs) on three occasions in 1995, four occasions in 1994, and twice in 1993. Joint Service Defence Council
  354
  Instructions are restricted documents and we do not normally release them. I have, however, set out below an example of one of these adverts.I hope this information is helpful.76/94 Volunteers for Studies at Chemical & Biological Defence Establishment Porton Down (R)1. Your attention is drawn to NAGO's Article 1095, AGAI Vol 3 Chapter 117 and RAF GA1 J5051, and the requirement for servicemen and servicewomen to volunteer to take part in studies and tests of Chemical and Biological defence equipment at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) Porton Down. Volunteers could earn additional pay up to £250 (less tax), or in special cases more, for a three week study and proportionately less for the shorter studies. CBDE is well aware of the many pressures on commanding officers and the difficulties of releasing personnel for duties outside the role of their command. However, it is stressed that this Service volunteer scheme plays an essential part in the development of Chemical and Biological defence equipment. Commanding Officers excluding RAF Germany units are therefore asked to give this requirement maximum publicity by repeating it in daily/unit routine orders and to release volunteers whenever possible to take part in these studies.2. The dates of assembly and dispersal for the formal programme for the period January to April 1995 are shown at the ANNEX. Additional special intakes are sometimes required which are notified by signal giving as much notice as possible.3. It should be noted that only regular members of HM Forces serving in the UK and BAOR can be accepted as volunteers.

  Annex: Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment Programme for the period 9 January-7 April 1995

  Duration

  Dates

  Number required

  Special requirements

  3 Weeks

  9 January–27 January

  4

  All the same sex

  3 Weeks

  9 January–27 January

  4M

  2 Weeks

  30 January–10 February

  2M

  3 Weeks

  13 February–3 March

  4

  All the same sex

  3 Weeks

  13 February–3 March

  4M

  2 Weeks

  6 March–17 March

  2M

  1 Week

  20 March–24 March

  4

  All the same sex

  2 Weeks

  20 March–31 March

  5M

  5'8"-6' tall (bare feet), no beards

  3 Weeks

  20 March–7 April

  4M

  1 Week

  27 March–31 March

  4

  All the same sex

  N.B. All volunteers are to be P2 or above and not on any medication.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions are placed by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment on the provision to volunteers of copies of the original laboratory reports of the experiments in which they participated; what factors underlie the imposition of these restrictions; and if he will make a statement. [13091]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 8 February 1996:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what restrictions are placed by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment on providing volunteers who took part in the service volunteers' programme with copies of the original laboratory reports of the experiments in which they participated, and what factors underlie these restrictions has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE.355 It would perhaps be helpful to explain clearly the type of records held by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment regarding the Service volunteer programme. Records of the volunteers involved in the Service volunteer programme from 1940 to 1990 are held in summary books. These summary books contain the volunteer's name, service number, date of attendance and a brief, often one word, description of the study in which they participated. In some cases this information is all that we have to describe the study. We are able to supply some additional details for most volunteers who took part in studies involving exposure to chemical warfare materials such as mustard gas and nerve agent from exposure record books. These laboratory records, containing some experimental detail, were working papers to be used in the preparation of technical reports.The technical reports on studies in which volunteers participated are themselves available for some areas of work although a number of these remain classified. These reports do not identify individual volunteers but can povide general background information on the type and nature of the study in which the volunteer took part. Since 1990 and the introduction of formal written volunteer protocols the record books identify the protocol number(s) for the trials in which volunteers participated and a cross reference can be made to copy of the protocol held in the archive to determine the experimental details.It has long been a policy of CBDE to make available to a volunteer's medical practitioner as much information as possible in order to assist with the medical management of the volunteer's case. It has also been policy to give, when they inquire, a general outline of the studies in which they participated to the individual volunteers.I hope this information is helpful.
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1995,Official Report, column 1172, if he will list the titles of each of the unclassified documents published under the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment technical papers series since 1991. [13108]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 8 February 1996:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if he will list the titles of each of the unclassified documents published under the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment Technical Paper series since 1991 has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE.As the list of Technical Papers accompanying this letter is too long to be printed in the Official Report, arrangements will be made for a copy to be deposited in the Library.
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the titles and subject matter of the scientific papers in the Porton technical papers series produced by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment which bear the numbers 905, 911, 913, 916, 920, 921, 922, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927, 928, 930, 931, 933, 934, 935, 936 and 941. [12997]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under hits framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 8 February 1996:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the titles and subject matter of the scientific papers in the Porton Technical Papers series produced by the Chemical Defence
  356
  Establishment bearing the numbers 905, 911, 913, 916, 920, 921, 922, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927, 928, 930, 931, 933, 934, 935, 936 and 941 has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE.All the Porton Technical Papers referred to in your question are available in the Public Records Office at Kew with the exception of Porton Technical Paper 941 which will be released under the 30 year rule in 1997. The title of this paper is "Studies on model compounds related to inhibited cholinesterases". Since it may help your research I have listed below the Public Record Office piece numbers of the Papers that have been released.

  PORTON-TECHNICAL-PAPER-0905-WO195/15995

  PORTON TECHNICAL-PAPER-0911-WO195/15996

  PORTON-TECHNICAL-PAPER-0913-WO195/15984

  PORTON-TECHNICAL-PAPER-0916-WO195/16070

  PORTON-TECHNICAL-PAPER-0920-WO195/15985

  PORTON-TECHNICAL-PAPER-0921-WO195/15989

  PORTON-TECHNICAL-PAPER-0922-WO195/15988

  PORTON-TECHNICAL-PAPER-0923-WO195/15986

  PORTON-TECHNICAL-PAPER-0924-WO195/15987

  PORTON-TECHNICAL-PAPER-0925-WO195/15990

  PORTON-TECHNIC AL-PAPER-0926-WO195/16031

  PORTON-TECHNICAL-PAPER-0927-WO195/16032

  PORTON-TECHNICAL-PAPER-0928-WO195/16033

  PORTON-TECHNICAL-PAPER-0930-WO195/16085

  PORTON-TECHNIC AL-PAPER-0931-WO195/16084

  PORTON-TECHNICAL PAPER-0933-WO195/16087

  PORTON-TECHNICAL PAPER-0934-WO195/16149

  PORTON-TECHNICAL-PAPER-0935-WO195/16150

  PORTON-TECHNIC AL-PAPER-0936-WO195/16137

  I hope that this information is helpful.

  Low Flying
  Redmond
  Top ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list (i) the categories of(a) aircraft and (b) types of mission for which aircrew are required to book entry into a low-level operational training area and (ii) the controlling authorities for each of the low-level operational training areas. [13206]

  Mr. Soames
  Tornado F3 aircraft wishing to conduct intercept training within a low-level operational training area are required to book into that LOTA. LOTAs are solely a management tool for HQ No. 11 group and have no status in terms of airspace reservation or regulation. There are therefore no nominated controlling authorities for any of these areas. Any aircraft using a LOTA but wishing to operate at low level, is still required to book into the UK low flying system in the normal way.

  Mr Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the crew of the Belgium Alpha jet involved in an aircraft proximity incident over East Anglia on 25 August 1994 were found to have breached low flying regulations. [13257]

  Mr. Soames
  The Alpha jet entered the UK low flying system without authorisation during a transit flight which was intended to be conducted above 2,000 ft.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information is provided to the civil air traffic control authorities concerning levels of military air activity in low-level training areas; and how civil users of that airspace are informed. [13208]
  357
  Mr. Soames
  All intense or unusual military low flying activity is notified to both civil air traffic control authorities and civil airspace users by means of notices to airmen or aeronautical information circulars.

  In addition, general information on military low flying operations is contained in aeronautical information circulars which are widely available within the civil aviation community.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Defence if the United States air force F15 crews involved in a breach of controlled airspace at Newcastle airport on 27 June 1994 had received a briefing on the United kingdom low flying system from RAF personnel before flight; if the sortie involved planned interaction with any British military aircraft at low level and in which areas; and if the F15 crews had obtained authorised bookings into(a) low flying area 16, (b) low flying area 12 and (c) low flying area 11 before the flight. [13256]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Job Advertisements
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs have been advertised in each grade in his
  Department during the last three months for which records are available; and how many people have applied for each such job. [13837]

  Date

  Destination

  Aircraft

  Charge £

  Household

  1 July 1995

  Northolt

  BAe 125

  735

  HRH the Prince of Wales

  1 July 1995

  Aberdeen

  BAe 125

  735

  HRH the Prince of Wales

  1 July 1995

  Kensington palace

  Wessex

  1,215

  HRH the Duke of Edinburgh

  1July 1995

  Sandringham

  Wessex

  1,325

  HRH the Duke of Edinburgh

  3 September 1995

  Teeside

  BAe 146

  1,558

  HM the Queen

  5 September 1995

  Aberdeen

  BAe 146

  1,558

  HM the Queen

  10 December 1995

  Northolt

  BAe 146

  1,187

  HM the Queen

  1 January 1996

  Zurich

  BAe 146

  1,232

  HRH the Prince of Wales

  F16 Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of leasing American F16 aircraft; and if he will make a statement; [14147]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost of upgrading Tornado F3s; and if he will make a statement; [14146]

  (3) what assessment has he made of the interoperability of American F16 aircraft within the Royal Air Force; [14148]

  (4) what is the cost per flying hour of (a) a Tornado F3 and (b) an American F16 aircraft. [14150]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  As I told the hon. Member in response to his question of 15 January 1996,Official Report, column 430, we are evaluating a proposal to upgrade the Tornado F3's weapons systems, and as a routine part of
  358
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I will write to the hon. and learned Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Services Sound and Vision Corporation (Cyprus)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to(a) encrypt the SSVC service in Cyprus and (b) provide decoders for people on the bases; what estimate he has made of the cost; and if he will make a statement. [13497]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 6 February 1996]: Encryption of the SSVC TV service in Cyprus is under consideration, as a means of ensuring that transmissions are not received by those who are not entitled to them under existing commercial rights agreements. The estimated cost of encrypting the TV signal and providing decoders to entitled personnel is £600,000. In addition, there would be an annual cost of about £40,000 in issuing, recovering and maintaining the decoders which would remain MOD property. No decisions will be taken about whether to proceed with encryption of the SSVC service until my Department has established if this could be cost-effective.

  Royal Flight
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 February 1996,Official Report, column 849, if he will list the dates and destinations of the flights, the type of aircraft, the cost of each, if they were single or return journeys and which royal household was charged. [14038]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  this process we are examining the comparative costs of alternative options, including leasing F16 aircraft from the United States.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with Air Chief Marshall Sir Michael Graydon concerning the leasing of American F16 aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [14149]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Options for sustaining the effectiveness of our air defences, pending introduction into service of Eurofighter, are one of a number of subjects covered in discussions between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and Sir Michael Graydon.

  Defence Medical Training Organisation
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about defence agency status for the Defence Medical Training Organisation. [14737]
  359
  Mr. Soames
  Following my announcement in the House on 8 December 1994,Official Report, columns 304–5, in which I confirmed the recommendations made by the "Front Line First" medical study, it has been decided that the Defence Medical Training Organisation, is to be considered as a candidate for agency status under next steps procedures. Any interested party should address comments on this proposal to Mr. D. K. Reynolds, Head of Medical Finance and Secretariat, Ministry of Defence, Room 106, Lacon house, Theobalds road, London WC1X 8RY.

  Equerries
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 537, if he will list those responsible in each of the services for nominating equerries for members of the royal family. [14209]

  Mr. Soames
  The information is as follows:

  Royal Navy: the Naval Secretary.

  Army: the Military Secretary.

  Royal Air Force: the Air Secretary.

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to his Department of the use of the royal yacht at Cowes between 28 July and 2 August 1995; and what use was made of her during this period. [14155]

  Mr. Soames
  The estimated total operating costs of HMY Britannia for the financial year 1995–96 are £8,933,000. Information on the marginal costs of individual deployments could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Britannia's attendance at Cowes continues the traditional and popular royal patronage of this event.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 534, what factors led to the presence of the royal yacht in Walvis bay on 14 March 1995. [14210]

  Mr. Soames
  While sailing to South Africa, in support of the royal visit by Her Majesty the Queen and HRH the Duke of Edinburgh, HMY Britannia stopped in Walvis bay, Namibia, to refuel. The opportunity was taken for the British high commissioner to hold a reception aboard for the Namibian Prime Minister.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report, column 535, what factors led to the presence of the royal
  yacht in Piraeus on 4 October 1995; what was the purpose of the reception; what were the costs to his Department; and what payments were received from other Government Departments. [14214]

  Mr. Soames
  In October 1995, HMY Britannia visited Pireaus in support of the "Britain in Greece" festival, at the request of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Her Majesty's ambassador held a reception aboard Britannia, and British Invisibles held a seminar, lunch and evening reception, to promote British exports and attract inward investment to the UK. There were no additional costs 360
  incurred by the Ministry of Defence, over and above normal running costs, and no payments were received from other Government Departments.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 January,Official Report,column 534, what amount was received in 1994–95 for
  the use of the royal yacht Britannia from (a) Government Departments and (b) other organisations. [14211]

  Mr. Soames
  Charges for the use of Britannia are not levied on the sponsors of commercial events when she is used to promote British exports and attract inward investment to the UK. There were no additional costs incurred by the Ministry of Defence, over and above normal running costs, and no payments were received from other Government Departments or other organisations.

  Unexploded Bombs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he received in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96 in respect of unexploded bombs in the Bristol channel obstructing civil engineering operations. [14271]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has received no representations on this matter.

  HMS Intrepid
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary' of State for Defence how much has been spent in maintaining HMS Intrepid in her current condition; and what time period would be required to bring the vessel into operational capability in an emergency. [14281]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  HMS Intrepid is currently undergoing a maintenance period, the total estimated cost of which is £8 million. Operational readiness states of Her Majesty's ships are classified.

  HMS Fearless
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent on HMS Fearless to bring her into operational capability; what exercises she will take part in over the next year; and how long she will remain operational. [14280]

  Mr. Soames
  HMS Fearless is currently undergoing a routine docking and essential defect maintenance period at Portsmouth to ensure the continuing satisfactory operation of the ship. The total estimated cost of this work is £32 million.

  After work-up and trials following her present maintenance period, HMS Fearless is scheduled to take part in Exercise Purple Star off the US coast in April, and then in other amphibious exercises in the Caribbean until the end of July. In October and November, she is planned to participate in exercises in the northern fleet exercise areas. She is also scheduled to take part in a series of exercises in the middle and far east during 1997.

  We are currently negotiating with Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd over the replacement of HMS Fearless and her sister ship HMS Intrepid. Assuming a satisfactory outcome to these negotiations, we would envisage entry into service around the turn of the century. HMS Fearless is planned to remain operational until then.

  NATO Air Command and Control
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the NATO air command and control system program. [14273]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The ACCS programme will provide NATO with a fully integrated air command and control system covering the NATO Europe area and including a deployable capability. The procurement specification for the first phase of the system is being prepared. British industry has been fully informed of progress with the programme and will be invited to bid for a share of the work.

TREASURY

  Single Currency
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Governor of the Bank of England regarding a single currency. [12647]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I meet the Governor regularly to discuss a range of economic and financial issues.

  Taxation
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of
  the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total value to holders of deposit accounts of the proposed 20p tax rate. [12650]

  Mr. Jack
  The bulk of the £400 million full year cost of reducing the tax rate on savings is in respect of interest from savings accounts.

  VAT (Sanitary Products)
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce the rate of VAT on sanitary products. [12651]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement. [12653]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The 1995 Budget forecast projected a public sector borrowing requirement of £29 billion in 1995–96.

  Inflation
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest annual rate of inflation. [12654]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Underlying inflation, as measured by the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments, was 3 per cent. in December 1995. Inflation has now been below 4 per cent. for 39 months, the longest such period for almost 50 years.
  362

  Incomes
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the quarterly figures for real personal disposable income for the first three quarters of 1995. [12655]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Latest figures show that the level of real personal disposable income in the first three quarters of 1995 was 2 per cent. higher than in the first three quarters of 1994. The precise figures are published by the. Central Statistical Office in table A.9 of "UK Economic Accounts", No. 12, which is available in the Library of the House.

  Budget
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received on his latest Budget. [12656]

  Mr. Jack
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has received a number of representations, both written and oral, since he made his Budget statement in November.

  Taxation (Multinational Companies)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the tax revenues lost in transfer pricing abuses by multinational companies in the past five tax years. [12657]

  Mr. Jack
  The Inland Revenue devotes significant resources to ensuring that the transfer pricing legislation is compiled with, and any evidence of non-compliance is carefully investigated. Over the past five tax years, the estimated total tax from inquiries made by the specialist section at the Inland Revenue which deals with the largest cases with international aspects, including transfer pricing, was £793 million. This does not include additional tax arising from work in the Inland Revenue's local offices or at the oil taxation office, separate records of which are not kept but which would significantly increase the total. It is not possible to estimate the amount of tax revenue lost through any failures to follow the transfer pricing legislation of which the Inland Revenue has not become aware.

  Company Taxation
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet small business men to disclose company taxation; and if he will make a statement. [12658]

  Mr. Jack
  The Government attach great importance to the role of small businesses in the economy, and Ministers meet small business men and their representatives regularly to discuss their concerns.

  As well as the cuts in income tax and the small companies rate of corporation tax, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget measures on inheritance tax, capital gains tax, employers' national insurance contributions, business rates, and VAT to help small businesses prosper. Representatives of small businesses continue to be fully involved in consultations on the introduction of self-assessment.

  Investments
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received regarding investment levels. [12659]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Treasury Ministers regularly receive representations on wide-ranging aspects of the economy including, from time to time, investment levels.

  Living Standards
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the likely change in living standards in the next year. [12660]

  Mr. Jack
  A family on average earnings will be about £450 better off next year after tax and inflation, if prices and earnings rise in line with the assumptions published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report". This will take the total increase in real take home pay since 1978–79 for this family to over £4,500.

  Bank of England
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors he has taken into consideration in assessing the viability of the Bank of England regional branches; and if he will make a statement. [12643]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Decisions on the Bank of England regional branch network are a matter for the bank. The bank has made it clear that it will maintain and enhance the work of its regional agents in gathering economic and industrial intelligence.

  Sanctions (Libya)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what general estimate he has made of the cost to the Treasury of sanctions against Libya in terms of tax and import duties foregone. [12728]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  United Nations Sanctions against Libya impose no restriction on the importation of goods from Libya. It is not possible to estimate the effect on tax and import duties as a result of the United Nations sanctions on Libya.

  Regional Statistics
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if official statistics for the regions of England will in future be published on the basis of the Government office areas rather than the standard statistical regions used at present. [14716]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Responsibility for general questions on the presentation of official statistics rests with the Director of the Central Statistical Office in his capacity as the head of the Government statistical service. However, I understand that it is now agreed that Government statistical service publications will use the boundaries of the Government offices for the regions as the primary basis for the presentation of statistics from 1 April 1997. Where possible, however, and if required, data will continue to be made available for the standard statistical regions.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals are currently(a) earning less than £7,500 per annum and (b) between £7,500 and £10,000 per annum aged (i) 21 to 25, (ii) 26 to 30 and (iii) 31 to 35 years in (1) the east midlands and (2) the west midlands. [13997]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 7 February 1996]: Information available from the New Earnings Survey is provided in the following table.

  New earnings survey 1995 Full-time employees on adult rates, whose pay was unaffected by absence

  Percentage1 earning:

  Area/age group

  <£7,500per annum

  £7,500–£10,000per annum

  West Midlands

  21–25

  12.3

  27.7

  26–30

  5.2

  14.6

  31–35

  3.9

  10.2

  East Midlands

  21–25

  16.4

  23.3

  26–30

  5.7

  14.9

  31–35

  4.8

  9.6

  1 Figures are based on gross weekly earnings.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of(a) the benefits and (b) the disbenefits to the United Kingdom of joining the European monetary union. [12672]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  At this stage it is not possible to make precise judgments about the benefits and disadvantages of joining a single currency. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we would be operating on hunch rather than facts if we were to make a decision on any assessment now. This is the value of the opt-out. We will only agree to take part in a single currency if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (1) pursuant to his statement in European Standing Committee B of 12 December 1995,Official Report, column 3, what are the criteria he will use for assessing whether economic convergence has been arrived at to justify entry into economic and monetary union; [13437]

  (2) what are the criteria for the national interest which will be used by the Government to determine a view to recommend to Parliament on whether to opt in or out of economic and monetary union. [13441]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The nominal convergence criteria are set out in the Maastricht treaty. All member states need to concentrate on achieving sustainable recoveries and getting unemployment down. The nominal convergence criteria require Governments to bear down on inflation and reduce fiscal deficits. These policies
  365
  represent sound economics. As well as the Maastricht criteria, the Government believe that measures to address differences in productivity growth and flexibility of labour markets should also be put in place to help ensure durable convergence. The treaty refers to indicators which reflect these structural differences: trade balances on the current account; the integration of markets; and the development of unit labour costs.

  Protocol No. 11, annexed to the EC treaty, means that the United Kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our national interest to do so, given the circumstances at the time. Any decision will
  366
  be based on a hard-headed assessment of British national interest in terms of jobs, capital investment and ability to sell goods and services in world markets.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what have been the costs to Her Majesty's Government of participating in discussions in the European Monetary Institute and at all ministerial and other meetings to discuss economic and monetary union; and if he will list the costs to date and projected costs up to 1999 in each category of expenditure. [13438]

  Mrs. Knight
  Ministers and officials attend many meetings on economic or monetary affairs, some of which include discussions of economic and monetary union. It is not possible to separate the costs of participating in discussions on EMU.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by The Lord Bishop of Lincoln.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Glentoran —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Council Tax>
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to control increases in the rate of council tax in the coming financial year.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment restated his intentions for capping local authority budgets on Wednesday 31st January. Basically, these limit the increases which local authorities may make in the council tax. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales have made separate arrangements.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he satisfied that what is now proposed will restrain a certain minority of local authorities from imposing excessive charges which will be extremely harmful to householders?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am not certain to which local authorities my noble friend refers. Local authorities will be allowed to increase their council tax rates only by the amount by which the allowance for fire, education and other services has been increased in the rate support grant.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, can the Minister explain why in the borough of Southwark my council tax has doubled? The Minister removed the transitional allowance; therefore, whatever the council does the council tax will be doubled. That is a fine way of controlling increases.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the answer is perfectly simple. The Government said that they would give a transitional allowance for two years. They actually gave it for three years but are not going to give it any more.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what provision will the Government make to assist those authorities whose costs will be greatly increased by the changes in legislation relating to asylum? Many
330
boroughs envisage problems. The burden imposed by the special obligations and duties relating to asylum seekers falls on different boroughs every year.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, all these matters are taken into account in the standard spending assessment.
Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the council tax will rise in London in particular? Can he say whether the system will also apply to the new unitary authorities?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is a fact that some council taxes in London may rise. Given that the total standard support, commonly known as the TSS, has increased by more than the AEF and that SSAs in inner London are falling due to changes in the ACA brought about by changes in the NES, with consequent reductions in RSG and NDR, it is not surprising that council taxes in London may rise.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I nearly said that the Minister's replies so far were NBG. Certainly his reply to his noble friend Lady Gardner on the question of asylum seekers is apposite. Is the Minister aware that in one London borough I know well the implementation of that Bill, if it comes into effect, will place an extra burden of between £4 million and £5 million in 1996–97 for that one item alone, to say nothing of the effect of all the other Bills that have gone through introducing housing benefit and welfare changes. They all affect homelessness and social services in every borough. No allowance is made for those increases in any of the schemes whose initials the noble Earl mentioned. Council tax will go up because of government policy. That is clear.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is a complicated subject. I feel sympathy with the noble Lord if he finds difficulty in following it. I am in a similar position. That is why I thought it desirable to explain to your Lordships exactly what happens. The fact is that certain local authorities have additional expenditure. That all has to be covered under the standard spending assessment regime. Of course some council taxes may rise where councils have budgeted to remain under an SSA but are now allowed to increase their council tax and to go above it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case that it is government policy to force council tax increases? Has the noble Earl read what two outgoing senior civil servants in the Department of the Environment have said? Mr. Paul Britton said:
"That represents a view by ministers that the council tax can take more of the strain of paying for local services. It is not a huge change, but nevertheless it is a trend that present ministers want to see. The downside is your taxes go up".
That is an increase from 21 per cent. to 26 per cent. in the proportion of local government funding provided by council tax by 1998–99. If that is ministerial policy there is no alternative: council taxes will go up. What is the justification for that policy?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is fairly elementary. The Government wish to see a curtailment of public

331
expenditure by both local government and central government. The Government can curtail their own expenditure and it is up to local authorities to curtail theirs. We have given an increase in the SSA to account for various items such as fire, education, police services and so forth. That will enable the capping regime to rise by that amount. However, it is up to local authorities to run their own businesses as cost effectively as possible. There arc ways of making their own savings.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Earl does not seem to have read what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said to the Treasury Select Committee in another place. He said that it was provided in the Government's budget strategy for council tax to go up by 8 per cent. in the next year. That is not controlling increases. It is a higher rate of increase than last year.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, now the noble Lord seems to be arguing against himself. One moment he says we are forcing expenditure up; the next minute he says we are trying to keep it down.
Noble Lords: No!
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord has just said that the Government are trying to raise expenditure. I have endeavoured to explain to your Lordships that one has to try to curtail expenditure of all kinds, whether by central government or local government. We have permitted a certain increase. The purpose of the capping regime is to prevent local authorities from going over the top. There are possibilities of making savings by efficiency gains.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, what is the difficulty —I am a seeker after knowledge —of transferring the funding of local education to central government? It would have the effect of lowering the council tax, but the funding would have to be found elsewhere. That question might also apply to the police and fire brigade.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, to answer the question would be a major philosophical exercise. If the funding were to he removed from the local authority it would go to central government and taxes would go up.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, will the Government accept that constraining the decision-making powers of local authorities by continuing the capping regime means they are also constraining participation by local people in decisions on tax and services? In doing so they are attacking the accountability and the very workings of democracy.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness has got it a little wrong. She would like local authorities to have virtual carte blanche in providing the services they think fit. That is wholly meritorious. The only trouble is that it provides no constraint over public or local authority expenditure. It is part of the philosophy of government to curtail public expenditure. That can only
332
happen by saying that central and local government cannot spend as much as we all wish. That is the purpose of the constraints on public expenditure.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, do the Government not accept the workings of the ballot box?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course. That is why we look forward to the next general election when the noble Baroness will find that the same party comes back as did the last time.

Serious Fraud Office
3.12 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the Serious Fraud Office has a useful future.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, yes. The Government are confident that the Serious Fraud Office plays and will continue to play a significant role in deterring fraud. In the 147 cases brought to trial by the Serious Fraud Office to date, convictions have been recorded against 62.3 per cent. of all defendants. In over 75 per cent. of the 147 cases, at least one defendant, usually the principal defendant, has been convicted.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. Is he aware that a major structural fault as regards the Serious Fraud Office is the decision to allow it both to prosecute and investigate? As a result, it finds great difficulty in seeing the wood for the trees and what is in the public interest. That may be witnessed by the decision to prosecute the Maxwells a second time compared with the failure to prosecute anyone in Lloyd's, as we heard yesterday. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that there have been more suicides caused by distress among names of Lloyd's than pensioners of Robert Maxwell?
Is the noble and learned Lord further aware that an article today in Private Eye states that far from prosecution of the Maxwells being in the public interest, it was decided to be in the self-interest of the Serious Fraud Office and its preservation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the purpose of the Serious Fraud Office is to prosecute fraud. The fact, if it be a sad fact, that there have been a number of suicides in connection with financial responsibilities in Lloyd's does not appear to me to be evidence of fraud.
As regards the noble Lord's first point, in a subject as complex as this it is important that there should be a close relationship between the investigation and the prosecution. One of the difficulties in this area is that the investigation can become so broad and diffuse that it is difficult to bring a case forward for prosecution. Those judgments are made, within the structure that has

333
been suggested and used by the Serious Fraud Office, in a way which seeks to bring those various considerations together.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that many of the SFO prosecutions are launched on the basis of evidence received from inquisitorial inquiries; and that such inquisitorial inquiries were condemned by the commission under Lord Salmon many years ago as giving rise to many injustices?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before a prosecution of this kind can proceed there has to be an investigation by someone who acts as an investigator. If one calls that inquisitorial, I am content to use that description. Indeed, every prosecution has to be preceded by some degree of investigation. I do not think that the late Lord Salmon was thinking of that specific type of investigation in the passage to which my noble friend referred.

Merchant Navy: Officer Training
3.15 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw attention to the fact that the title of the Chamber of Shipping has become transmuted into the title of the Chamber of Commerce, which I regret.
The Question was as follows:
Whether Her Majesty's Government share the concerns of the Chamber of Shipping, the maritime trade unions and others concerning the need to stimulate the training of British officers for the merchant fleet and, if so, what action they propose to take.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Government recognise the value of providing training opportunities for British seafarers. We provide substantial assistance through the government assistance for training and the development of certificated seafarers schemes.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, and for accepting again the commitment by the Government to increase the training of the number of cadets and retraining of senior officers. Is he aware that the introduction of GAFT in 1989 had a significant effect on the increase in the number of cadets, hut that, regrettably, through the fall of the value of that allowance over the years, the number of cadets has fallen considerably? Will he consider uprating the GAFT in line with the increase in inflation in order to administer a further stimulus to achieve the objective which all of us share?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his continuing welcome of the government assistance for training scheme. It is true that
334
that scheme has been extremely successful. Some 2,500 seafarers have been assisted through its auspices. Since 1987 the number of cadets coming into the industry has more than doubled.
The level of the grant is a matter that we are keeping under review. We shall be announcing our proposals when releasing the details of our budgets for this scheme.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, although many British ships are now flying other flags, and arc technically no longer part of the British merchant fleet, for reasons which have been rehearsed many times in this House does my noble friend agree that it is still in our national interest that their officers should be recruited from British cadets who have had training of the highest standard?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that British cadets who become British officers have very high skills indeed. They are valued across the shipping world. It must be remembered that not only do they serve on British-owned and British-registered ships but also on many foreign-owned ships. There is a continuing demand for the high skills that British officers have.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the British merchant fleet is still decreasing, as it has since this Government have been in office?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the fact that there has been a decline in the UK flag fleet is symptomatic of what has been happening across the world. With the international nature of shipping and the low-cost economies of some offshore registers, there has been a severe decline across all the original major registers. We must ensure that this country has a strong shipping industry and that a good supply of British officers is coming through the system to make sure that that continues.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the training of British officers could he stimulated if we were able to increase the merchant fleet of this country? Does he further agree that in order to increase the merchant fleet of this country, the Government should make strenuous efforts to stop our partners in Europe subsidising shipping industry; and in addition achieve the harmonisation of capital allowances so far as concerns ships?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the widespread use of obvious state aid is not a competitive measure for shipping as a whole. We have seen a number of countries introducing favourable and expensive regimes but that distorts the market in shipping. We believe that the right way to approach the problem is to continue to oppose widespread, totally untargeted state aids and to provide assistance for training, as well as to deregulate, so far as is possible

335
and consistent with safety. We also believe that it is right to take a number of targeted measures to ensure the competitiveness of our fleet.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, as a former serving officer of the merchant navy, I wish to ask the Minister whether he believes it is vital for us to have an efficient, well-run merchant navy. Should all training include not only officers but also deck-hands and engineers in the ships which are important to our country? The training must cover everyone who mans a British merchant navy ship.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I join the noble Lord in recognising the quality not only of British officers, as has been mentioned, but also of British ratings. I believe that the training balance is about right. It is important that we bring on the supply of officers, but also that the role of British ratings is not ignored.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the noble Viscount able to state how many government departments share responsibility for Britain's maritime affairs? Will he confirm that it is 15? If not, then what is the figure? Will the Government proceed to reinstate the system introduced by my noble friend Lord Callaghan when he was Prime Minister, whereby one Cabinet Minister was designated to look after the overall interests of the country at sea?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have the good fortune to be designated as the Minister for shipping within my department, the Department of Transport. So shipping would come directly under my department. Of course, other departments such as the Scottish Office also have an interest, as do the Treasury, the Department of Social Security and others. However, the Department of Transport has the overall prime interest in the industry.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, will my noble friend say how long a period of shore-based training is necessary for aspirant merchant naval officers? My interest is that in my late teens I was a merchant navy cadet at the school of navigation at Southampton and the course was for one year.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I understand that a raw recruit could expect to spend about three to four years in classroom training and sea time. If the recruit had other relevant experience, the time would be considerably reduced.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is there not more than a hint of complacency in everything that the Minister has said today about the merchant fleet? First, is it not clear that even since his last Statement on 29th November, the catastrophic figure of 271 ships under the British flag has further substantially declined? Is it not a fact that despite the measures to which he referred, which we welcome, at present Britain trains barely one-third of the number of cadets required to meet our existing needs, and that is especially at a time when the world is suffering from a considerable shortage of skilled seafarers? Does the Minister accept
336
that without a continued supply of skilled and experienced maritime professionals, Britain will no longer have the resources she requires to run safe ships, to provide vital services and to provide an influence in maritime affairs in the councils of the world? Is that not a huge dereliction of responsibility?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords; and again no to the accusation that we are complacent. Nothing could be further from the truth. If one looks at the reality, there are no magic wands to wave which could instantly cure the serious problems that face all merchant fleets around the world that are competing with fleets operating to lower standards.
We must address the matter through proper port state control, attack sub-standard shipping and ensure that it is not welcome in our ports. We inspect 30 per cent. of all foreign vessels that trade to our ports. We have only to look at the figures to realise that. On the government assistance for training scheme no candidate has ever been turned down for lack of capacity. Beyond that, the development of certificated seafarers' scheme has also helped to take seafarers on to their second certificate of competency. We realise the value of a strong merchant fleet and do not wish to pursue some of our European neighbours into an ever-increasing spiral of subsidy. We want targeted efficient measures and proper training.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, to that specific end, will the noble Viscount consider convening a meeting of the Chamber of Shipping, of the relevant unions, of the training colleges and other interested organisations to consider the serious shortfall in availability of cadets and to consider what all of them, including the Government, can do to improve the situation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I meet those bodies on a regular basis and we discuss the issues. I am certainly prepared to call any additional meetings that they might wish to propose in order to consider the issues on a group basis. It is important that we produce properly qualified merchant navy officers, not only for the direct seafaring trades, but also for the associated, shore-based industries, on which the country has built such a reputation.

Educational Standards: Ofsted Report
3.25 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take on poor achievement in English and maths following the latest Ofsted report on Standards and Quality in Education 1994–95.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said on Monday, every school should study the analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of all the nation's schools set out in the Ofsted report referred to. The schools should set

337
improvement targets and choose the most effective teaching methods to deliver them. It is clear that the reforms collectively are improving educational quality but further action will be taken.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that I live long enough to share the optimism that he has ventured to express. Meanwhile, however, after years of apparently tolerating a wide range of educational modalities and fashions (some of them pretty daft ones), is it not time to give a firm steer to all schools towards: first, whole class-teaching; secondly, tackling the teaching of reading and literacy through the matching of sounds to symbols (in accordance with the basic phonemic structure of English orthography); and, thirdly, the teaching of maths by means of tables and mental arithmetic, possibly with the banishment of pocket calculators in the early years of schooling?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to refer to the report. One should make the point that it came forward with positive evidence and showed that much good is happening in the schools. As regards the noble Lord's point, I can assure him that Her Majesty's chief inspector stressed in the report the importance of phonics. Paragraph 9 on page 9 states:
"The place and purpose of teaching phonics, however, rarely features strongly in school reading policies. Consequently, the teaching of phonic skills is not as thorough as it should be and is often used mainly for those who are showing signs of reading failure rather than as an established part of a well-structured reading programme for all pupils".
The report said much the same about the teaching of mathematics. I can assure the noble Lord that we are looking at the testing and assessment arrangements for Key Stage 2, age 11. We are considering suggesting that those are done without the use of calculators. As regards whole-class teaching, the chief inspector also made clear that he felt that the inspection evidence showed that whole-class teaching, which is well suited to the efficient communication of new knowledge and understanding, figures significantly in seven-tenths of all lessons judged to be good.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the Minister aware that hard on the heels of the report comes the report from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research which highlights an alarming and widening gap in maths performance between children in Britain and their counterparts on the Continent? Is it not a fact that despite having been in school for 18 months longer than their Swiss counterparts, our 11 year-olds are lagging behind them in mathematical achievement by as much as two years? How does the Minister account for that?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept the validity of some of those comparisons. International comparisons are always difficult to make, particularly if they are to be fair between the different countries. Those comments were somewhat simplistic in comparing purely arithmetic without looking at some other aspects of maths. However, as the chief inspector's report makes
338
Clear, there are singns of concern in some schools ānd a degree of reurning to traditional forms of education could only be for the benefit of most pupils.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied that the current Reith lecturer's views will he helpful as regards standards of English?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that it is for me to comment on her own particular views. I have not yet heard her lectures; I believe that the first was broadcast only last night.
We take the teaching of English very seriously. That is why my right honourable friend made it quite clear, in an announcement earlier this year, that she would be setting up 20 literacy and numeracy centres aimed at improving the teaching of English.
Baroness David: My Lords, there clearly are some inadequate teachers. What arc the Government planning to do about them? Will they improve on the amount of money that will go to in-service training; or are some inadequate teachers to be got rid of?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we want to improve the training of all teachers where possible. The Teacher Training Agency will be looking at just that. As the noble Baroness will recognise, there are some teachers who quite obviously should not be in the teaching profession. It is a matter for the schools and for LEAs —so long as they do not have some rather ridiculous "no redundancies" policy, as I understand some LEAs do —to sack those teachers who are inadequate and unable to deliver the right service to the pupils they are supposed to be teaching.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the establishment of Ofsted has enabled us to judge far more accurately what is happening in schools? Its establishment was, I recall, fought vigorously by the party opposite when the legislation was passing through this House. Will my noble friend further agree that it now enables us to identify those schools that are weak, and also under-performing teachers, so that we can attempt to improve standards?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to draw the attention of the House to the importance of inspection, and of Ofsted. We now hope to be able to inspect schools about once every four years —as opposed to roughly once every 200 years in the past!
My noble friend is also correct to point out that Ofsted and the inspection regime were opposed by the party opposite, as was the national curriculum, the greater choice offered to parents, testing and performance tables —which we are now extending to primary schools —and the provision of greater information to parents.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, bearing in mind that the recent report refers largely to the primary sector, are the Government preparing to suggest increased funding —even targeted funding —for

339
that sector? Or do they simply intend to require local authorities to transfer funding from the secondary to the primary sector?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Baroness has not read the report, which makes it quite clear that the problem in any sector, primary or secondary, is not a lack of resources. The problem very often is inadequate teaching. That can he addressed by the schools themselves.

Defamation Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law of defamation and to amend the law of limitation with respect to actions for defamation and malicious falsehood. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Damages Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make new provision in relation to damages for personal injury, including injury resulting in death. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Edinburgh Assay Office Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 64:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause —
THE S4C DIGITAL SERVICE
(". —(1) If the Welsh Authority provide S4C Digital, it shall be their duty—
340

a) to provide it as a public service for disseminating information, education and entertainment.

(b) to ensure that all the programmes in Welsh which are broadcast on S4C are broadcast on S4C Digital at the same time,

(c) to ensure that the programmes which are broadcast on S4C Digital but not on S4C maintain—

(i) a high general standard in all respects (and, in particular, in respect of their content and quality), and

(ii) a wide range in their subject matter, having regard both to the programmes as a whole and also to the days of the week on which, and the times of the day at which the programmes are broadcast.

(2) Sections 57(4), 58(5), 59, 60 and 64 of the 1990 Act shall apply in relation to S4C Digital as they apply in relation to S4C.
(3) In this section "programme" does not include an advertisement.").
The noble Lord said: Before I speak to the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, wishes to draw a matter to the attention of the Committee.
Lord Prys-Davies: I invite the Minister to agree that there is an omission from subsection (2) of the new clause. I should like to think that it is inadvertent. I believe there should be reference to Section 58(1) of the 1990 Act, which is a key section for S4C.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. It is no part of our proposals to affect a change to the policies introduced by that provision in the new digital era. Therefore, perhaps I may at an appropriate time introduce a relevant amendment, probably on Report. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 65:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause —
ADVERTISEMENTS INCLUDED IN QUALIFYING SERVICES
(". Where an independent analogue broadcaster other than the Welsh Authority includes in a qualifying service advertisements which are not included in the corresponding analogue service (within the meaning of section 2(2)), sections 8 and 9 of the 1990 Act shall have effect as if the provision of the advertisements constituted the provision of a service licensed under Part 1 of the 1990 Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 66:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
("Subscriber management and subscriber authorisation services
SUBSCRIBER MANAGEMENT AND SUBSCRIBER AUTHORISATION SERVICES
.—(1) An application for a licence to provide a subscriber management service or a subscriber authorisation service (in this Part referred to as a "subscriber management licence" or a "subscriber authorisation licence") shall—

(a) be made in such manner as the Commission may determine, and

(b) be accompanied by such fee (if any) as they may determine.

(2) At any time after receiving such an application and before determining it, the commission may require the applicant to furnish such additional information as they may consider necessary for the purpose of considering the application.
(3) Any information to be furnished to the Commission under this section shall, if they so require, be in such form or verified in such manner as they may specify.
(4) Where an application for a subscriber management licence or a subscriber authorisation licence is made to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this section, they shall grant the licence unless precluded from doing so by section 3(3)(a) or 5(1).
(5) Licences under the 1990 Act to provide—

(a) local delivery services,

(b) prescribed diffusion services, or

(c) other diffusion services,

shall be taken to authorise the provision of subscriber management services and subscriber authorisation services in so far as they relate to the provision of those licensed services.").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment perhaps I may speak to the amendments associated with it and refer the Committee also to Amendment No. 14 which I withdrew on Tuesday in the interests of a more coherent debate on this important issue today. My name is also associated, as is that of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, with Amendment No, 187, to be moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.
The amendments have the same purpose; namely, to establish here and now a system of licensing and regulation for conditional access and encryption for analogue cable and satellite broadcasting. The difference is that the chosen regulator in the amendment I am moving is the Independent Television Commission; the chosen regulator in that to be moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is the Department of Trade and Industry. I prefer the ITC as the regulator for reasons that I shall attempt to give in a moment. However, what is important about both amendments is the principle of getting the system in place in the course of this legislation. It was because the noble Viscount was much more efficient and tabled his amendment much more quickly that I put my name to that amendment. In the immortal words, on which I was brought up, of the famous Clydeside MP, Jimmy Maxton, "If you can't ride two horses at the same time, then you're no good in this bloody circus." I apologise to the Committee for putting my name to two amendments with a slight, but riot insignificant, difference between them.
For the benefit of Members who do not follow these matters in the detail they no doubt deserve, conditional access is simply the smart card technology which enables cable or satellite subscribers to have access to the programme provider of their choice. At present in Britain conditional access is dominated by a company that is part of the Murdoch organisation while BSkyB, which is also closely associated with the Murdoch organisation, dominates the world of satellite broadcasting.
I freely concede that both activities reflect the enterprise and risk-taking of the Murdoch organisation. I have no dispute at all with that. However, as I remarked at Second Reading:
"On any principle of competition law it seems wrong that there is no public control where a programme provider is also the gatekeeper and can control access to other programme providers who compete with him".
That is the principle with which we are dealing this afternoon. I was much encouraged in that the Minister appeared to recognise that very clearly at Second Reading. He said:
"Providers of the encryption technology and subscription management services should not be able to abuse their position as 'gatekeepers'. We [the Government] intend, through licensing, to ensure that they do not discriminate unduly between broadcasters or multiplex providers and that they do not unreasonably refuse access to their services". —[Official Report. 16/1/96; col. 472.].
I was encouraged by those words but discouraged and battered by the fact that the Minister should confine that ringing declaration of principle in relation to competition law to future digital broadcasting, and so far has refused to apply it to present analogue broadcasting. I hope that he may be persuaded this afternoon to change his mind on that matter.
I also hope that the Minister will look again at the case for the ITC being the appropriate regulator rather than the DTI. I prefer the ITC because it is the statutory body established under the Broadcasting Act 1990 to license and regulate broadcast television in the United Kingdom —that is, other than the BBC and the S4C services —with particular regard to the content, range and terms upon which programmes are provided to viewers. Subscription television is undoubtedly a growth area. The relationship between broadcasters and providers of conditional access and subscriber management services will have an important bearing on the content, range and terms upon which those services are offered to viewers. Those are essentially broadcasting matters that come properly within the scope of broadcasting legislation and very much within the scope of the ITC's responsibilities and expertise.
Secondly, the ITC already has a statutory duty in relation to fair and effective competition. Those powers extend to the provision of conditional access and subscriber management services by its licensees. The problem is that the existing statutory provisions can be avoided by licensees ensuring that the provision of conditional access services is located in separate corporate entities even within a single group of companies. There are a number of matters of avoidance for the purposes of legislation in regard to broadcasting that we shall be dealing with in this Committee stage.
Therefore, what is required is not another regulatory system which will overlap with the ITC's existing powers and give rise to double jeopardy, but an extension of the Broadcasting Act powers to close that loophole. The ITC has all the necessary experience and can proceed quickly and economically without charge to a complainant and would not need to incur the costs and delay which might be involved if the parties had to seek recourse to law under other procedures. Moreover, the ITC is accustomed to working with other regulators, notably the OFT, the MMC and Oftel, wherever there are overlapping issues.
For all those reasons, I commend these amendments to the Committee. The proposed amendments would replace the Government's proposals which involve

343
DTI licensing and Oftel regulation and would extend them to analogue satellite and cable for which, if there is a case for the digital broadcasting of the future, there is equally a very strong case for the analogue broadcasting of the present. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. I remind the Committee that my name is also on Amendment No. 187 which will be moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. I look forward very much to supporting him on that amendment. I accept that there are minor differences. There is an emphasis on analogue in the one amendment and on digital in the Bill here. This amendment is under the digital umbrella and we seek to extend to analogue. Like my noble friend Lord Thomson —history, I think, allows me to call him my noble friend —I propose to ride those two horses comfortably. I worked for a while for the late Lord Wilson who often rode three horses. So I have no problem there at all.
Our purpose in this amendment, as has been said, is basically to regulate conditional access systems on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis. The fundamental problem currently is that one operator of conditional access systems at present has the dominant so-called gatekeeper position in the analogue satellite market. We want to ensure that in this Bill nobody is in that dominant gatekeeper position, either in digital in the future where, I may say, we are broadly comfortable with the DTI's separate proposals, or now. We are concerned to open up the present analogue control to freer access. That is the main concern of our amendment. We are taking the opportunity when discussing digital to extend it to analogue.
The problem of gatekeeper dominance will grow more acute because with digital —whether digital terrestrial or digital satellite, I may say, with the growth of cable —it will be the subscription method and the pay-per-view method that will be the growth area. Those need the smart card —the key to unscramble the broadcast at the receiving end —and also a subscriber management system, basically to document, collect subscriptions and decide who has right to access.
Yet, in that future, inevitably there will be only a few conditional access providers, perhaps only two or, as now, only one. But whoever has that dominant gatekeeper position controlling access is in a position with high potential for abuse. That requires regulation. As I said, we start with digital but move to analogue because the gatekeeping arguments apply there also.
Gatekeeping is technologically neutral. It offers control whatever the technological system. It is neutral between analogue and digital and we must deal with both. Our amendments introduce that licensing for the keys to decode receivers and for the subscriber management systems to provide fair and effective competition requirements and to secure the necessary open access. It is the same for analogue as for digital. As I said, on digital we are very much in line with the DTI.
344
My noble friend raised the question of who licenses. That is a very important argument taking place between the ITC and Oftel. I share my noble friend's sympathy with the ITC. We feel that they understand broadcasting and its separate values; so we should be very happy to have it. The Government propose Oftel and I suspect that that will prevail. Certainly, we are not opposed to Oftel, nor to the admirable director. Either of the two will do the job perfectly well. Our sympathy is with ITC but we understand the arguments of Oftel.
Let me make a final point about cable. We share the concern of the cable operators that the regulation that we introduce should indeed be regulation of the mechanical conditional access systems. We do not wish to have regulation of the underlying transmission networks. The problem for cable is that the system and the underlying transmission are linked. If we impose regulation, it will discriminate against cable because cable has the transmission network which, for instance, Sky does not —Astra is Sky's transmission system. We do not want that and we do not want to discourage the cable industry, which has taken considerable risks in making major network provision.
That is an additional point I put to the Minister. I support everything the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said and I support the amendment.
Viscount Astor: The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, was kind enough to mention my amendment which comes later in the Bill and to which the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, attaches his name. It covers a similar area —conditional access —but my amendment is narrowly focused and only covers conditional access on analogue systems whereas the amendments we are debating cover digital and its future technology. It is probably convenient therefore to keep discussion for my amendment until it arises later.
In support of both noble Lords who have Spoken, I would agree that conditional access is crucial if we are to have fair competition in the industry. At the moment we have a system whereby those who control the gateway to the system can disbar anybody, though they generally do not do so. There are usually no reasons for doing so, but we do not know what may happen in the future and there must be a robust system in place for dealing with that situation.
The Government came forward with the announcement that Oftel will be the regulator. Oftel is the right body in that regard and I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will be able to assure the noble Lords, Lord Thomson and Lord Donoughue, that the Government take the matter seriously and that they will be robust in the conditions that they place on future licensees of digital services.
Lord Howell: This is a continuation of a discussion we had on Tuesday in relation to Amendment No. 1, in the sense that we are now looking to the future and what it may hold for us all. I repeat that I have an interest as a director of Birmingham Cable and Wembley Stadium, both of which will be interested in future digital developments. The cable industry, which has been an enormous success in this country, will have invested £12 billion by the year 2000, providing 25,000 jobs.

345
I remind the Committee of what the Department of Trade and industry said in its consultation document, which I put forward as embracing the views of all three Members who have spoken in this matter. It states,
"An obligation to provide services to all relevant broadcasters, all multiplex operators who request them and a prohibition of undue preference or discrimination is what they seek. In this context the relevant broadcaster would be one otherwise having access to the delivery system, multiplex or network involved".
I am sure that we all endorse those sentiments.
When we think of the future and the "decoders", as I call them, we must recognise the fact that at the moment they are all owned by News International. That becomes a central question when we envisage that sporting bodies, owners of stadiums and cable companies will wish to produce pay-per-view programmes. Can the Government give us an assurance that, even though News International has access to all those decoders, other organisations will not be precluded in that regard. I am not suggesting that the policy would be to prevent proper access being made available on reasonable terms, but I take it that the purpose of these amendments is to underline the importance of that possibility. On Tuesday gave the illustration of the Cup Final, which is one of the listed events, and the Test matches. The Test and County Cricket Board has been persistent in its representation to us. Certainly the Rugby League Cup Final, which is not one of the listed events, has strong views about the position the Committee took on Tuesday.
In all those cases, and possibly the Derby and the Grand National as well, I can see in the future that if it were possible to provide pay television to the football organisations and the cricket and horseracing authorities, at a reasonable price —not a prohibitive price —that may be the way forward. That may be a point where the Government, the Opposition and sporting bodies may find a degree of concurrence in their thinking for the future.
I can envisage that the people we were trying to protect on Tuesday —the elderly and the more impoverished —may well be able to find £10 to watch the Cup Final or a Test match, where they cannot afford £300 to take in Sky, as was envisaged. That is an important consideration and one which I have no doubt we shall be exploring together in the later stages of this Bill. There is a reasonable argument that can be put forward for that. As I say to my sporting friends, if millions of people wanted to watch the Rugby League Cup Final, which presented this argument to me rather forcefully, and were happy to pay a reasonable price of admission such as when one goes to Wembley Stadium, the income for Rugby League would be considerably more than it is likely to obtain under the arrangements we were discussing on Tuesday and were so disapproving of.
While I favour the views put forward by my two noble friends sitting on these Benches as to who should he the regulatory authority, I do not feel that that is a matter for which one should go to the stake if the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, should prevail. It is important that we obtain from the Government today an undertaking that, whichever route we go down,
346
particularly when we come to digital, the ownership of the decoders will not use them to prevent the cable companies, the sports bodies or any such organisation which wants to put out programmes on pay television when the digital opportunities become available, from doing so by making unreasonable demands. If the Minister will give us such an assurance, it will make us happy and content.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: Perhaps I may make a brief contribution to this debate. My noble friend is right to emphasise the importance of sport. But I am sure that he will agree that the anxiety in relation to these amendments goes wider than sport. If an operator controlling the gateway is able to exclude more than just some sports, but the whole of public service broadcasting, that is a matter of concern to the whole nation.
In so far as some operators may be tempted to squeeze out the competition, it is imperative that one of these routes should be taken. The Minister and the Government should be willing to be sympathetic to the amendments. They are in line with competition. If any operator is able to squeeze out the opposition —public service broadcasters or others —by definition competition is reduced and that will be against the Government's principles. I hope therefore that the Minister will look sympathetically at the amendments.
4 p.m.
Lord Desai: I rise briefly to support the amendment. Some noble Lords will recall that on Tuesday I put down Amendment No. 29 which covered similar territory. When I discovered Amendment No. 187 I withdrew my amendment, not realising that Amendment No. 66 also covered similar territory. These are all rather confusing and technical matters so we are learning quite fast.
The principle that there should be a single box to which all the transmitters can have access is the correct one. It is technologically feasible. If one had that box the viewers of BBC, Channel 4, ITV and so on could use a telephone and then be charged appropriately for watching whichever programme they chose. Such technology is not only possible but has already been implemented in Germany. It has decided to have a single consortium to provide such a service. That is the right way to go forward.
This will not hinder competition because competition should be about the services being provided and not about the access technology that is necessary. We do not want to have different boxes for different transmitters. It would be much better to have a single access technology and then have competition confined to service provision.
Lord Chalfont: I intervene briefly to support the suggestion that the ITC is the logical regulator in this case rather than the DTI. As two noble Lords have already said, this is not a matter to go to the stake for. It is not an issue that bring crowds into the streets. But it is worth mentioning that we already have a proliferation of regulators in the broadcasting industry.

347
As I have said before, and as I will go on saying until someone listens to me, what we really need is a single overarching regulator to regulate the whole of this extremely complicated and important industry. However, while we do not have that, it seems to me that the case for regulation has been forcefully made by the noble Lords, Lord Thomson and Lord Donoughue.
As to the identity of the regulator, the ITC was set up in 1990 precisely to perform this kind of function. It is equipped to do it and, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has said, it is by now, six years on, practised in dealing with other regulators and ensuring that broadcasters are not subject to double jeopardy. I would say without any great passion or conviction that if there is a choice to be made between the DTI and the ITC, it is probably the ITC that should be chosen logically as the regulator in this case.
Lord Donoughue: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to intervene again to follow up the points made by my noble friends behind me and to make a point I meant to make earlier but did not. The danger in the monopoly control of the box is particularly acute when the controller of the mechanical system is also a provider of programmes, as is currently the case in analogue. If the provider of the conditional access system is just a technological service with no other interests, there is very little danger. But when, as at present, the controller of Sky also controls the gateway, there is a serious potential danger. Then there is the danger of an incentive to the controller of the gateway to discriminate against the programme competition. That discrimination could take a number of forms. We do not want to be in the position where the provider of some services from satellite can control the access of competing programmes. That is the present position. I believe that some of the cable companies are already being a little squeezed.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken for spelling out a number of most important points. I can assure the Committee that we always listen to the points that are made. With apologies to the Committee, I shall take a little time to explain the Government's position. I hope noble Lords will then feel that their points have been covered and that the position the Government have taken is the right one in the particular circumstances.
Perhaps I may begin by touching on the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in his opening remarks. He is quite right in respect of the possible problems where one has a physical link, as in the cable system, between the conditional access and the transmission system. We on this side of the Committee are pleased that those on the Benches opposite entirely concur with us on the potential mischief that would arise were the state of affairs the noble Lord described to take place.
What we are talking about here is the matter of the market for conditional access and the way in which this might he regulated in the public interest. As has been explained, conditional access services are the means by which a broadcaster or multiplexer may ensure that only
348
those who have a valid contract with them may receive and view their commercial programme offerings and that they get paid. We are at one with them in the generality of their concerns. These services are the "gate" through which programmes reach the consumer. As a result those who control that gate exercise significant power. The potential for anti-competitive behaviour or for abuse of a dominant position therefore demands regulation to ensure that the market for digital television services can both develop and operate fairly and effectively in the national interest.
That is why, on 15th January this year, the Government published proposals for the regulation of conditional access services for digital television. I should explain that the Government's proposals do not appear in the Bill only for the simple reason that they can be implemented under existing legislation. They provide a comprehensive and flexible approach for dealing with this problem, and fulfil our obligations under the European Directive on Television Standards, which impose a specific set of legally binding obligations which we must transpose into domestic law.
After careful consideration, and after extensive consultation between the Department of Trade and Industry, which published the proposals, my own department, Oftel and the ITC, the Government concluded that the DTI should issue, and Oftel should enforce, licences for digital conditional access services which, inter alia, will stipulate that the services system must provide fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access to potential users. That is spelt out in terms in Article 4 of the television standards directive.
The ITC will be closely consulted on both the issue of licences and their enforcement. Both the DTI and Oftel have given clear commitments on this. The Government remain of the view that this arrangement will serve the interests of the developing market best, ensuring the greatest degree of certainty and consistency.
The amendments we have been considering, with the exception of Amendment No. 187, envisage regulation via the ITC. But all conditional access services already require a licence under the terms of the Telecommunications Act 1984. They are therefore already subject to regulation by the Office of Telecommunications, Oftel, on the core issues addressed by the amendments. The Government's proposals are therefore limited to amending the conditions which the relevant Telecommunications Act licences would include. As the amendments before us now show, the powers of the ITC require extension to deal with conditional access —a step which would place operators under the risk of regulatory double jeopardy.
The core activity of Oftel is the economic regulation of telecommunications. Conditional access systems are telecommunications systems being concerned with controlling the transmission and receipt of signals. Oftel has a long and, as I hope noble Lords on all sides will agree, effective track record in dealing with anti-competitive behaviour in markets where a small number of operators may occupy dominant positions.

349
The director-general exercises powers to enforce licence conditions and to regulate potential anti-competitive behaviour. He also has powers to exercise functions over the Director-General of Fair Trading as they would apply to this area. That is not to say that the ITC will not have a vital role in the area of conditional access which, after all, might, in the digital future, have a significant bearing on the content of broadcast services. It is for this very reason that our own proposals require the ITC to be so closely consulted. The draft code of conduct which the ITC recently issued was a very important contribution to the discussion which led to the Government's proposals. It is also a very important contribution to the creation of a detailed regulatory regime.
It is worth noting that Oftel and the ITC already co-operate in the licensing of broadcasters. Our proposals for further co-operation on conditional access do not in any way affect the powers of the ITC proposed in this Bill or which already exist.
I turn now to the detail of the amendments that we are discussing. As has already been said, it is clear that we share a common purpose in seeking to regulate conditional access although I believe that the Government's proposals provide a more comprehensive framework containing more effective safeguards for providers and consumers, while providing greater clarity for those being regulated. For example, Members of the Committee opposite require all service providers, with the exception of existing cable operators, to apply for an individual licence. It seems to us that this would be an unnecessarily bureaucratic process because they will not be competing against others for the licence as would be the case, for example, for a broadcasting licence and this licence has no bearing on the supply of content.
Members of the Committee will know that I, in common with the rest of the Government, approach this matter from a deregulatory standpoint. We must ask whether each new regulatory provision is justified. In the case of conditional access services for digital television, we have decided that regulation is necessary, but the additional burdens of the licensing regime proposed by the noble Lords cannot, it seems to me, be justified in terms of achieving necessary and effective protection beyond that inherent in a system of general licences.
The Government's proposals cover all that is necessary to support effective competition and to guard against the abuse of any dominant position. This would include controls to prevent excessive pricing, unreasonable contract terms, undue preference for, or discrimination against, particular supplies and making service conditional on the use of particular transmission facilities: in fact all the issues, and more, covered by these amendments. These conditions would be applied automatically to all operators through two-class licences. The Director-General of Oftel would, however, then be able to require an operator to apply for an individual licence if he breached those conditions, behaved anti-competitively or abused a dominant position. That means that the regulatory burdens fall where regulatory attention is needed and avoids the onerous requirements that would be imposed on all
350
licensees, large and small, by this group of amendments. After all, we do not want to discourage new entrants to this market by subjecting them to inherently unnecessary administrative bureaucracy.
The powers of enforcement available to the Director-General of Telecommunications are very wide. He can enforce licence conditions by arbitrating in cases of disagreement; for example, where two operators fail to agree terms for service provision, by issuing orders for compliance. Where orders have been issued he can seek injunctions against non-compliance or anti-competitive behaviour and, ultimately, revoke licences. Further, any third-party affected by non-compliant or anti-competitive behaviour can seek damages for the full amount of any loss suffered as a result. This protects their interest in a way which is much more effective than a straightforward fine on the transgressor, or a two-year revocation, as proposed in these amendments.
I would now like to turn to the question of analogue conditional access. We differ from the noble Lords opposite on whether conditional access services for existing analogue television should he regulated under a special regime, as advocated by this group of amendments. The Government have considered this question carefully, and have reached the conclusion that it is unnecessary for reasons that I shall now explain.
First, it is clear that the conditional access to analogue systems is a transitional and temporary matter. We may argue about the exact time-frame, but this Bill is concerned with the development of digital services in terrestrial television and about digital broadcasting via other delivery systems. I see little value in introducing specific additional regulation into a developed sector of the market which is going to decline rather than increase in significance, beyond the existing comprehensive and effective provisions of general competition law. And let us not forget that now only about 20 per cent. of households have access to analogue pay-TV, for cable and/or satellite. That figure will he much greater for digital, which will allow terrestrial pay-TV for the first time and simultaneously, and yet quite independently, will vastly increase the number of channels available via cable and satellite.
Secondly, we have a widely recognised reputation for regulatory stability. This has allowed us in the UK to sustain a high degree of investor confidence with remarkable consequences. Let us be under no illusion: the building of cable networks, providing sustainable competition to the dominant telecommunications operators, is a long-term, high-risk project —one which investors assess with care and caution. Yet the consistency we have given to reasonable, responsible and effective regulatory stability for the cable companies has led to over £10 billion being invested in this technology and in the future in the UK during this decade. The investment in 1994, for example, was more than double that in the entire period from 1986 to 1991, which is the year in which we announced our cable policy. The development of digital services is just as long-term and high-risk a project as the building of cable resources. A sudden shift in the system of regulating an established market with limited shelf-life, already subject to effective regulation under competition

351
policy, would undoubtedly damage investor confidence in opportunities for digital terrestrial. And as is generally recognised, investor confidence, or the lack of it, will be the crucial pre-condition for the success or failure of digital terrestrial television in this country.
Thirdly, of course, specific intervention in established markets is justified in some circumstances, but the Government believe that general competition law provides all the necessary protection in this case to deal firmly with any problems which might remain in the transitional period. The Committee will be aware that the Director-General of Fair Trading is currently active in this field. He is undertaking a review of BSkyB's arrangements for the wholesale supply of programming.
The domestic regulation of conditional access in the analogue environment is covered under existing general competition law. It is the Government's view that the remedies available are sufficient to deal with the present transitional situation. In order to illustrate the point I will spell out the action which can be taken.
The Director-General of Fair Trading has a general duty to monitor markets to ensure that they operate in a competitive manner. As the Committee is aware, the Director-General of Fair Trading is presently carrying out a review of BSkyB's position in the wholesale market for the supply of programming to cable companies, following complaints from within that industry. This will specifically cover related services such as access to encryption, subscriber management and transponders. His review is due to be completed in May this year, after which he will decide if further action is necessary.
The Director-General of Fair Trading can make inquiries into a monopoly situation, which can lead him to accept undertakings from a monopoly or to refer the matter to the Monopoly and Mergers Commission. If it finds the case to operate against the public interest this may then require the Director-General of Fair Trading to seek and then monitor suitable behavioural undertakings. The Secretary of State may also choose to make an order.
Under the Competition Act 1980, inquiries into anti-competitive practices are also possible, which will usually be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission if suitable undertakings are not forthcoming, following the Director-General of Fair Trading's initial inquiry into the specific practices complained about.
In addition, he has a duty to examine agreements between persons and companies under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. As we have seen this week in respect of the agreements for televising Premier League football matches, he can decide that such agreements contain significant restrictions on competition and refer the matter to the Restrictive Practices Court. The RPC will then decide whether such agreements are against the public interest and may order the parties involved not to enforce the restrictions of the agreement.
No competition system is infallible. However, this is a Bill dealing with the future, which is digital conditional access, rather than the past. The
352
Government are committed to a vigorous response to proven anti-competitive activity in this area, as in others. It is also a Government committed to deregulation. I therefore suggest to the Committee that extending the Bill to analogue conditional access regulation would impose unnecessary regulatory burdens which we can all do without.
For the reasons I have explained, I hope that it is now clear that we share common cause on the broad purpose of these amendments. But I also hope that the Committee will understand the reasons why we have chosen to go in a certain direction.
Perhaps I may revert to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, about riding two horses. In this instance it is true that the Government are riding two horses, but they are both good runners. We do not see the need to pull one up and substitute another for it. I hope that that explains our position.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am grateful, as I am sure are other Members of the Committee, for the very great care and clarity with which the Minister has explained the background to these issues. I believe it is the general feeling as regards conditional access as it relates to future digital broadcasting between the ITC, DTI and Oftel as rival regulators, that there is in many ways a nicely balanced case. I am sure that the ITC will want to study closely what the noble Lord said. Although I was not wholly convinced by it, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, it is not something over which any of us would want to die in the last ditch or even go into the Division Lobbies.
I was a great deal less convinced by what the Minister said about the view that we expressed, that the conditional access regulation system that is proposed for digital in the future should be applied to analogue satellite broadcasting now. I am bound to tell the Minister that I think that he will find that in the broadcasting world, where there are so many enterprising and conflicting interests, there will be a good deal of dissent from his view that the present system is working not too badly. It is a highly monopolistic system in which there is the coming together of two near-monopolies, the satellite programme-providing monopoly on the one side and the subscription regulation monopoly through conditional access on the other. I stick to my point of view which is that, as a general principle, the right way to deal with such a situation in the public interest is to reinforce the normal operations of competition law on which the Minister laid such great emphasis by a licensing system such as is proposed for digital when it comes along.
I was astonished that the Minister seemed to suggest that the present satellite broadcasting system, with its associated subscription machinery, was a short-term and temporary phase. The Bill deals with the next century in terms of new digital broadcasting and it would be a rash person who would forecast with any certainty exactly what that future will be. On Second Reading, I referred to the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, had been mistaken in his forecasts about the way in

353
which subscription satellite broadcasting would operate. The noble Earl had thought that it would he on an entirely pay-per-view system and that ordinary general subscription would not pay its way. That was an entirely mistaken forecast. I freely acknowledge that even with my interest in broadcasting I have been so frequently wrong in my forecasts that I have now stopped gazing into the crystal ball.
I find extraordinary the Minister's view that this is a short-term and temporary proposition, especially on the very day when BSkyB has announced a big increase in its operating profits and is bidding to take ITN's place in terms of independent television. It is extraordinary that the Minister discards our view about having some sort of system for analogue satellite on the basis that it is a temporary phenomenon on the part of BSkyB and satellite broadcasting.
I do not want to take up any more of the Committee's time on this, but I profoundly hope that in tabling other amendments we have not in any way shot the fox of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on Amendment No. 187. As the Minister continued with his totally unconvincing case in regard to his rejection of some form of licensing for analogue satellite, I began to feel that I had been not merely a little lazy, but extraordinarily prescient, in putting my name to the noble Viscount's amendment so that we can return to this specific issue in some detail a little later in our Committee proceedings. I hope that by that time the Minister will have had some second thoughts about his extraordinarily complacent view about the present satellite broadcasting situation being a short-term and temporary phenomenon.
Lord Donoughue: I agree with the views that have just been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. 1 too hope that we have not shot the foxes of the noble Viscount. As he knows, I hold unfashionable views on this side of the Committee on what we should do about foxes, so we want to be very careful in that area.
I particularly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that the Minister was uncharacteristically complacent. We normally view him as radically open-minded but I feel that he is being conservatively complacent on this matter. I cannot accept why the system that has been put up by the Government as being so appropriate for digital —we agree —is somehow not appropriate for analogue when analogue is what we live with. I wrote down exactly the same point as that to which the noble Lord drew attention —and added exclamation marks when the Minister said that analogue is temporary and transitional. Analogue may be the system for at least 50 per cent. of our nation for the next 15 years. Many people who look at what we are doing will think that it is a good thing that we are dealing with the future. Although it is indeed a distant future, what we are trying to do now is to deal with the system for our lifetimes. I refer to the system that will be watched by most Members of this House —even our Peter Pans for most of their lifetimes.
We want to eliminate monopoly abuse now in terms of the television that we all watch. Although I understand what the Minister says about general competition law being enough, I do not think that it is enough, but I accept
354
that the Director-General of Fair Trading is being encouragingly active at the moment. We look forward to his proposals. I have a great deal of confidence in him. However, the problem has existed for some time and is with us now. I cannot see why we cannot have such provisions on the face of the Bill. If they coincide with the general drift of the director-general's views and judgments, fine; there is nothing wrong with that. I am sure —indeed, I am confident —that he would welcome such a belt-and-braces provision in the legislation.
Perhaps I should point out to the Minister that this matter relates directly to an amendment that I tabled on Tuesday about which he expressed some puzzlement. That amendment sought to build into the Bill a provision to ensure that the Director-General of Fair Trading should be compelled specifically to take into account the public interest, which is not sufficiently specifically provided for in the Bill. I intend to return to that point. I was trying to link my provisions to the fact that the Director-General of Fair Trading is the main instrument in this. If the Minister had been or, on reconsideration were to he, more sympathetic on that point, although I would regret that we did not have such a provision in the Bill, I would feel more confident that the director-general had all the powers necessary. However, without either the public interest or a provision such as this being included in the Bill, I think that we shall be exposed in this area to potential abuse for many years to come. I am sorry that the Government are not proposing to deal with that.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am sure that we shall return to the issue of conditional access for analogue broadcasting when we reach Amendment No. 187. While waiting for that useful amendment, with the permission of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 67 to 69 not moved.]
4.30 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 70:
Before Clause 26, insert the following new clause—
ELECTRONIC PROGRAMME GUIDES
(". —(1) Any person or body who operates or provides directly or indirectly an electronic programme guide must have a licence to do so from the Commission.
(2) In discharging their functions as respects the licensing of the service referred to in subsection (1), the Commission shall ensure that—

(a) there is fair and effective competition in the provision of such services, and

(b) publicly funded channels and services are guaranteed a prominent position on the first page of any menu-driven navigational or other aid used in connection with the electronic programme guide.").

The noble Baroness said: Those of us who are relatively computer-literate should have little difficulty in coping with the selection of programmes in the inevitable huge increase in the diversity of programmes and services offered by the new digital delivery services, but many people will need help. Basically, there will he a graphic display on the screen which can be accessed and scrolled through by a hand-held zapper. I am aware

355
that the words "accessed", "scrolled through" and "zapper" are not yet familiar terms, but they will become so.
An electronic programme guide gives details on screen of what will be on the TV in the future, be it today, any other day during the week or even longer. It also selects and tunes. That is particularly important with the "virtual channels" on a multiplex. In addition it gives reminder messages; for example, there can be a message on screen saying that "Panorama is starting now". The electronic programme guide can be linked to a video recorder, and can include programme trailers and features. In the longer term, probably after another Broadcasting Bill, there could be a large additional menu to cover items such as home shopping, home banking, video on demand selection, and even parental censorship setting.
From that brief description, the Committee will appreciate that those electronic programme guides will have a huge influence on consumer choice. It is imperative that they are not used to distort competition. The amendment would remove that concern, in effect guaranteeing that the choice is made by the viewer, and that any receiver or set top box can access any broadcast or programme.
Although a deregulator by instinct, I believe that there should now be statutory protection for publicly funded channels. They should not be pushed to the back of the electronic programme guide. A prominent position is necessary to ensure their ready availability. Without that obligation, the principle of universality upon which the licence fee obligation is based, may be compromised. Uncontrolled use of electronic programme guides to offer viewers their favourite programme type could be, first, abused to favour the network's own channels; and, secondly, undermine the unifying experience offered by public service channels, offering balanced schedules, thereby weakening shared political and cultural reference points.
The issue has been addressed effectively abroad, especially in the USA where mass use of cable systems is now the norm. The current and proposed regulatory framework in the USA recognises the need for effective access. Current US regulations on must-carry recognise that by insisting that all channels must be positioned at the same channel number as they are with terrestrial reception; for example, BBC1 would be at one and Channel 4 would be at four.
The US Congress is currently considering proposed legislation on these topics from the House of Representatives and the Senate. The proposals include the following requirements: first, established TV networks to be available on first tier of electronic programme guides; secondly, viewers to have instant access to their local TV stations —that is, they should not have to navigate through complicated devices, or scroll through multiple programme menus to find their local broadcasters; thirdly, viewers should be able to access any TV station signal without first having to view advertising or promotional material, or any guide or menu that omits broadcast stations on its list; fourthly, no discrimination among content providers in the
356
presentation of their programmes; fifthly, no alteration to programme services by distributor or electronic programme guide provider; and, sixthly, suitable and unique identification of programme services to viewers.
That may all seem highly complicated and exceedingly technical, but I can assure the Committee that after just a little time spent studying the issue, and being briefed by the BBC, I understand the function of the electronic programme guides and the necessity for the amendment. Independently, I received a short comment from Carlton TV stating that it is in agreement with the legislation currently being considered by the US Congress to ensure that TV networks are available on the first tier of electronic programme guides and that viewers should have instant access to their local TV stations, without having to scroll through multiple programme reviews or complicated devices to find their local broadcasters. Carlton states that they agree wholeheartedly with what the BBC has said.
On Tuesday, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 on the must-carry/must-offer requirement. I referred then to the actions of Videotron in respect of its cable customers in South East London. There, despite being just a few miles away from the Crystal Palace transmitter, viewers are choosing to buy into the cable system because local hills mean that they have appalling reception. Until December, Videotron offered the four main channels (BBC1, BBC2, ITV! and Channel 4) on the standard buttons one, two, three and four. Now however, for reasons unknown to Videotron's subscribers, Channel 4 can no longer be obtained on button four. It is now number 40 within the cable system. That means that viewers must first go to button five, and then use a separate hand control to scroll through to number 40. Then they can see Channel 4.
That is a peculiar situation which illustrates the potential problem. I took heart from the comments of my noble friend the Minister that he would look at what I said on Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. If he does, as I hope, agree with those amendments, their effectiveness will be greatly reduced without this amendment on electronic programme guides.
Mainstream public service channels should be offered prominently on electronic programme guides, and should therefore be on the same hand set button; that is, one, two, three and four, as they are now on standard TV sets, so that viewers are not confused and so that services which are paid for by the licence fee (BBC1 and BBC 2) are given prominence and priority on the new electronic programme guides.
This is a common sense case. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment to secure a healthy position for our public service channels in the new digital future and incorporate it within the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I support the amendment because it guarantees a prominent position on the first page of electronic programme guides for publicly funded channels. As the electronic programme guides develop, they will supersede newspaper and magazine listings. They will become not merely important but crucial for access to publicly funded channels.

357
We have already seen an example of manipulation of standard buttons with number four disappearing from its usual place and popping up, surprisingly, at number 40. People have difficulty in finding it. In order to anticipate further difficulties which may be created, all we have to do is to imagine that we now have the expected 200 channels up and running. Operators wanting to refine the Videotron technique of manipulation could exercise their talents for misplacing the buttons. They could say, "Let us put this number not too high, because it will be found easily. Let us not put it too low at number 200 because that is the second place people will look. Let us perhaps put it at 91 or 157 where people will not think of looking or will have to scramble around looking for it". The operators can play a deadly game, damaging publicly funded channels. They will do that, because it is in their interests to try to damage the opposition.
That manoeuvre has already been played by Videotron. We know from experience how newspapers tend to "lose" a correction or an apology near the bottom of a boring column or on an inside page. The same dirty tactics can be used in television with these electronic guides. The amendment shackles the operators to fair play. Some of them will not like it. That is just too bad. Those who play fair will not object to the amendment, and those who do not play fair should be deprived of the chance to play foul.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I wonder whether my noble friend Lady O'Cathain could explain to me at any rate, who fails to understand it, what is meant by the expression:
"any menu-driven navigational or other aid used in connection with the electronic programme guide".
What does that mean?
Baroness O'Cathain: I could go into a long dissertation on that. It all goes back to computer technology where we operate on screens with menus. It is a completely new use of the words that we have been using all our lives. It would be better for me to take my noble friend aside and explain it to him.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: That is a most attractive inducement.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, takes his distinguished daughter to one side, she will put him in the picture very quickly.
I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I always listen with interest to what she says and not only on broadcasting matters. But what she says on this particular issue, which is very important, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has just said, carries all the more weight because, as she said, she is not an instinctive regulator. She is a free market person. Therefore, when she says what she does about this issue, her views carry very great weight and should be listened to by the Government.
Viscount Chelmsford: I am all in favour of fair and effective competition in the provision of electronic
358
programme guides. But I suggest that the devil is in the detail of subsection (2)(b) of the amendment moved by my noble friend. I do not see why if Channel 4 or even Sky wishes to produce its own electronic programme guide, it cannot put its own programmes on the front page.
But more than that, let us suppose that an electronic programmer decides, as I have seen happen in other countries, that it will use the time of a programme for the guide. For example, at 3.30 in the afternoon three new programmes are starting and are all put next to each other and then at 5 o'clock other programmes come on and they are all put together. If such a broadcaster is stuck with the detail of the proposed subsection (2)(b) it would be impossible to produce such a perfectly acceptable programme guide. If there is to be fair and effective competition, that would be a matter best left to the person responsible for ensuring it rather than writing it on the face of the Bill.
Viscount Brentford: I support these amendments. Many of the arguments for them are similar to those put forward in respect of the previous group of amendments except that here we are dealing with electronic programme guides rather than the actual gateway itself.
I emphasise that this is about fair competition. It is important that that should be written onto the face of the Bill. In view of what my noble friend said previously, whether we give the right to the commission or to Oftel is a matter that does not concern me greatly. I believe that there should be somebody who has the right to supervise the use of EPGs so that if they are being abused in any way, somebody has the power to make the necessary regulations to prevent such abuse.
On Tuesday the Minister said in another context that there is always scope for primary legislation to amend any problems which may arise. But that may take a couple of years. It seems to me that that does not provide fair and effective competition in this field.
I am certainly concerned that if there is totally uncontrolled use of EPGs, they could be abused. Like others on this side of the Committee, I am against extra bureaucracy and unnecessary regulations. But it is extremely important to ensure that we have fair and effective competition in the provision of electronic programme guides and somebody should have a supervisory role, although that may take up a little time. I believe very strongly that all the stations, including the public service stations, should have fair access on EPGs. I am sure that none of us could quarrel with the terms of the proposed subsection (2)(a) even if there are questions in relation to subsection (2)(b). I commend the amendment to the Committee.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: Perhaps I may strike a different note and oppose the amendment. My reasons are that as no EPG digital services as yet exist, it seems strange to force potential investors to place other programmes on the first page of their EPGs. That would be a major disincentive to invest the substantial amounts of time and money required in the first place.

359
The amendment is discriminatory. Why should the BBC, with its guaranteed licence fee, two nation-wide networks reaching into most homes and its own digital multiplex, be allowed to place its programmes in the prime spot on an EPG which has been developed by private companies in direct competition to it? The BBC does not offer first page prominence or indeed equal treatment to satellite channels on its terrestrial teletext services or listing magazines.
Those regulatory requirements are premature. If new systems and dominant market positions are established and abused, competition law and regulatory remedies would be appropriate. I believe that my noble friend said that it is imperative not to distort competition. If the BBC wishes to obtain a privileged position on the first page of a commercially developed EPG, it must be willing to pay for that privilege or willing to develop another on its own or in partnership with other investors. I oppose the amendment.
Lord Donoughue: I was slightly puzzled when the question was asked why we should deal with this because the problem is not yet with us. The whole Bill is put before us on that basis. As has been said, this matter relates to what we discussed previously in relation to conditional access. It will be a very important matter because through those navigation guides, the viewer will be able to select and view particular programme channels. When there are hundreds of channels to choose from, the electronic programme guide becomes one more gateway. It is a gateway direct to one channel among those hundreds, by-passing the others.
Therefore, as has been said, the order of programmes in the guide, the prominence and the promotion given to a preferred group is a potential abuse and is potentially discriminatory and unfair. Therefore, it is extremely important that the EPGs are not used to distort competition, favouring some and discriminating against others. Basically it means that every receiver must be able to access any programme and the conditional access providers should not control the navigation. Order and prominence should not be used to favour and discriminate.
We should note that the United States, which already lives with many of the problems that we are now discussing, is currently and urgently proposing legislation to deal with this issue. We should take this valuable opportunity to do the same because we do not often have the opportunity for primary legislation in this area and it would be very sad if we did not take it now. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful for the comments that have been made about this important subject. I concur with all those Members of the Committee who have emphasised that this is an important topic.
I should like to make some comments about the amendment and then make a few comments about the problems in relation to reception in the Crystal Palace area. I have just received a note about that. It is
360
interesting because it is illustrative of some of the potential problems that face those involved in this field which in turn indicate some of the problems which we, as legislators, need to have in mind when trying to formulate proposals to cover all eventualities.
The Government are aware of the potential that electronic programme guides might provide for unfair competition, in particular where an EPG operator is also a broadcaster. A hierarchical arrangement of different information "windows" and menus, through which users must navigate, could clearly be used to disadvantage rival broadcasters by placing their programme services only in the lower levels of the hierarchy. I hope that my noble friend will agree that that is the same as she was saying, only expressed in a different way.
Baroness O'Cathain: Exactly.
Lord Inglewood: We intend to ensure that that does not happen. However, we are not clear at this stage that the matter requires further specific regulation beyond the provisions of the Bill as drafted and of existing European and domestic competition law.
A corpus of European law directly relevant to the issue has evolved with respect to computer systems supplied by airlines and used by travel agents to select flights. That has established that the criteria used for ranking service offerings on a display screen should not depend directly or indirectly on the identity of the operator and the supplier of the software; in other words, the airline. Thus it is anti-competitive always to show the airline which built the system first in response to every inquiry. That is exactly the kind of issue raised by electronic programme guides.
As I have already explained in debating earlier amendments, the Office of Fair Trading also has extensive and effective powers under general competition law. Further—and this is an important point—a digital EPG would, under the Bill as drafted, require an additional services licence. Thus the ITC would have the means to regulate EPGs should that prove necessary.
Of course, I can assure Members of the Committee that the Government will keep the question under close review, as the use of EPGs begins to develop. Indeed, we have recently issued proposals for the regulation of conditional access systems—to which I have referred—which are closely linked with EPGs, and will wish to consider the responses to those proposals. Should it become clear that more is required, we will look at how to include an appropriate response within the regulatory framework.
As I said in Committee on Tuesday, the Government are in agreement with my noble friend and other noble Lords in that we want to see that the public service channels continue to he available to all. As I have explained previously, I think that they will have an important role to play in generating demand for new programming services and that consequently cable and satellite companies will wish to carry them. For the same reasons, the public service broadcasters will have a strong negotiating position with regard to the presence of their services on EPGs. However, to mandate that

361
such carriage should always be on the first page might be interpreted as contrary to the principles established by the European provisions, which I mentioned in connection with airline reservation systems.
That takes us back to the point made by my noble friend Lord Chelmsford. In those circumstances, I hope that my noble friend and other Members of the Committee will agree that it would, perhaps, be more appropriate to allow the channels to negotiate their own arrangements for presence on electronic programme guides, subject always to the provisions of competition and broadcasting law. I see that my noble friend wishes to intervene. I give way.
Baroness O'Cathain: I am much obliged. I should like to question my noble friend the Minister as regards relating the reservation systems for airlines to the electronic programme guide. The nub of my problem with EPGs is the fact that we are concerned with public service broadcasting. Perhaps I may repeat what I said in Committee on Tuesday:
"The BBC Charter ... obliges the BBC to carry government information at times of war or in a national emergency. That requirement is obvious, necessary and makes sound commonsense. If we are to be consistent to that requirement in the charter, then all delivery systems should be obliged to carry and offer mainstream services".—[Official Report, 6/2/96; col. 177.]
I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that it is slightly different to compare that requirement to a schedule for airline travel which is really not a national public service broadcasting-type requirement, if I make myself clear. For example, if there are flights, say, between Brussels and Rome, and if the system is actually owned or run by Sabena, I can understand why it should not, under European legislation, put its flights on screen first simply because such flights operate from Brussels. Indeed, it should also display British Airways or Alitalia flights if such flights operate.
However, we are talking about national responsibility. There is no national responsibility for any airline to carry passengers from A to B; but there is such a responsibility on our public service broadcasters actually to be there and to give information to the public at times of national emergency. That is my real concern. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister could comment on that particular issue. I really do not think that we are comparing like with like on this occasion.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to my noble friend for explaining her concern in more depth. I believe that there are two slightly separate points at issue. First, there are other public services broadcasters in this country apart from the state-funded service. Secondly, if my noble friend is concerned about the dissemination of information in emergencies, I am not convinced that the avenue down which she proposes to go in the context of EPGs will necessarily take her to the destination that she desires.
However, I should like further to consider the wider point raised by my noble friend; namely, that we are talking about a medium which transmits information. Perhaps we should think about it in that way. The question of national emergencies does not arise in the present context. Public service broadcasters, and others,
362
will be required under other provisions in the Bill to make their capacity available in such circumstances. I had hoped to be able to say that at the beginning of my response, but I did not have chapter and verse before me.
We have had a certain amount of debate about the reception problems in the Crystal Palace area. Since we began proceedings today, I have received some information on the subject. It will take a minute or two to outline it to the Committee, but it indicates the type of problems with which we are faced.
Videotron supplies television services in the area around the Crystal Palace transmitter. Customers who opt for a full cable television service receive signals through a special set-top box with its own handset and with access to all the cable channels offered. They include the four terrestrial channels, which are in fact carried twice. One set of the terrestrial channels can be tuned to the handset which comes with the television, so they appear on buttons one to four of the television handset. The other set of those channels is tuned to buttons on the handset which comes with the set-top box; that is, the cable handset. Therefore, the customer can switch between the four terrestrial channels using his TV handset or the cable handset.
It is indeed extremely complicated. I can see that I am losing the attention and patience of Members of the Committee. However, in summary—and I hope that I have understood it correctly myself—there has been a re-tuning of the response that the person who is holding the handset gets from pressing particular buttons. If I have understood the position alright, the re-tuning means that, if you slightly re-tune the handset, you will actually achieve the state of affairs sought by my noble friend. Information was distributed by the cable company explaining how that should be done. A considerable number of complaints were received, so the previous arrangement was reinstated. An additional publicity drive was mounted to explain what was proposed, and the change that was originally withdrawn has now been reinstated.
However, I imagine that there are still a few people who are in a muddle about it. That is the kind of difficulty that we face both when dealing with the nuts and bolts of the electronic age and when trying to legislate to ensure that consumers receive a system which they can find their way round.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I wonder whether the Minister is aware that I am actually on the verge of taking a decision on whether or not I should sign up with Videotron. I am bound to say that I am not wholly clear as regards whether his response encourages or discourages me.
Lord Inglewood: I should be willing to let the noble Lord have sight of the document. Of course, I am in no position to be for or against Videotron in the matter.
Baroness O'Cathain: I should like, first, to thank all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate and who supported the amendment. We have indeed had a most interesting discussion and I am

363
especially grateful to my noble friend the Minister. However, on the last point regarding Videotron, I have to say that, if I were one of its subscribers living in the lee of Crystal Palace and I received such an explanation, I would probably give up television viewing altogether and go back to reading books.
However, if I could take my noble friend the Minister outside and show him a video on how complicated the operation of Videotron in Crystal Palace is, I should be delighted to do so—
Lord Inglewood: For Lord Thomson as well!
Baroness O'Cathain: Yes, indeed.
I realise that I have not really got my point across. I can see the problems about which we have had a graphic description. I should especially like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for the rather chilling picture that he painted. If we are to have 200 television channels, someone trying to locate, say, BBC 1 for a particular programme and having to scroll through 167 programmes or whatever, might well give up. There is probably a great future for this process. If this amendment, or some variation on it, is not accepted by the Government, there will probably be a great switch from television to radio. Perhaps that is not a bad thing.
However, as the Minister has said, this topic is important. I can see that much additional explanation will have to be given on the matter, and there will have to be additional research into the various possibilities. I warn the Minister that I shall return to this matter on Report, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Promotion of equal opportunities]:
5 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 24, line 20, leave out ("or digital programme") and insert (", digital programme licence or digital additional services").
The noble Baroness said: The Committee will be pleased to hear that this is not a complex issue. It is a technical issue, but not technical in the sense of equipment. We believe there has been an omission in the Bill in this respect, although we do not believe it was deliberate. In moving Amendment No. 71 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 138 and 139. Amendment No. 71 seeks to amend clause—
Baroness Trumpington: On the groupings list this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 137A, 138, 138A and 139. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness mentioned Amendment No. 137A and one of the other amendments. I do not know whether the grouping is correct.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I shall speak to the amendments as they are grouped. We are happy to consider Amendments Nos. 137A and 138A, but I am speaking particularly to Amendments Nos. 138 and 139. Amendment No. 71 seeks to amend Clause 26 of the
364
Bill. That clause corresponds almost exactly to Section 38 of the 1990 Broadcasting Act which concerns equal opportunities in television. Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 concern radio and are based on the wording of Section 108 of the 1990 Act.
Amendments Nos. 71, 138 and 139 seek to extend the provisions on equal opportunities to digital additional service licences. The clause, as it is presently drafted, imposes a requirement to promote equal opportunities only on multiplex licensees and digital programme licensees. However, it does not apply to the third new type of broadcasts, the digital additional services. The amendments will extend the requirement as regards equal opportunities to digital additional licences for radio; to local digital sound programmes; and to local radio multiplex licences. Through these amendments we seek to plug what we believe is a hole in the Bill as the requirements on equal opportunities are not extended across the whole range of broadcasting. We cannot believe that was the intention of the drafters of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing attention to the fact that the clauses do not cover local radio, or additional service providers. She will be aware that the equivalent sections of the 1990 Act, on which these clauses are based, do not do so either. I am prepared to consider the extension of these clauses to accommodate the amendments of the noble Baroness. However, I am sure she will appreciate that there are complex issues here which prevent me from giving any commitments at this point. Further discussion will be necessary between my department and the Department for Education and Employment before I can give the noble Baroness a detailed response. We may, in the case of local radio stations and additional service providers, be talking about small companies, to which some legislation in the field of equal opportunities does not generally apply, or applies differently from the way it applies to larger organisations.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: That response was most helpful. We on these Benches would be pleased to engage in discussions on this issue which is clearly not as straightforward as one might think. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 24, line 23, leave out second ("and").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 72 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 73 and 74. I shall speak briefly to these amendments as their intention is so obvious. They create equality of opportunity not only as regards gender and race—that is, quite properly, included in the Bill—hut also as between disabled and non-disabled people. The need for that is so obvious that it is hardly worth stating. It is a curious omission and an obvious oversight by the Government not to have included it. The extent to which discrimination exists towards disabled people in the world of employment is now extensively documented.

365
I should be most grateful if the Minister would confirm that the Government have committed an oversight and that he will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his introduction to the amendments. According to my groupings list Amendment No. 76 is also grouped with the amendments that we are discussing. Therefore, propose to address Amendment No. 76 too. I am not hostile in principle to the extension of the relevant clauses to cover disabled people but, as with the previous amendment, I cannot give any commitments to the Committee at this stage. I must point out that other legislation is in place with regard to the employment of disabled people by all companies above a certain size. In addition, legislation generally applies rather differently to equal opportunities for the disabled from the way it does to equal opportunities for different races and sexes. In short, some complex issues are involved in this matter and further discussion will be necessary between my department and the Department for Education and Employment before I can give the noble Lord a detailed response. However, I hope that what I have said has provided some reassurance.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am most grateful for the Minister's response. I do not believe that the matter is half as complicated as he says it is. However, I accept what he has said in good faith. I hope that after discussion we shall be able to resolve something. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 76 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.
Schedule I agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Interpretation of Part I]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 26, line 8, leave out ("has") and insert ("and "on S4C" have").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 26, line 8, at end insert —
(" "S4C Digital" means the service referred to in section 57(1A) of the 1990 Act, and "on S4C Digital" means in that service.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 [Radio multiplex services]:
Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill moved Amendment No. 79A:
Page 26, line 18, leave out subsections (1) to (4).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 79A standing in my name, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the grouping. At the same time, I shall speak to those clauses in respect of which I wish to oppose the Motion that they stand part of the Bill. I begin by apologising for presenting such an enormous set of amendments at my first participation in a Committee stage.
The amendments which begin with Amendment No. 79A and progress in stately fashion through many clauses, including nine clauses on which I wish to oppose the Motion that they stand part of the Bill—namely, Clauses 43, 45, 48, 52 to 57 and 59—are all related to the two principal issues which we believe are extremely important. The grouping is as shown on the list before the Committee.
The issues themselves are not complex, but if our view is accepted, the changes required to the Bill extend throughout Part II.
Clause 31 introduces the concept of the radio multiplex service and the digital sound programme service. We do not think that either is necessary. The first carries the danger of creating a new broadcasting monopoly, and the second applies today's analogue regulatory requirements to tomorrow's digital technology. All our amendments seek to eradicate the radio multiplex service and establish the radio digital service as the style of licence which the Radio Authority will be responsible for issuing and regulating in place of the multiplex service.
The concept of the radio multiplex service assumes, wrongly, that digital technology requires different legislative transmission arrangements from those which currently apply under analogue technology. The proposed Radio Authority multiplex licence effectively takes editorial responsibility and programme control away from the broadcasters and hands it to the transmission providers, introducing a cumbersome extra layer to be regulated. To give the Radio Authority the responsibility of licensing seems to assume, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that commercial radio operators are incapable of getting together to provide services that listeners want without some special government-approved arrangement. I believe that it is in their own interests to club together if the technology dictates that.
A radio multiplex is a means of transmission. At the moment analogue transmitters are licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act by the DTI. Programme services are licensed by the Radio Authority. It is not considered necessary that the person who provides an analogue transmission service should have any programme control. Why should digital technology change that?
The Bill seeks to pass responsibility for the maintenance and development of the characteristics of services from the individual programme service providers to the radio multiplex licensees. That would mean that multiplex owners would reduce some of the regulatory content control exercised by the Radio Authority and erode the business and creative control enjoyed by current commercial radio broadcasters. That

367
transfer of control from a number of licensed services to a single multiplex owner runs counter to the Government's intention to protect plurality of ownership. An example of a probable effect which demonstrates that point is that the four different commercial radio companies currently responsible for the six commercial services heard in Birmingham would come under the effective control of a single new broadcaster, interposed for no good reason.
Digital audio broadcasting technology does not only offer better audio quality. The data and text possibilities are even more exciting. We believe that existing commercial radio stations will want to develop all those opportunities, and we do not see why the Bill needs to hand them on a plate to a few Radio Authority multiplex licensees. When independent radio stations go digital, they will not want their digital licence to restrict them to a single channel for a single purpose, as current legislation treats today's analogue licensees. That would be yesterday's regulation applied to tomorrow's technology. We see no reason why independent radio stations should not have the duty and flexibility to provide audio, text and data within each of their digital service licences thereby protecting the diversity and plurality of both ownership and listener choice.
We therefore seek to remove the distinctions in the Bill between programme service licences and digital additional service licences. Let broadcasters be given sufficient capacity to develop and provide both and make the most of the new technology. Our amendments to Clause 31 and those which are consequent on them simplify the regulatory structure for commercial DAB. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: I should like to support this long and complex list of amendments. It is an enormous job to try to take the radio multiplex out of the Bill, but I speak as one of the few present who has directly experienced the joys and sorrows of creating and marketing a new radio service. Although I am no longer involved, I understand how commercial radio folk think.
I believe that one of the strengths of radio in this country is the way that it has evolved. Each development is built on a previous one. I can understand why my noble friend the Minister may have grasped an opportunity to start with a blank sheet of paper. The creation of a single entity in each local area making the most of the new technology is beguiling. At one stroke it gets rid of those quarrelsome local broadcasters and meets the need for integration which the new technology seems to require. However, the appeal of local stations has little to do with corporate planning. It is to do with lively competition, which a multiplex licensed to organise the output of programme providers into the most effective structure, whether in terms of revenue production or programme output, is likely to dampen.
Perhaps more important is the need to get as many as possible in commercial radio to participate and feel part of the DAB system of things as soon as possible. If one reduces the local autonomies which exist in local
368
commercial radio at present or artificially places one element in a position of power over another, as one will surely do if one advertises multiplex licences, commercial radio operators will not participate as keenly in DAB as they will in the scenario envisaged by the noble Baroness. I support the amendment.
Lord Inglewood: I must begin by welcoming the noble Baroness to the Dispatch Box. I should like to congratulate her on moving such a spectacular number of amendments—more, I suspect. than a number of noble Lords move in a lifetime. One might as well go in for a penny as for a pound! I am also sure that I speak for all Members of the Committee when I say how grateful we are to the noble Baroness for agreeing that we might take all the amendments together.
The debate is not about the detail of the amendments before us, as the noble Baroness pointed out, but rather about two quite different models for the regulation of digital audio broadcasting—or DAB, as it is known for short.
There is no question that we all share the same objective: the successful launch of DAB in this country, leading to better quality of radio reception and sound; greater choice of stations catering for all tastes and interests, nationally and locally; the development of new additional or data services, for business, education, particular interest groups or individuals; and much more efficient use of the spectrum. We all recognise that that will not happen overnight, and it will not happen without significant levels of investment.
The provisions contained in the Bill set out the Government's model for the regulation of DAB. It is a model which, as for television, is built around the new concept of the multiplex provider—a concept which was welcomed by the Opposition when we unveiled it in our policy document last year and which, as we know from our debate on Part I of the Bill, continues to enjoy their support with regard to television. However, radio is different from television—a fact which we all too often neglect. So I welcome this opportunity to debate and justify the appropriateness and effectiveness of the regulatory framework which we propose.
It may be helpful if I first summarise the key features of what we propose in the Bill. We envisage frequencies for national and local independent DAB being assigned to the Radio Authority, just as frequencies for independent analogue radio are assigned at present. Following established precedent frequencies for the BBC's national DAB, services have already been assigned directly to the BBC, and as I am sure Members of the Committee know the BBC started broadcasting its five national services on DAB last September. The authority will be responsible for licensing and regulating independent DAB services. There will be three types of licence: for multiplex providers, for sound programme services (that is, what we all think of as radio broadcasters, or radio stations), and for additional services (for example, text or data services). The multiplex provider will be responsible for filling his multiplex, and his application for a licence will be judged on three main criteria: the variety of programme services to be broadcast; his plans to roll out the

369
infrastructure to bring DAB to the listener; and, for national multiplexes, his plans to encourage listeners to buy DAB radios.
Programme service and additional service licence holders will be subject to the normal licence conditions relating to taste, decency and impartiality. The three existing independent national radio stations will be offered guaranteed places on the one independent national multiplex available, and the BBC would, with the agreement of the authority, have capacity reserved on local multiplexes for its local services. Multiplex providers would have to use at least 90 per cent. of the capacity of the multiplex for programme services, ensuring that the bulk of the spectrum allocated for broadcasting radio programmes was used for that purpose for which it was allocated—that is, broadcasting.
The model put forward by the noble Baroness opposite would differ from our preferred approach in three significant regards. I hope that I fairly describe their position. First, there would be no multiplex provider. Secondly, there would not be a separate licence for additional service providers; and, thirdly, frequencies would be assigned to the Radiocommunications Agency rather than the authority, although the authority would be responsible for licensing broadcasters.
If simplicity in regulation were our sole objective, this model would be very tempting. After all, it is normally we who advocate stripping away layers of regulation. I can therefore assure the Committee that we thought most carefully before putting forward the proposals now reflected in the Bill. It was during that process of consideration that we realised that the world which DAB opens up is complicated and requires a more imaginative response rather than mere tinkering with the framework inherited from analogue.
As I said in the Second Reading debate, digital technology brings to an end the one to one relationship between a broadcaster and a frequency. Digital compression means that the frequency now bringing Radio 4 or Classic FM could, in the future, bring that station, perhaps five other stereo stations, or even more mono ones, and some data channels.
This is all done by digital compression and the subsequent mixing of several services into one radio signal for transmission. Perhaps I may touch on one point mentioned by the noble Baroness. We want to be clear that a multiplex is not a transmission. It is a separate function and the provider of the multiplex need not necessarily also be the provider of the transmission. As I described, that is the technical function of a multiplex provider: to compress and mix. It is an essential function, and it is new. It is unique in the context of radio to DAB.
Although it is a technical and, at first sight, limited function, it has significant implications. It inevitably creates a relationship between broadcasters sharing the same frequency—a relationship that needs to be ordered in some way or other. It means that the amount of capacity used by a particular service at a particular time—can he varied according to the nature of that service, allowing the possibility of the flexible allocation of capacity between different users. And it means that
370
everyone using—or rather, benefiting from the use—of that frequency has an interest in transmitting that frequency to the greatest number of listeners.
It is for these reasons that we chose to license the multiplex provider, and to give him a key active role in DAB which goes far beyond that which the Radio Authority, the industry regulator, could properly he expected to carry out. The multiplex provider "concept" has several key advantages. It provides a focus for co-ordinating and drawing together all matters affecting the service providers sharing a frequency: rolling out the transmission infrastructure; managing the use of the capacity on the multiplex efficiently; putting together proposals for promoting the services and encouraging listeners to buy digital radios; and, possibly most significantly of all, sorting out the broadcasters' requirements and effecting the fullest use of the spectrum. It allows non-broadcasters—that is, outside businesses and expertise—to become involved in DAB, bringing new investment and fostering new, creative partnership.
I fear that the proposals from the noble Baroness ignore some of these realities and would squander the advantages. The seductive simplicity of a regime based on a one-to-one relationship between the Radio Authority and the broadcasters would, I fear, mean that the authority itself was forced into taking over the function of the multiplex provider. I do not think it is a function which sits easily with the responsibilities the authority has for regulating the sector.
If we went down this route how many individual broadcaster's plans for rolling out infrastructure will they need to look at, and how many separate proposals for promoting DAB and encouraging listeners to buy sets? Who will co-ordinate those plans and proposals and ensure that they are implemented? Who will manage use of the capacity on the multiplex and broker deals between broadcasters? Those are serious defects as regards the model put forward by the noble Baroness who moved the amendments.
The independent multiplexer on the other hand will more easily be able to encourage plurality and diversity, because of his greater freedom in putting together a diverse package of broadcasters—diverse not only in output but also in economic characteristics which might lead to agreed cross subsidy between them to put together as diverse a package as possible.
It has also been argued that allocating bits of capacity to individual broadcasters will ensure a more efficient use of spectrum. Let us examine that proposition. The Government's proposals allow flexibility across the whole multiplex. Capacity can he traded between broadcasters, through the medium of the multiplex provider, allowing complete flexibility subject to the continued satisfaction of the variety criterion and the requirement that there is a maximum of 10 per cent. of capacity which can be used for additional data services. The alternative is that sections of the multiplex are allocated to individual broadcasters. These broadcasters can use that capacity either for radio and/or data services. So far as each allocation is concerned, only 10 per cent. would be available for data. Ten per cent.

371
of much less is very little. The spectrum is fragmented in a rigid way. This is a recipe for inflexibility and curtails the proper exploitation of the technology when surely what we need to do is to encourage flexibility thereby realising the maximum benefits which DAB can bring.
I am also confused by the new role ascribed to the Radiocommunications Agency. Why should it be necessary to assign frequency to anyone other than the Radio Authority—the established broadcasting regulator? The agency is part of Government—the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would be assigning frequencies to himself. The role of the agency is quite clear: its concern is the efficient use of all radio spectrum. Some of that spectrum is allocated for broadcasting use. Other frequencies are used for citizen's band, amateur or ship radio, and many other uses. The agency licenses transmission under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts. The transmission providers for DAB will need such licences. I do not see the purpose, or need for, the new role put forward in these amendments, unless it is intended to place the Radio Authority more clearly in the role of de facto multiplex provider.
As I have indicated I believe that there are substantial flaws in the model proposed by noble Lords opposite. I believe that the multiplex provider route which we have chosen provides the framework best suited to allowing DAB to be launched successfully and ensuring that there is a rich profusion of radio and data services from the most efficient use of the spectrum. But these are complicated issues, and the digital future is a complicated world. We have had only a matter of days—in some cases hours—to consider these amendments, and only now have I been able to hear them explained. I can assure the noble Lords opposite and the noble Baroness who moved these amendments that I shall reflect on the points that they have made and if I believe that there are improvements which can be made to the Bill which will answer some of the concerns expressed, then we shall certainly make them. But I must conclude that I shall do that from the standpoint that our approach and not theirs is the right one.
Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill: I thank the Minister for dealing in detail with the issue. I thank, too, the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, for his support. We appreciate that it is difficult to legislate for untried technology. But it is counter-productive to award digital output licences by today's methodology—that is, limiting a specific channel to a single defined use. To do so does not reflect the nature or benefits of DAB. Surely it would be better for the characteristics of the services to become the responsibility of the service provider who in turn would apply for a proportion of the band width of the multiplexes concerned—perhaps a percentage or number of the available bits. Within that he would be able to provide a number of different audio data or text services.
The greater the flexibility of the digital service licensees to change and adapt within their own bit resources, the greater the plurality and diversity of the service and the greater the counter to the otherwise
372
irresistible influence of the Radio Authority licence multiplex provider. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 80 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Meaning of "independent national broadcaster" and "simulcast radio service"]:
[Amendment No. 81A not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 27, line 24, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) No order under subsection (4) shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: It gives me great pleasure to follow my noble friend and I wish to congratulate her on her first appearance, speaking beautifully in that lovely Edinburgh accent.
Amendment No. 82 is one which recurs. We have already moved a similar amendment and in this case it reflects our concern that periodically through the Bill the Secretary of State is given wide and unaccountable powers dramatically to change or reverse the meaning of the Bill. In this case the percentages can be changed by the Secretary of State from 80 per cent. to 8 per cent., 50 per cent. to 5 per cent. and so on. When I raised it on another clause, the Minister was extremely understanding and said that he would consider it. I hope that he will say the same about this amendment and the subsequent ones, which would limit the time we spend on them. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, pointed out, he has moved amendments on a number of topics to do with this matter. I must begin by saying that in this case I find his arguments less persuasive than some others. If he will permit me, I wish to explain why.
The expansion in the number of services which digital technology will allow for radio is much less than for television. In the current state of development, the spectrum allocated for digital radio multiplexes will only allow for a modest increase. Accordingly, it has not been possible to give existing independent national radio broadcasters, like their television counterparts, sufficient capacity to allow the immediate development of whole new channels.
A balance has to be struck. On the one hand, existing independent national radio licence holders need to be given a reasonable opportunity to provide distinctive new programmes on their digital service to help attract listeners to the new technology. On the other, the guaranteed places for independent national radio stations have been given on the basis of their existing licensed analogue service. It would not be right to give existing stations the competitive advantage of being allowed to broadcast a wholly or primarily different service on their guaranteed capacity.

373
We think the arrangements proposed in Clause 32(3) strike the right balance. The digital programming must be at least 80 per cent. the same as the analogue service, so it will clearly be recognisable as the same station, but will he able to include new material. At least 50 per cent. of that 80 per cent. must be broadcast at the same time, which leaves the broadcaster free to reschedule particular programmes at times which some listeners may find more convenient. But we may well not have got it precisely right. Moreover, technological progress may in future allow INR broadcasters to broadcast a wholly new service within that guaranteed capacity. If the take-up of digital sets is sufficient to allow analogue signals for INR to be switched off, the percentage of simulcasting will need to be increased to 100 per cent. If that should happen, order-making powers will be needed.
The issues here are essentially about adjusting to market and technological developments. There is no question of the less advantaged listener becoming increasingly deprived of the best programmes as digital takes off, because if digital reception becomes the norm for INR the government response would, as I have said, be to increase the simulcasting requirement. I would also remind the Committee that INR services, unlike Channels 3 and 5 on television, and unlike BBC radio, do not have public service programming obligations. It is therefore hard to argue that major public policy issues are involved in the extent to which they are simulcast.
In the light of those arguments, I hope that the noble Lord will understand our position and be prepared not to press the amendment.
Lord Donoughue: I thank the Minister for that explanation and accept that it is less pressing with this amendment than with certain of the others. I am happy to beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 83 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Restrictions on the holding of licences]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 30, line 22, at end insert—
("(f) impose conditions on future local radio licence applications to ensure that new entrants are not disqualified from operating small scale radio services (as defined in subsection (8A)) by financial and other service limitations which the Authority believes appropriate to the operation of large scale radio services.")
The noble Lord said: Clause 34 sets down the general licence conditions applying to new companies coming in. The fear is that some of the conditions, while perfectly reasonable for large companies wishing to enter the radio business, may be too difficult for small-scale radio operators to comply with. The point of Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 is to make it easier for small-scale radio operators to enter by exempting them from some of the more difficult conditions that would apply to the large-scale operators. The idea is to make
374
it possible for small companies to operate and to enter the business without having to meet the rather stringent financial conditions.
The benefit of such a situation is that it would help to encourage wider diversity in ownership and operation of small-scale radio services. As such, it has much to commend it. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: The authority has agreed that it will allow small groups who find it difficult to demonstrate the likely viability of their proposal for the eight-year duration of the licence to apply for shorter-term licences. Indeed, last month the authority advertised such a licence in Cambridge, explicitly stating that the intention was to accommodate applicants who may consider that a licence term of a shorter duration than eight years is more appropriate to their proposed funding or other aspects of their arrangements. In addition, the Radio Authority has agreed to encourage community radio by continuing with a flexible use of the restricted service licence regime, which permits the licensing of stations for 28-day periods. The Radio Authority decided, in 1994, to set aside capacity in the 107 to 108 megahertz band specifically for small-scale radio stations.
On digital radio, I hope there will be plenty of opportunity for all sorts of programming to be part of a multiplex, and the variety criterion which we have introduced will ensure that is the case. The multiplex system allows flexibility of contractual arrangements which could benefit small-scale radio. Multiplex providers will be looking for new types of programmes and I am sure small-scale and community radio will emerge naturally, alongside many other types of service catering for all tastes and interests. We do not need to require it, and so risk discouraging prospective multiplex providers from applying for licences because they find the conditions unnecessarily prescriptive.
Taken together, we are confident that these measures will be sufficient to safeguard the position of small-scale radio services without needing a statutory definition. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord and reassure him over his concerns.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for his helpful answer. It seems to me that it augurs well for the small-scale operators. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Assignment of frequencies by Secretary of State]:
[Amendments Nos. 86 to 90 not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [National radio multiplex licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 91 to 96 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 97 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Award of national radio multiplex licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 not moved.]
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 34, line 16, at end insert —
("( ) the capacity of the digital sound programme services proposed to be included in the service to provide a sufficient amount of programmes of high quality.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns the important issue of quality, and quality criteria, which we discussed at some length at the previous meeting of the Committee in relation to television. We dealt with the arguments fairly thoroughly. We are now discussing them in relation to radio. I shall not detain the Committee since the arguments are all on the record—as are the Minister's replies, to which we shall return at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: Like the noble Lord opposite, I do not want to go over the well-trodden ground of Tuesday's debate. I believe that we have quality independent radio now, and an increasing diversity of services to meet the varied tastes and interests across the country. It is the product of a regime that does not have any quality thresholds for the award of licences. The duty of the Radio Authority is to seek to ensure that independent radio, taken as a whole, provides services of high quality. It is performing that duty well with regard to analogue radio. The Bill extends the duty to digital radio. I can therefore see no case at all to introduce quality thresholds which would inevitably be subjective and might place unnecessary extra costs on an enterprise hardly off the ground.
I appreciate that the noble Lord might not find my reply very satisfactory and may return to the matter at a later date. However, I thought it important to put that particular point on the record at this stage.
Lord Donoughue: I thank the Minister for that reply. I look forward to that later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Reservation of capacity for independent national broadcasters]:
[Amendments Nos. 102 to 107 not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 108:
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
DUTY OF AUTHORITY TO RESERVE CAPACITY FOR DIGITAL COMMUNITY SERVICES
(".—(I) In exercising their powers to grant local radio multiplex licences, the Authority shall reserve such digital capacity as the Authority consider appropriate for the provision of local digital sound programme and additional services which are operated for the
376
benefit of the community, or a particular section of the community, by one or more non-profit-distributing bodies, other than the BBC ("digital community services")
(2) The amount of digital capacity so reserved shall not be less than 256 kilobits per second in any area or locality where the coverage area of one local radio multiplex service is to a significant extent the same as that of another local radio multiplex service.
(3) Where a local radio multiplex licence is granted in respect of a frequency and area or locality in which digital capacity is reserved in pursuance of this section, the licence shall include such conditions as appear to the Authority to be appropriate for the purpose of securing that, in consideration of the making by local digital sound programme or additional service licensees, in relation to whom capacity is reserved under subsection (1), of such payments as are agreed from time to time between the holder of the licence and such licensees, the holder of the licence uses such digital capacity for the broadcasting of such service.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 112. These amendments are linked with a more substantial later amendment, Amendment No. 190. They relate to seeking to use the exciting new development of digital audio broadcasting to provide the possibility of new opportunities for establishing a healthier community radio sector than we have so far had.
I confess to the Minister that I should not like to have to explain the technical detail of the text of Amendment No. 108. However, I shall set it against a few words of background as to why these amendments appear on the Marshalled List.
I do not think that over the years—I have had my share of responsibility in the past—we have done as well as we ought to have done in this country in regard to the encouragement of community radio. Other countries on the European mainland do a great deal better. There are over 400 community radio stations in France, for example. For various reasons we have not done very well over a section of activity that is right at the grass roots of broadcasting. Radio offers opportunities to do things at grass roots level that are more difficult for the more sophisticated broadcasting media. It engenders a very great deal of local enthusiasm.
I therefore begin my case by quoting the present chairman, Sir Peter Gibbings. (I see the former chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in his place). In the recently published 1994 annual report, he stated:
"During the debate on the [1990] Broadcasting Bill the Minister responsible for broadcasting at the time said that the Government supported community radio. However, they did not provide the mechanism within the Act for the authority to differentiate this class of licence from other local services".
In these amendments we seek to take the opportunity of this new dimension in radio broadcasting to see whether we can provide a mechanism that differentiates this class of licence from the other local services.
The purpose of this particular amendment is to reserve capacity on the local digital radio multiplex for digital community radio services. It would be the responsibility of the local radio multiplex operator to assign this capacity to one or more digital community radio services—similar to the local channel requirement on cable operators. Local radio multiplex operators will wish to maximise their commercial return subject to meeting the licensing criteria set out in Clause 42.

377
Unless positive steps are taken in the face of this new development, with all the pressures and difficulties of a new enterprise that the Minister outlined, there is a real danger that the opportunity to establish a reasonable sector, without being too ambitious, for community radio, may very well be lost.
In 1994 the issue of community radio was highlighted in the report by the Radio Communications Agency on the future management of the radio spectrum. The report used words that I commend to the Minister. It concluded that the management regime of the radio spectrum should aim to obtain the optimum value from the spectrum in support of a competitive open economy but avoid squeezing out non-economic users, and that that would require a careful balance to be struck.
These new developments provide an opportunity to encourage community radio in a way that has not taken place in the past. That is the spirit of these amendments. beg to move Amendment No. 108.
Lord Milverton: I support the noble Lord's amendment. Like the noble Lord, I should not be able to explain all the detailed technicality. However, from information I received from the community radio representative whom I met, I understand that it is sound and good. I agree with all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson.
In so far as I can understand it, it would give community radio a greater identification and strength, and a firmer foundation on which to do its work. At the moment it is a "stop-go" process—go for a period and then stop, or if not stop completely, slow down. It does not help to bring in gifted artistes with talent. It seems only sensible and right that the energy and effort that can be put into community radio should be more available and give more help. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reflect carefully on these amendments so that he comes to realise that those involved cannot do their work properly if they do not have the means to have a continuous foundation on which to work. I hope that he will give an appreciative hearing to this amendment and the others that stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and in my name.
Baroness David: I should like to support the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, which are aimed, as he said, at ensuring that community radio is given an opportunity to be heard in this country as it is in many other European and English-speaking countries around the world. The amendment has widespread grassroots public support in Cambridge—where there is a local community station that asked me to help in trying to have these amendments accepted—and in many other rural and urban areas around the country. That is demonstrated by the evidence of thousands of listeners to community radio groups broadcasting on restricted service licences for up to a month at a time, which is a very unsatisfactory way to proceed. That is the maximum period available in most areas under present Radio Authority regulations.
Like the group in Cambridge, those groups broadcast with volunteers from the local community, which are more able to reflect it and provide a truly
378
local choice without having to concern themselves about maximising profit. Cambridge Community Radio had to wait 11 years for the opportunity to apply for a full-time broadcast licence because previous Acts failed to include that sector. Britain is lagging behind many other developed countries which have licensed that sector. For over 20 years Australia has had a very successful legislative arrangement, similar to the one proposed for the United Kingdom. It now has around 140 stations to which over 5 per cent. of the population listen. All of them arc owned and run by local people for the benefit of their local community. We could have the same system here if the amendments are supported.
Nowadays, a great deal is said about communities and trying to help them. It seems to me that community radio is one way to do that. I hope that the Minister will be able to take a favourable view of the amendments.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, explained the purpose of his amendment. He hopes that it will encourage community radio services to continue to expand and flourish in the digital era. I share the noble Lord's aim to see community services spread and flourish, but I do not believe that his amendment is necessary for that purpose.
As several Members of the Committee mentioned both in this debate and during Second Reading, there is a real difficulty in defining what is meant by community radio. I hasten to assure the Committee that I do not resort to quibbling over words and with the terms in which the amendment is drafted. There is a clear definitional problem at the heart of the community radio issue. Indeed, many—if not most—local independent radio stations regard themselves as a community service in one way or another.
The Radio Authority is well aware of the anxieties of the community radio lobby and has acted to take those on board in relation to the award of analogue licences. Both I and the noble Baroness, Lady David, mentioned that point. It has set aside capacity in the 107 to 108 megahertz band specifically for small-scale radio stations. On 19th January it published its advertisement for a small scale licence for Cambridge which permits applications for shorter term licences than the normal eight-year period. That was specifically to enable smaller groups which might find it difficult to demonstrate the likely viability of their proposal for the eight year duration of the licence to apply for a shorter term licence. I should stress that a successful applicant for a licence period shorter than eight years cannot extend his licence to the full eight year term. That is not a means for a large commercial operator to secure a full licence on the cheap.
On digital radio I hope that there will be plenty of opportunity for all sorts of programming to be part of a multiplex, and the variety criterion which we have introduced will ensure that is the case. The multiplex system allows flexibility of contractual arrangements which could benefit small-scale radio. Multiplex providers will be looking for new types of programmes. I am sure that small-scale and community radio services will emerge naturally, as a direct consequence of the

379
development of DAB, alongside many other types of service catering for all tastes and interests. We do not need to require it and so risk discouraging prospective multiplex providers from applying for licences because they find the conditions unnecessarily prescriptive.
The Radio Authority is proving in its actions that it has the will to look after the whole radio sector including the widest definition of community radio services. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, due to the problems of defining what is meant by a community radio service, would, if enacted, create confusion in the licensing system. The Radio Authority will have taken careful note of the comments made in this debate. I hope that all those who have spoken will see that we share his aim of encouraging the expansion of the smaller scale operators in the radio market, both digital and analogue. We are helping to bring that about.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. We shall want to consider it rather carefully to see whether those who are active in the community radio movement wish to pursue the matter further in later stages of proceedings on the Bill or indeed finally and in another place. I hope that the Minister is right and that the new dimension of multiplexes will offer opportunity for that kind of grassroots activity. There is a difference between that and even the smallest of the commercial radio stations. For instance, Moray Firth Radio Station in Scotland, which I used to know very well, has done splendid service. That is an independent commercial local radio station which has succeeded with a great deal of voluntary help. The boundaries between a pure community radio station and a small commercial radio station are not very firm. On the other hand, in Scotland there is Heartland FM around Pitlochry and Aberfeldy which serves just 5,000 people on a full licence and is doing it remarkably well.
There is an area here which requires further study and needs as much encouragement as is technically possible. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, I do not profess to understand all the technicalities. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41: [Local radio multiplex licences]:
[Amendment No. 109 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 111 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 112 to 118 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 119 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Award of local radio multiplex licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 121 to 123 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 124 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 125 to 131 not moved.]
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clauses 43 and 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Conditions attached to national or local radio multiplex licence]:
[Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 not moved.]
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46: [Additional payments to be made in respect of national radio multiplex licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 133A and 133B not moved.]
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clauses 47 and 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Duration and renewal of national or local radio multiplex licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 133C and 134 not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Enforcement of national or local radio multiplex licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 134A and 134B not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Licensing of digital sound programme services]:
[Amendments Nos. 134C and 134D not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
6 p.m.
Clause 52 [Duration and conditions of digital sound programme licence]:
[Amendments Nos. 135 and 135A not moved.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Digital additional services]:
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 51, line 4, leave out ("digital sound programme") and insert ("radio digital").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 136 I hope to encourage the Government to address an issue of interest and concern to them. The Government have proposed a realistic threshold of 10 per cent. on the broadcast of data through each multiplex. I believe that that is intended to restrict the level of business data sold to companies and only available through exclusive subscription.
That is perfectly correct. However, the Government have not defined "data" effectively enough. "Data" as defined in the Bill, will comprise all material that is not listened to at the time of broadcast. That would preclude one of the most interesting features of DAB—digital audio broadcasting. DAB sets will offer the listener access to public broadcast programmes, information and news items that have been broadcast previously. For example, I shall be able to access the midnight news programme at 7 o'clock the following morning; Members of the Committee, if they so wish, will be able to listen to the cricket scores from Australia at their convenience.
Those features distinguish DAB from analogue broadcasting and form part of the public broadcast nature of the technology. If all data is placed within the umbrella of the 10 per cent. threshold, the incentive to buy a DAB set will be greatly reduced.
The amendment redefines digital additional service by defining the data within the 10 per cent. threshold as excluding radio digital service, rather than excluding digital sound programme. By that definition the 10 per cent. threshold will include business-to-business data but will allow for delayed reception of broadcast audio and other broadcast data to be available to the public at large.
The Bill also excludes advertising from ancillary services. The amendment allows for advertising as an ancillary service, because to edit out of programmes all advertising, including local event information, would be impossible and significantly change the local information content of local radio. I beg to move.
Lord Colwyn: Clause 54 defines digital additional service as not being, among other things, an ancillary service. In so doing it prevents ancillary services consisting in advertising. In that regard I refer to Clause 54(2)(d).
It is difficult to see why an ancillary service to a commercial radio service should not consist in advertising. For example, one can imagine why listeners may wish to hear or see on a small screen or via a coupon dispenser, which I understand may be a part of DAB radio sets, a choice of service or product in a specific category. An ancillary service may carry further details regarding something advertised more briefly on a sound service. I ask the Government to allow commercial DAB participants to utilise the commercial facilities of the technology. I support the amendment.
Lord Inglewood: Perhaps I may go round the general parameters of this general topic. I feel that the matter has been properly addressed but, if Members of the Committee feel that there are deficiencies in the way that we look at it, I shall be grateful to learn what those deficiencies are.
Amendment No. 137 affects advertising in the form of text, or in any other form not part of the sound programme service. Where such advertising is related to the content of sound programmes or to the content of sound advertisements, the amendment would categorise it as an ancillary service. Digital sound programme service providers would therefore no longer need an additional services licence to transmit the advertising concerned.
Let me make entirely clear that sound advertisements provided as part of the main sound programme service will not need any separate licence. Let me make clear also that under the Bill as drafted, text advertising will he permitted. However, it will need to he covered by an additional services licence and will therefore be counted towards the calculation of the percentage of each multiplex used for additional services. That percentage will, under Clause 45, be limited to 10 per cent. I should stress that the limit
382
will not be set in stone. It will be amendable, by order, to allow the flexibility to respond to technical advances and market conditions. We touched on that general point earlier this evening.
The Government have made abundantly clear that they welcome the potential that digital technology will provide for broadcasting frequencies to be used for additional services such as text and data. However, I am sure my noble friend Lady O'Cathain will agree that we need to ensure that broadcasting frequencies are used primarily, though not exclusively, for broadcasting.
This amendment would mean that any digital sound programme licence holder could transmit any amount of text advertising, if there were a link to programme content. In the case of, say, a recipe programme, that could lead to a lot of text advertising. The amendment would also permit unlimited amounts of text advertising of records played on the sound service, and of related merchandise. Perhaps even more importantly, any advertiser providing advertisements for the sound service could, with the programme licence holder's agreement, place unlimited text advertisements.
Let us remember that, because digital audio broadcasting technology will provide increased capacity, and is flexible, that does not mean it provides unlimited capacity. Indeed, on radio space will be very tight. Any of that capacity being used for text advertising or other additional services means less for sound broadcasting, and therefore either fewer sound services or lower quality. So the Government's view is, by all means let us have text advertising on radio frequencies, but let us keep it within limits.
Our concern about the amendment is that it would severely restrict our ability to do that. I hope that my noble friend now has a better understanding of the thinking behind our proposal.
Baroness O'Cathain: I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining the thinking behind this clause. I understand his view in relation to unlimited advertising. That is something we do not want. On the other hand, it is restrictive. However, bearing in mind that he is prepared to be flexible and keep the matter under review, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Promotion of equal opportunities]:
[Amendments Nos. 137A to 142 not moved.]
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clauses 59 and 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Interpretation of Part II]:
[Amendments Nos. 142A to 142E not moved.]
Clause 61 agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Deregulation (Fair Trading Act 1973) (Amendment) (Merger Reference Time Limits) Order 1995
6.9 p.m.
Lord Chesham Lord Chesham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved [2nd Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I propose to speak on each of the three draft orders in turn. Taken together, they form a package of measures for quicker and simpler procedures under competition law. All three proposals are concerned with easing the burdens imposed by time limits and procedures which affect businesses in connection with the functions of the competition authorities.
The proposals have completed the preliminary scrutiny procedures for deregulation orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers of your Lordships' House and the deregulation committee of the other place have separately assessed and reported on each of the proposals.
The committees concentrated on three key matters set out in the Act: whether each proposed order would remove or reduce a burden; whether it allowed for necessary protection to be maintained; and whether there had been adequate consultation. After amendment of one of the orders to meet a procedural concern, both committees have indicated that they are content with all three draft orders as they stand. I shall explain briefly what each of these draft orders aims to do; and how each fits the key requirements set out under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act.
First, the draft Deregulation (Fair Trading Act 1973)(Amendment)(Merger Reference Time Limits) Order 1996. The purpose of this order is to amend the Fair Trading Act in order to reduce the statutory deadline for referral of completed mergers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It would reduce the period from the current six months, to four months after completion of the merger or, if later, after material facts about it have been made public or been notified to the Director-General of Fair Trading or the Secretary of State. The main effect of the measure is therefore to shorten the period of time during which a merger reference may he made. This should reduce commercial uncertainty and costs for business.
But it would not reduce necessary protection, since there would still be adequate time to consider the case. The Secretary of State would still have four months to decide whether to make an MMC reference, which is longer than the MMC normally has for its own merger investigation. Finally, the department consulted more
384
than 150 bodies about all three draft orders. The majority of respondents welcomed this proposal. This is a modest and sensible measure which reduces a burden without removing necessary protection.
I turn now to the draft Deregulation (Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976)(Amendment)(Time Limits) Order 1996. As its title suggests, this order is also to do with time limits; but with their simplification rather than reduction. Currently, restrictive agreements between businesses must be notified to the Director-General of Fair Trading for registration, according to two combined deadlines: they must be notified before the restrictions in them take effect; and they must also be notified within three months of the agreement being made. If this is not done, the restrictions in the agreement are void.
The order would remove the requirement to notify agreements before the restrictions in them take effect. This would leave a single notification deadline of three months after making the agreement. At the same time, the order would make it unlawful for businesses to operate the restrictions before they have been notified.
The current position imposes a procedural burden on businesses. They must commonly insert suspensory clauses in the agreements, to prevent restrictions taking effect until notified. This can be a very complex task and any accidental oversight leads to the excessive penalty of voidness. The proposal will reduce this burden by providing that restrictive agreements made without suspensory clauses will not become void, as long as they are notified to the director-general within three months. The proposal will not reduce necessary protection, because it will make it unlawful for businesses to operate the restrictions before the agreement has been notified. If businesses fail to notify the agreement within three months of making it, the restrictions will be void.
Most respondents to the consultation exercise on this measure broadly welcomed the proposal. This measure provides a useful procedural simplification.
Finally, I turn to the draft Deregulation (Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976) (Amendment) (Variation of Exempt Agreements) Order 1996. This has been amended in the light of its initial consideration by the special committees of each House. Subsequently, each committee has endorsed the amendment made. This provides, in my view, a good example of the effectiveness of the new scrutiny procedures for deregulation orders.
The draft order would remove the requirement for variations of certain restrictive agreements to be approved in advance by the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture. The agreements in question are those which have been specially exempted from the requirements of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, because they fall into either of two categories: agreements of importance to the national economy; or agreements holding down prices.
The need to seek prior approval for variations of such agreements is a burden, especially if many small variations have to be made. Currently, if businesses fail to get prior approval, either the whole agreement must be registered or it must be cancelled and remade.
The draft order continues necessary protection by providing a system of scrutiny once the variation has been made. The variation must be notified to the Secretary of State within twenty-one days. He will have the power to revoke the exemption for the entire agreement, if he considers that necessary.
The two special committees were initially concerned that the scrutiny procedure as first proposed did not provide a cut-off point, with the result that businesses might be able to submit a series of variations simply in order to prolong the period for which they could operate the varied agreement.
The department recognised this concern. It proposed an amendment which closes this loophole by introducing a set time from which the Secretary of State can exercise his power to revoke, even if he is confronted with a series of overlapping variations. Both committees subsequently accepted this amendment as satisfactory.
We consulted on this proposed order and all respondents agreed that this change was sensible. I therefore commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved [2nd Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].—(Lord Chesham.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for introducing these three orders. As noble Lords will recall, I opposed the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill in 1994 as vigorously as I could on what I would call broadly constitutional grounds. In saying now that I approve of these moves, in no way do I backtrack in my view that the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act is not one that I can accept as a correct way to deal with these matters; but it is on the statute book and we must use it as best we can.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that my opposition to the Act was not connected with my view of deregulation, which I strongly support in all cases where regulations are precisely, as the Minister pointed out, unnecessarily complicated, where they give business uncertainty which it can do without and where they place a bureaucratic burden on business. Therefore, I have no difficulty whatever both in thanking the Minister for the clarity of his exposition and in saying that I approve of these measures—but within the context of my general attitude to these things. In all cases where we can have quicker and simpler procedures, and in all cases where deregulation will reduce business uncertainty, that must be to the benefit of the British economy.
My only slight problem, which is one I have mentioned to the Minister, is that on the Notices and Orders of the Day all three of the orders are referred to
386
as orders of 1995. The three orders, as printed, say 1996. I know nothing about the law and never have. I am extremely puzzled to know whether we can agree orders with one date on them although the actual date is another date. I do not know whether that counts as a misprint or is no problem whatever. I raise this slightly to pull the noble Lord's leg, but it is surprising that I was prepared until a couple of hours ago for the orders 1995 and find I have to deal with the orders 1996. So I should like at least a word of assurance, having spent the whole day here waiting to do this most important piece of business, that we will not have to come back again in order to validate the date.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was kind enough to mention his concern to me on this matter and I have taken advice. The reason why "1995" appears is because the orders were first laid down in November 1995. Now we are in 1996 they are 1996 orders. That is the answer to the noble Lord's question. I am assured that that is absolutely fine.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976) (Amendment) (Time Limits) Order 1995
Lord Chesham Lord Chesham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved [2nd Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this order. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976) (Amendment) (Variation of Exempt Agreements) Order 1995
Lord Chesham Lord Chesham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved [2nd Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, once again, I have already spoken to this order. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.

  World Conference on Women, Beijing: Countries Entering Reservations
  World Conference on Women, Beijing: Countries Entering Reservations
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  MED-TV: Alleged Jamming of Broadcasts
  MED-TV: Alleged Jamming of Broadcasts
  MED-TV: British Satellite News
  MED-TV: British Satellite News
  Landmines
  Landmines
  Emtryl
  Emtryl
  Sheep Scab Control: Research
  Sheep Scab Control: Research
  Statutory Redundancy Payments from Insurance Fund
  Statutory Redundancy Payments from Insurance Fund
  Mother and Baby Units in Prisons
  Mother and Baby Units in Prisons
  Drug Testing in Prisons
  Drug Testing in Prisons