Sitting of 14 May 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    HENRY JOHNSON, SONS AND CO., LIMITED BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.
    AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Kidney Transplants
    Ms Hodge: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are currently awaiting kidney transplants; and what was the corresponding figure in (a) 1990 and (b) 1985. [27981]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): On 31 March 1996, there were 5,231 patients awaiting kidney transplants. On 31 December 1990, the figure was 3,668 and on 31 December 1985, it was 3,443. Improvements in medicine and surgery have allowed many more people to receive renal dialysis and so be added to the transplant list.
    Ms Hodge: I am intrigued by that answer because the figures seem somewhat at variance with those that were given to me by the National Kidney Federation. It has expressed some concern that the number of those waiting for kidney transplants has increased by 50 per cent. over that time frame whereas—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must put a question.
    Ms Hodge: Does the Minister agree with the concern that has been expressed by the National Kidney Federation that the number of people waiting for kidney transplants between those years has increased by 50 per cent. whereas the number of transplants that has been executed is 30 per cent? That is a huge indictment of the national health service. Does he wish to comment on two important matters that were raised by the National Kidney Federation, first that—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon Members must get accustomed to the fact that questions must be brisk and to the point. I have said from time to time that we are not proceeding down the Order Paper properly because of long questions and long answers. I appeal to all Members for short, sharp, brisk questions. That is the way to do it.
    Ms Hodge rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has made her point well. I expect a brisk reply from the Minister.
    Mr. Horam: I shall certainly keep my wind-up short. I am surprised that the hon. Lady mentioned the National Kidney Federation because I saw its representatives only a few weeks ago and they expressed satisfaction with progress although, obviously, they would like to see quicker progress. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in welcoming this week the president of Rotary International, Dr Keith Barnard-Jones, who hopes to put another 7 million people on the donor register. That will be the best action that can be taken to help the people about whom the hon. Lady is concerned.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I welcome the fact that the number of people receiving dialysis since 1983 has doubled. I also welcome the Government's 1994 initiative on placing the donor organ register on computer. I and other hon. Members pressed for that. Does he think that there is some disappointment at the fact that there are only 3 million people on that register? Will he look at other initiatives in addition to the one that he has just announced to try to entice more people who used to fill in and carry cards to put themselves on the organ registration computer scheme?
    Mr. Horam: I welcome my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in this matter. We are also advertising on television to get more donors and in my hon. Friend's area, the north-west of England, there is a particular experiment in the hospitals that is designed to get more donors.
    Mr. McLeish: Despite the Minister's characteristic complacency, does he accept and acknowledge that the treatment of kidney failure in England and Wales is facing a real crisis, with damaging consequences for patients, that, every year, 1,000 people are dying because of their failure to receive kidney dialysis machine treatment, and that the differences between regions in terms of treatment are grotesque and totally unacceptable? Will he not say that the market is distorting patient priorities? The Government must act to put an end to that scandal.
    Mr. Horam: I reject emphatically all the hon. Gentleman's allegations. The renal review was welcomed by the National Kidney Federation, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), and which has expressed considerable satisfaction with the position. Of course, it wants to go faster, but we have not only published the renal review, but put in place further guidelines to health authorities, which will tackle the problem. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about one thing: there are disparities between the regions. The guidelines will help to tackle those.

    GPs (Drugs Choice)
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation he has had on recommendations to GPs on choices of rugs. [27982]
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): We fund several sources of information for general practitioners on drug treatments, consulting a wide range of professional and other bodies as appropriate. GPs are, of course, free to choose which drugs to prescribe for their patients, in the light of the information available to them.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: My hon. Friend will remember the understandable disquiet expressed by GPs about the limited list, which was subsequently, and rightly, replaced by, and expanded to, a selected list. The pilot study being done on a computer-aided scheme known as Prodigy is also causing concern. Will he give an absolute assurance that this is a flexible system that will ensure that economic considerations do not override the most important consideration: the patient's clinical needs?
    Mr. Malone: I am happy to confirm that. That is exactly the purpose of the project: to enable general practitioners to prescribe more effectively for their patients. The system is based on 600 guidelines, which are based on already published information from, for example, the British National Formulary, so I can give him that undertaking. We will, of course, see how the project proceeds. As he knows, it will be thoroughly evaluated.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: If the Government believe in taking action on the basis only of the best scientific advice, why, last October, did they issue vague advice to every GP about certain third-generation oral contraceptives—with the result that about 200,000 women stopped taking the pill and about 3,000 women had abortions—when it is clear that there was no new scientific evidence that there was a danger, when the European regulatory body ruled last month that there was no new scientific advice and when there has been no other support for that Government action? Will the Minister apologise for an appalling piece of advice and confirm that no action will be taken against any of the drugs in terms of regulating differently?
    Mr. Malone: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman profoundly. The best possible scientific advice was made available to the medical community at the first available opportunity, which it has the right to expect from a Government and a Government organisation. The hon. Gentleman need not shake his head because he has had detailed replies to what I think must be between 200 and 300 written parliamentary questions that he has tabled on this matter. Every morning, as I do the 30 or 40 more that he has tabled from some inspired source, he is seldom absent from my mind.
    Dame Jill Knight: Have not the Government's fundholding schemes given GPs great freedom to treat their patients in the way in which they wish? Is my hon. Friend aware of many GPs' extensive concern that the Labour party proposes to get rid of the scheme?
    Mr. Malone: Especially in relation to the ability to prescribe and to retain any savings that are made in prescription budgets, my hon. Friend is right. At present, 53 per cent. of the population in England are covered by GP fundholders. It would be appalling if that system were abolished, as the Labour party is promising.
    Ms Harman: Will the Minister admit that approved prescribing practice was one of the many unsubstantiated claims that he has made for GP fundholding? Will he take this opportunity, before the Audit Commission report next week, to admit that he has made wildly exaggerated claims about fundholding? Does he understand that all general practitioners, fundholders and non-fundholders, want to work on the basis of partnership, not division and co-operation, and not cut-throat competition? That means replacing fundholding with Labour's system of GP commissioning.
    Mr. Malone: When it comes to shooting from the hip about documents that have not been published, we do not need any lessons from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) do we, Madam Speaker? I thought that her public accusations yesterday about fundholding and a primary care-led NHS were a disgrace. They were totally unsubstantiated. Unlike the hon. Lady, I do not intend to break a confidence about a report that we have received. That is extraordinary, coming from a party that has changed its policy on fundholding so many times, from outright abolition under the hon. Lady's predecessor to a half-way house from her initially. Now, in The Times today, I see that the Labour party is not even going to bring its policy to abolish fundholding to the House, but will do it by some covert means as yet undescribed because, if it were ever to form a Government, it would not have the courage to bring to the House a measure to abolish something that has the support of 51 per cent. of general practitioners in England.
    Mr. Congdon: I welcome the fact that generic prescribing has doubled over the past 10 years. Does my hon. Friend agree that it represents good value for the taxpayer and good care for the patient? Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes), can my hon. Friend confirm that, whether GPs use Prodigy or any other computer-based software, steps will be taken to ensure that they are given the widest possible choice of drugs from which to select?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right. The Prodigy system is not designed to limit GPs' ability to prescribe. I fully support the move to generic prescribing. It is excellent and should be encouraged. I can tell my hon. Friend that the Prodigy scheme, which gives clinical guidelines to doctors, is also capable of being amended by them in the light of what they think will be best for their patients.

    Diet (Health Aspects)
    Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met his EU counterparts to discuss health aspects of diet. [27983]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I last did so on 30 November at the Council of Health Ministers and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met them this morning.
    Ms Quin: Are the Minister and the Secretary of State for Health among those who favour retaliation against the European Union because of the beef ban? Given that some countries have banned British beef for far longer than the European Union, can the Minister explain why Tory Euro-sceptics are not urging retaliation against those countries? Will the Minister tell us what specific proposals he and the Secretary of State have to get those other countries to lift their bans?
    Mr. Bowis: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had a successful meeting with our European colleagues at the Council of Health Ministers this morning. They agreed with him that it is important to seek the facts and to base our decisions on those facts and the evidence, and that we should work together to improve understanding of the evidence. I think that the House would unite around that, and I hope that the hon. Lady will join us. We can then say clearly, in this country and elsewhere, that British beef is safe and British beef is best. Effective safeguards are in place and it is a pity that some of the hon. Lady's colleagues seem determined to undermine that confidence.
    Dame Angela Rumbold: Does my hon. Friend agree that, far from encouraging our European partners to enter into discussions about diet, it would be much more profitable if some members of the press, the popular press and others who write articles about diet and encourage people to go on foolish diets, were to be co-ordinated and given better direction so that some of our young people do not embark on diets after dangerous dietary advice?
    Mr. Bowis: My right hon. Friend is right. Within a domestic and European context we are seeking to encourage the fact that the right sort of diet is a balanced diet, preferably accompanied by adequate and moderate levels of exercise. That is something behind which the European Council of Health Ministers has united as we look for our health promotion programme, which exchanges evidence and information about good practice. We all need a sensible diet, not a faddy one.
    Mr. Sheerman: Do we not have a lot to learn from our European counterparts about good and healthy diets? Even though the Secretary of State helped destabilise the market in beef, was not the response in Europe, America, Australia and elsewhere to draw their own conclusions and act along those lines very sensibly?
    Mr. Bowis: There we go again. There goes a Labour Member doing precisely what the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) did when the problem started. In the House, she said that public confidence was "hanging by a thread", and she has since done nothing but try to cut that thread. The hon. Gentleman is doing the
    752
    same. Happily, we are backed in our belief by the European Commissioner, by experts in this country, by our chief medical officer and by the facts and the evidence. If the hon. Gentleman looked at the facts and the evidence, he would be on our side on this issue and not with the hon. Member for Peckham.

    New Drugs (Research)
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to encourage research by British pharmaceutical companies into new drugs. [27984]
    Mr. Malone: The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme encourages pharmaceutical companies to conduct research in Britain by allowing them to offset a significant part of research and development costs against the profits that they may make from sales to the national health service. The scheme is structured to balance fair prices for the NHS with reasonable returns for companies so that they can continue to develop new and improved drugs.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom not only has a world-leading pharmaceutical industry but is acting as a magnet for investment by international pharmaceutical companies—an example of which he recently saw in my constituency? Will he assure the House that the Government will continue to pursue both pricing policies and general economic policies that will enable the pharmaceutical industry to continue to be a world leader, create new jobs and attract investment?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right that both factors encourage the pharmaceutical industry to expand and to achieve a great record of success. As he said, I was delighted to attend the opening of the refurbished headquarters and research base of Janssen-Cilag in his constituency. It is exactly the point that such a company is locating its facilities in Britain. We have an excellent record in the pharmaceutical industry, which is underpinned by the Government's policies.
    Mr. Beggs: When the Minister next meets representatives of the British pharmaceutical companies, will he encourage them to locate research facilities in Northern Ireland, where the availability of highly qualified graduates has already contributed to the success of Ivex Pharmaceuticals, Norbrook Laboratories and, most recently, Randox Laboratories?
    Mr. Malone: I shall certainly pass that on to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has direct responsibility for such matters. I would not be at all surprised if the pharmaceutical companies were already aware of exactly the hon. Gentleman's point. As part of the United Kingdom, I expect Northern Ireland to participate in our excellent environment for investment by pharmaceutical companies.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that Zeneca plc pharmaceuticals company, which is based in my constituency on two main sites that employ about 5,000 people, has the most outstanding record in research, development and marketing of drugs that greatly benefit the people of this country? Will he ensure that he continues to emphasise the importance of proprietary drugs, which enable such companies to conduct research and development, and will he discourage the merger and takeover mania that, at the end of the day, creates no benefits either for the companies or the thousands of people who are laid off and put out of work as a result?
    Mr. Malone: I cannot give my hon. Friend a satisfactory answer to his last point. I certainly acknowledge Zeneca's contribution. I am pleased to be able to confirm that the pharmaceutical industry makes a remarkable contribution not only in his constituency, but in the constituencies of many hon. Members, and that pharmaceutical companies contribute to the excellent record in Britain. The UK represents only 3.5 per cent. of the world market, but accounts for 6 per cent. of world production and 8 per cent. of world research and development. That has not happened by accident; such success has been achieved by the sustained application of the Government's policies.

    NHS Building Projects
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on major NHS building projects over the last four years. [27985]
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many major NHS building projects have been completed since 1979. [27987]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The total spent on major national health service building projects over the past four years is £1.36 billion. Approximately 860 major NHS building projects were completed between 1 April 1980 and 31 March 1996.
    Mr. Robathan: The House must find it puzzling to compare the picture of the national health service painted by Opposition Members with the reality of capital investment in NHS hospitals over the past four years. My right hon. Friend will know about the three excellent general hospitals in Leicestershire.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have not heard a question yet.
    Mr. Robathan: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, by the time that he opens yet another new project at Leicester royal infirmary on Friday, £48 million will have been invested in that constituency alone, to the benefit of all the people of Leicestershire, including my constituents and his?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right. He could also have mentioned that of the more than 800 major projects completed since 1980, one was the new Glenfield hospital in his constituency. That represented a major new investment, typical of the investment boom in the NHS over the past 15 years.
    Mr. Luff: Will my right hon. Friend give me his personal assurance that he will do all that he can to add a new Worcester royal infirmary to that fine record, by facilitating the signing of contracts in the autumn? Does he agree that the staff, who at the last count had reduced to only 200 the number of people waiting for more than six months, with no one waiting more than nine months, deserve the new hospital, bearing in mind the increasing decrepitude of the current buildings?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend seeks an assurance that we shall proceed with all speed with the proper assessment of the new hospital proposal in Worcester. As he knows, I am a resident of the city of Worcester, and I remember the story of the delays in the project, which goes back more than 20 years. I am pleased to have been the Minister responsible for introducing the private finance initiative, which gives my hon. Friend's constituents the best possible assurance that the objectives and ambitions widely shared in the city for many years can at last be realised.
    Mr. Barry Jones: In boasting of his billions, is the right hon. Gentleman not confessing that he has been beating up and robbing the Secretary of State for Wales? Why have we not had that type of building programme in Wales? Why cannot the wonderful Deeside community hospital in my constituency be extended? That is what we want.
    Mr. Dorrell: I am sure that the investment programme has been continuing throughout the health service in the United Kingdom as a whole, and that Wales, like the rest of the kingdom, will be able to benefit from the new freedom that I have introduced into the national health service through the private finance initiative, which Labour Front-Bench spokesmen opposed. The hon. Gentleman should address the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who is the true enemy of investment in the NHS in Wales.
    Mr. Spearing: The Secretary of State refers to the advantages of the private finance initiative, but does he not know that at the Newham general hospital, where new building is expected and required, no timetable has been set for it, precisely because of the requirements of the PFI? Why should the people providing capital for those projects inevitably have at least some part in the management of the hospital?
    Mr. Dorrell: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, he is barking up a familiar tree and trying to turn history on its head. He is saying that the PFI is responsible for a delay in the capital investment programme in his constituency, yet the whole history of the national health service is a history of unwarranted delays in required capital investment. It is precisely because the PFI offers escape from that discipline and control that we so much welcome it.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise the fact that that excellent hospital building programme will be accelerated by the PFI? Will he, in particular, welcome the £100 million project for the new district general hospital at Darenth park in north-west Kent?
    Mr. Dorrell: I can certainly confirm that the project to which my hon. Friend refers is being assessed in the context of the PFI. I share his hope that we shall be able to move the project forward. My hon. Friend—like every other hon. Member, on both sides of the House—can have the assurance that the PFI means that, where there is a demand and a need for an investment programme to proceed, it will now proceed without the distortions and constraints that have been the history of NHS capital investment for very nearly 50 years.
    Mr. Barron: Is not the truth of the matter that, in the most recent budget, the Government cut capital expenditure in the NHS by 17 per cent? Is it not also true that the Secretary of State promised the House and the country that, last year, there would be one new hospital a month? Is it not true that hospitals that the country was promised years ago have still not been delivered, and that the PFI has slowed down the building of hospitals—such as that in Swindon and that which was promised on several occasions in Norwich?
    At a conference in the City last month, which was attended by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), a call was made for direct agreements to be made between PFI companies and NHS purchasers. We know what plans the Government have for the new hospital in Scotland, but we and the public want to know whether the Secretary of State will tell us that no such direct contracts will be made and that there will be no privatisation of the NHS.
    Mr. Dorrell: The Government have made it abundantly clear that the PFI is not about the privatisation of clinical services. The House and the country would like to know from Labour Front Benchers what their policy is on the issue. The leader of the Labour party says that the PFI is "right in principle". The shadow health spokesman says that the PFI is "a new trick" to privatise the health service. Which of those is the Labour party's attitude—can it decide?

    Regional Health Authorities
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates have been made of the savings resulting from the abolition of the regional health authorities. [27986]
    Mr. Dorrell: Total annual savings from the abolition of regional health authorities are expected to be about £100 million. A further £50 million has also been saved by the creation of single health authorities at local level. These substantial savings will be retained by the NHS and reinvested in patient care.
    Mr. Garnier: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, with the abolition of the Trent regional health authority, patients in Leicestershire will benefit from a huge additional amount of money to be spent directly on patient care? Can he also confirm that, nationally, with other savings, we are now looking at an additional input of about £2 billion a year being spent directly on patient care?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. and learned Friend is certainly right to say that there has been huge growth from a variety of different sources, which are delivering an expansion of patient care. The figure associated with increased administrative efficiency is £300 million in total, coming from regional health authorities, the reorganisation of district health authorities and the more efficient discharge of administrative functions within trusts. That is £300 million—a 1 per cent. increase in the total resources available for patient care—through more efficient administration.
    Mr. Milburn: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, despite the abolition of the regional health authorities, the NHS bureaucracy bill increased by 6 per cent. in the past year alone? Will he also admit that the Government's market in health care has landed the NHS with an extra bureaucracy bill of £1,500 million every year—public money that should be invested in front-line patient services? Before he gets carried away, will he explain how 20,000 more managers and 50,000 fewer nurses add up to an NHS in which patients come first?
    Mr. Dorrell: Constant repetition of wrong statistics does not make them right. As the hon. Gentleman very well knows, those statistics do not present anything like a fair representation of what has happened. The question that the Labour party has to answer is whether it believes—as did the predecessor of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)—that the traditional health service was undermanaged, or whether it wants to go back to the health service as it was in the early 1980s. If it wants to go back to that, it will find no constituency for the administrative upheaval that will be involved. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the reality is that we are now committed to reducing the spend on administration to increase the spend on patient care. That is the commitment that the Government are in the process of delivering.

    Mental Health Care (Isle of Wight)
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about funding for mental health care on the Isle of Wight. [27988]
    Mr. Bowis: In addition to the £7.2 million budget for mental health planned by the Isle of Wight health authority, I am pleased that we have been able to award a £305,000 grant from the mental health challenge fund.
    Mr. Field: I am pleased to learn that the Isle of Wight has been so successful in obtaining funds from the mental health challenge fund. Is the Minister aware that the money will be used to extend the partnership with the island's social services as well as for a 24-hour crisis intervention team, which is badly needed on the island?

    757
    May I thank him on behalf not only of myself but of everyone involved in mental health care on the island for listening to my representations on these difficult issues. Is he pleased to know that on Friday I had a tooth extracted on the national health service? It has brought me great relief and it gave my dentist great satisfaction. Is it not a fact that the Conservatives have cared for the NHS for more than 30 years—a record that far exceeds that of any other party in the nation?
    Mr. Bowis: Yes. I am sure that if my hon. Friend puts his tooth under his pillow he will get a bit more, too. I thank my hon. Friend for his thanks. He has been a persistent and persuasive advocate on behalf of the island. He arranged a useful and constructive meeting with his health and social services authorities. The funding has enabled us to see an extension of the 24-hour staffed accommodation on the island and the establishment of the 24-hour crisis intervention team. I was also pleased to be able to allocate an extra £1.9 million to the health authority to enable it to cope with its merger period.

    Accident and Emergency Units
    Mr. Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what national guidelines exist for hospital accident and emergency units on the standard tests to be undertaken in relation to young women in severe abdominal pain when brought to a hospital; and if he will make a statement. [27989]
    Mr. Malone: The management of any particular patient is a matter for the judgment of the clinicians involved. There are no national guidelines for such cases, but many hospitals have local protocols based on best clinical practice and taking account of local circumstances. I expect clinical judgment to be informed by the regular reports issued by the confidential inquiry into maternal deaths.
    Mr. Simpson: I ask this question having just come through the traumatic experience of going to the local hospital with a family member who was left requiring almost emergency surgery, following the failure to carry out basic tests in the accident and emergency unit. Is the Minister aware that in the discussions that followed the clinical staff of the hospital said that the Government's failure to provide guidelines about basic tests which could and should be provided had left a huge loophole in the quality of emergency services on offer in hospitals around the country? Poor financial structuring renders reliance on professional judgment open to the fact that there are not enough professionally qualified staff in A and E units to ensure that people are not left unnecessarily in life-threatening circumstances.
    Mr. Malone: I do not accept that from the hon. Gentleman. I know of his experience in the matter. That is why I have looked particularly carefully into what advice is given to those who exercise clinical judgment. It is for everyone who exercises clinical judgment in any situation in a hospital, be it in an accident and emergency unit or otherwise, to make him or herself aware of the advice. That is why we have the confidential inquiry which reports every three years into maternal deaths. It specifically recommends that when any young woman
    758
    presents problems of this kind, all steps should be taken to diagnose whether a pregnancy or ectopic pregnancy is involved.
    The confidential inquiry is set to report again in the coming months and I understand that it will take that guidance further. I hope that that might give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: It is the opinion of the Royal College of Surgeons that one in four deaths in accident and emergency departments is avoidable. Does my hon. Friend agree that the most effective way in which the Government could respond to that appalling statistic is, at least in large urban areas, to recognise the advances that have been made in medical technology and concentrate more A and E resources in fewer hospitals? That would provide greater consultant and doctor cover. Could not the disadvantage to some of having to travel further be met by putting paramedics on every blue light ambulance?
    Mr. Malone: I am sure my that hon. Friend will welcome the fact that, especially in the London ambulance service, increased use is being made of paramedics both in ambulances and on motor cycles. I take his point that we must provide the best possible accident and emergency service for everyone. It is for clinicians to guide how that can best be offered in the circumstances. I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes the great increase in the number of accident and emergency specialist consultants.

    NHS Income
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the percentage of NHS income received from (a) private sources, (b) taxation, (c) prescription charges and (d) other sources in 1995. [27990]
    Mr. Dorrell: The percentage of national health service income in 1994–95 from the sources listed by the hon. Gentleman was: from private sources, 1.4 per cent.; from taxation and national insurance contributions, 96.8 per cent.; from prescription charges, 0.9 per cent.; and from other sources, 0.9 per cent.
    Mr. Foulkes: That is exactly the reply that I expected. Does the Secretary of State agree that that shows the creeping privatisation of the NHS?
    Mr. Dorrell: The strategy of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) has obviously been kept secret from the hon. Gentleman. My answer shows no such thing. It shows that the national health service continues under this Government to be a tax-funded health service, providing health care on the basis of people's clinical need and without regard to their ability to pay.
    Mr. Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it was the Labour party that introduced legislation to increase charges on prescriptions and that the proportion of public funding for the NHS has remained constant for the past decade?
    Mr. Dorrell: Yes. My hon. Friend is right. The commitment to the national health service as a system to

    759
    provide health care to those who need it on the basis of their clinical need is shared across the House. What is contrary to the public interest, and what makes me angry, is that that consensus is being undermined by the Opposition.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Everyone knows that the increases in prescription and dental charges have been excessive over the past 17 years. What is behind that? Is it the Government's belief that people who can afford to pay value their health more?
    Mr. Dorrell: Everyone is aware that the charges were introduced under legislation passed by a Labour Government and that 85 per cent. of NHS prescriptions are dispensed without a charge. The charge is made on those who are in a position to pay.

    Total Purchasing Initiative
    Sir Irvine Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the interest shown by GPs in the total purchasing initiative. [27991]
    Mr. Malone: I was pleased to announce a second wave of 34 total purchasing projects from April this year, bringing the total in England to 85.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that that shows an overwhelming response to the pilots, including a surgery in Sheffield, and that GPs, whether or not they are fundholders, need to purchase the best possible care for their patients? Have not the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen shown today that they are totally opposed to fundholding and will abolish it if they are given the opportunity?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right. It would be a great shame if the benefits that are emerging from the total purchasing pilot in Sheffield were to be lost should ever the Labour party get into office and abolish fundholding, and with it total fundholding, as it has promised.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trust hospitals have now agreed major capital work schemes under the PFI. [27992]
    Mr. Dorrell: Since the launch of the private finance initiative, 41 national health service trust schemes valued at £1 million or above have been approved, at a total capital value of £457 million. Contracts have been signed in 26 of those cases.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that many NHS trusts believe that PFI applications cause delay in schemes being approved and that at times, the detail of schemes must be changed to meet PFI priorities? Is that situation acceptable? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the fourth phase at Burnley general hospital will now go ahead speedily?
    Mr. Dorrell: I might have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that a decision was announced in his constituency in February to invest a further £8.9 million in Burnley general hospital. I did not hear a welcome for that development, which is part of the biggest-ever investment programme in the history of the national health service, coming from the hon. Gentleman's lips. The hon. Gentleman might have seen fit to welcome it. He says that the PFI is responsible for new delays in the NHS programme, but that is to turn history on its head. In reality, the history of NHS investment has been one of delays caused by the old system. The Government have emancipated the health service from those distortions.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May. [28011]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Greenway: Bearing in mind the eternal anguish caused to families and the British people by the murders of my constituent Philip Lawrence and of the teacher and children of Dunblane, may I have my right hon. Friend's absolute assurance that the Government will spare no effort to ensure proper security for schools and proper gun controls?
    The Prime Minister: As to school security, we have today accepted the recommendations of the working group that was set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment following the tragic murder of Mr. Lawrence, and we shall press on with implementing them. As to Dunblane, I have made it clear that when we have the chance to consider Lord Cullen's recommendations and to consult other parties in the House, if legislation is found to be necessary—as I personally suspect it will—we have already set aside time in our parliamentary programme. I believe that there is a consensus in the House that schools should be secure places in which children can learn free from fear. Parents expect no less, and we will do all that we can to ensure that is the case.
    Mr. Blair: I support the Prime Minister in his welcome for the report on school security. Is not it a sad but true reflection of the need for such a report that in the past year, three in five schools have been vandalised by intruders and a high degree of pupils and teachers were actually assaulted by intruders? As well as accepting the working group's recommendations, will the Government fully fund them—if necessary from within the current financial year?
    The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that there will be a Government funding programme over whatever period is necessary to follow through the recommendations. We have not yet had the chance to study the recommendations in full, cost them or determine how rapidly they can be implemented. However, we will not be seeking delay but seeking to carry out the recommendations as speedily as practicable.
    Mr. Blair: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I am sure that he knows that vandalism costs a lot of money—so the sooner that action is taken, the better financially. Will the Prime Minister agree to the working group's request to be allowed to examine the broader problem of behaviour in schools? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the routine violence suffered by many teachers in schools is absolutely intolerable? Given that there are 11,000 school exclusions every year, which is about treble the previous number, we would co-operate fully in any legislation designed to make the time limits for exclusion more rational and to render the entire system of exclusions more acceptable.
    The Prime Minister: There may be areas of agreement and I welcome the support of the right hon. Gentleman. As hon. Members will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is examining this matter. It is important that we ensure proper behaviour in schools and proper sanctions by teachers. The Government would welcome support across the Chamber on this issue.
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May. [28012]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dunn: Given that Sevenoaks district council, which is controlled by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, has just increased its council tax by a staggering and unprecedented 90 per cent.—which is a nightmare for council tax payers—does the Prime Minister agree with the maxim: "Dogs bark, cats miaow and socialists put up taxes"?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is being slightly unfair to the Liberal Democrats, who seem to have helped on this occasion with the tax raising. If one looks across local government, one sees that it is Liberal, Lib-Lab and Labour councils that ransack the pockets of council tax payers. [Interruption.] I am glad that Labour Members like extra taxes. This morning I read that the shadow Secretary for Employment wants to tax more as a sop to the trade unions.
    The Government see the removal of child benefit as a teenage tax. Many Labour Members want to tax anyone who earns more than the shadow Transport Secretary. [Interruption.] Yes, there is more. In Scotland, the tartan tax is an extra tax. The Labour party wants to tax business
    762
    more with a minimum wage. There are plenty of opportunities for more arguments in the shadow Cabinet about the Labour party's tax policy.
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May. [28013]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Lynne: In light of the recent remarks made by leading film stars and others, does the Prime Minister agree with me and with them that violence on television and in films can lead to horrific copycat killings? Will he put whatever pressure he can on the film censor to withdraw the video certificate from "Natural Born Killers" and to persuade the BBC not to broadcast it?
    The Prime Minister: I share the concern of the hon. Lady and the concern of millions of people in this country about the level of violence in feature films and, perhaps even more damaging, in videos that are readily available to young people. It is encouraging that the concerns are echoed by many people in the film industry. I have not seen "Natural Born Killers", but everything that I have heard about it suggests that it is distasteful. I hope that the British Board of Film Classification will hear what the hon. Lady has to say, consider it with great care and act on it.
    Mr. Yeo: Has my right hon. Friend seen today's reports recommending less confrontation in Parliament? Does he agree that the quickest way to achieve this will be for the parties that claim to be against crime to vote in favour of, and not against, the Government's increasingly successful law and order measures?
    The Prime Minister rose—
    Mr. Yeo: In addition, the parties that claim they want to help British men and women into jobs should join the Government in saying no to the social chapter. In short, new Labour should finally tell the truth and say that the Tories were right all along.
    The Prime Minister: I am glad that I made way for the second half of my hon. Friend's question; it was well worth waiting for.
    I am surprised by the apparent amusement of the Opposition about dealing with these important issues, when their policies would not deal with a single one of them. Opposition for its own sake is generally what we get from the Opposition parties; we have got used to that. If they meant what they said, they would change.

    Intelligence Headquarters (Germany)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with Chancellor Kohl about the arrangements made by the German intelligence chief, for showing Ali Fallahian, Iranian intelligence chief, round the Wiesbaden intelligence headquarters unit of the Verfassungschutz; and if he will make a statement. [28014]
    The Prime Minister: I have had no such discussions with Chancellor Kohl.
    Mr. Dalyell: As three official documents of the German Government, brought to the attention of the

    763
    British Government, confirm that Iranian-orchestrated terrorism has operated out of Germany for years, and against the background that I and Dr. Swire of the Lockerbie relatives have brought to the Government's attention before I asked this question, will the Prime Minister reconsider responsibility for Lockerbie in the light of what he now knows?
    The Prime Minister: We have very carefully examined all the documentation that has been made available to us by the hon. Gentleman and others. The alleged involvement of others in the bombing has been exhaustively investigated; nothing that has been presented to the Government has been lightly laid aside without proper examination. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has concluded, on the basis of all the evidence, that there is a case for the two accused Libyans to answer and there remains no evidential basis for bringing charges against the nationals of any other country.
    The case is not closed. If there is further evidence, we will of course examine it, but the evidence needs to be founded, not unfounded speculation. Any evidence of that sort should be provided to the police or the Government and it will be fully and properly examined.

    Engagements
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May. [28015]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Rendel: Given that about 50 councils throughout the country are now left without a single Conservative representative, and given that probably, in those areas, on average, about 20 per cent. of the electorate still supports the Conservative party and votes for it, does the Prime Minister agree that the current electoral system is very unfair to those Conservative voters, and indeed to the Conservative party, in those areas, and that therefore it would be better to replace the electoral system with a fair vote system, which would ensure proper representation on each and every council for every significant group?
    The Prime Minister: First, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for calling him an hon. Friend. I promise the House that that was not a leak suggesting that the hon. Gentleman will cross the Floor, but merely an indication that we anticipate having his seat back at the next general election.
    I do not remotely agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposals for a form of proportional voting. The only implication of a proportional voting system in this country would be that the decisions that should be made by a Government, and on which a Government should be answerable, would be made behind closed doors by Members like the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal party, and others, and not made by the Prime Minister and Government of the day, standing at the Dispatch Box.
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May. [28016]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jenkin: As we await the return of the Family Law Bill to the Floor of the House, will my right hon. Friend consider a change of policy to allow for mediation and reconciliation between members of the shadow Cabinet, whose marriage of convenience appears to have been poisoned by the political gigolo from Hartlepool?
    The Prime Minister: They will have ample time for mediation and conciliation—perhaps five years after the general election—in opposition.
    Mr. Lewis: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May. [28017]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lewis: Does the Prime Minister accept that refusal to act on guns before Lord Cullen reports smacks of vacillation? If the right hon. Gentleman has any doubts about yardsticks for tackling gun control, will he read the report of the Adjournment debate that I initiated on 3 May 1995? He will find that during that debate I made four sensible suggestions for the control of guns. That debate took place 12 months before Dunblane.
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have made sensible suggestions. As for vacillation, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary, said the other day:
    "We shall … carefully consider all the evidence given to the Inquiry and the recommendations which Lord Cullen makes before coming to final conclusions."
    It would rather seem that the Opposition Front Bench shares the Government's view that there should be a proper examination of Lord Cullen's report before conclusions are reached. I am sorry that there seems to be a split between the Opposition Front Bench and the Opposition Benches below the Gangway.
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May. [28018]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Gorman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Marks and Spencer, that pillar of the British nation, has announced that if we were to be so foolish as to go for a single currency, it would have to spend at least £100 million on converting its tills, and that everyone in the high street would end up with bills running into billions? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should bring these matters to the attention of the President of France, Mr. Chirac, when he meets him for discussions? I understand that the gentleman is quite keen on a

    765
    single currency. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he understands that underwear prices will increase in Marks in this country as well as in Paris, Lyon and all the other Marks stores in France?
    The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend has brought matters effectively to the attention of many people. I am not certain whether they will directly reach President Chirac.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We all know that the Nolan recommendations are bedding down. However, on Question 2, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes)—I have given the hon. Gentleman written notice that I wish to raise the matter—sought to persuade the national health service to buy more drugs under the selected or limited lists. In the declaration of interests, the hon. Gentleman declares a paid financial interest in a pharmaceutical company. I am not suggesting that he has done anything improper, because it is a matter of judgment whether that fact is announced during an oral question. When the hon. Gentleman tabled the question, he might well have provided a declaration of interest, but there is no mechanism through which to record that interest on the Order Paper. There is such a mechanism for making that information available when early-day motions are tabled.
Could we not ensure that if declarations are made by hon. Members, they are recorded on the Order Paper, so that when a Member declines to make a declaration when he tables a question, the House is informed?
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. In accordance with the traditions of the House, I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice, even if it arrived after the event. You will know, Madam Speaker, that my question made no mention of the interests of pharmaceutical companies, whether actual or implied. My question related solely to the clinical freedom for doctors to prescribe in the best interests of their patients. I thus deeply resent the hon. Gentleman's allegation. If the recommendations of the Nolan committee mean that someone such as myself, as a physician, is unable to ask questions on health matters, in which I have a professional interest, I ask for your ruling, Madam Speaker, and your protection. The matter will have to be sorted out once and for all.
Madam Speaker: It is very much a matter for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. There is an arrangement whereby Members can register with the letter R against their question when they wish to declare an interest. I suggest that the hon. Member seeks advice if he chooses to ask questions on pharmaceuticals in future.
Dr. Goodson-Wickes: I apologise, but I repeat that I did not ask a question about pharmaceutical companies.
Madam Speaker: If there is any complaint whatsoever, the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) should raise it with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Hon. Members should not take up the time of the House by raising petty points of
768
order on the Floor of the House. We have a structure and such matters should be referred there. I will hear no more on these matters in future. That is my ruling.
Mr. Robin Corbett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During questions, reference was made to the report of the working party on school security that was published by the Department for Education and Employment. Will you inquire as to why it is not available in the Vote Office?
Madam Speaker: Certainly. I shall make some inquiries. It may well need to be available in the Vote Office. I was not sure where it was available, but I shall make inquiries right away. It is available in the Library, but perhaps we should also have it in the Vote Office, if Members so wish.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, you kindly ruled on the matter of legal advice that the Government were given in respect of the Westminster city council district auditor's report. Further to that, is it a correct interpretation of your ruling that if the Government assert as a matter of law some advice that they have been given, they have to justify that advice by revealing it? The only reason why I raise the matter is that we are potentially at risk if the Government do not either show their hand and their advice, or change their attitude of providing completely inaccurate representations of the legal status of a district auditor's report.
Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman and the entire House to my response last week. It is a matter of questioning the Government, who are accountable on some of these matters as a matter of debate and argument. I can give no ruling on that. It is the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point is similar to one that was raised earlier. I do not want to try your patience, but I understand from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that if one travels to a foreign country and is paid for by anyone other than the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or the Inter-Parliamentary Union, that has to be registered and it debars an hon. Member from discussing the matter in the House of Commons. That rather negates the point of going on any such journey abroad to familiarise oneself with a problem. Is that right?
Madam Speaker: That matter has been raised very many times. Members are familiar with it. We have a Committee that sits regularly to advise Members on such matters. They should not be raised individually on the Floor of the House. If the hon. Gentleman sees the Chairman of that Committee, I am sure that he will advise him accordingly.

Fishery Limits (Amendment)
3.37 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that the Fishery Limits Act 1976 shall have effect regardless of the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972; that Part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 shall have effect as though it had not been repealed by the Merchant Shipping (Registration etc.) Act 1993; and to confer upon the Secretary of State powers to license fishing vessels to fish within United Kingdom waters, to exclude specified vessels or vessels of specified nations from fishing within United Kingdom waters, to negotiate common policies with other countries to preserve fish stocks, and to invalidate any provisions of the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Community; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is based on the fundamental principle of the British constitution that Parliament cannot bind itself and that a later Parliament can take back what was previously given away.
The Bill provides that the European Communities Act 1972, by which we accepted Community law and made it superior to British law, shall not apply to the Fishery Limits Act 1976, by which we followed the world trend to 200-mile limits. It would enable us to enforce that law against European vessels that are at present over-fishing our stocks. It would also allow British courts to enforce British law—and that would make a nice change.
The Bill would strengthen the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 in order to keep out the quota hoppers, who constitute the equivalent of about one fifth of the British fleet.
The Bill represents a way out of the common fisheries policy, which has been an unique disaster. Even the most ardent Europhiles do not defend it. It was put together days before we joined the Common Market, as it then was, to allow access to our rich fishing grounds. It was based on a principle of equal access to a common resource—the only common resource—deliberately to gain access to our stocks.
At the time, the policy was cravenly accepted and fudged through, because the Prime Minister of the day was not about to let a little matter like fishing stand in the way of his great vision. Fishing was betrayed by what happened then. As a result, a nation that contributes 75 per cent. of the stocks and the great majority of the waters gets only about one third of the catch and 12 per cent. of its value.
The common fisheries policy stopped us rebuilding our fishing industry when we lost Icelandic waters. Every other nation took its own 200-mile limit and built a strong industry behind that limit, but we were not allowed to exploit our own rich waters. We now import the fish that we used to catch for ourselves, much of it taken in our waters by European fleets and sent back to us.
The policy has not worked. It was supposed to conserve stocks, but we have a conservation crisis; it was supposed to bring harmony, but we have conflict; it was supposed to develop the industry, but we have a shrunken, battered industry; it was supposed to sustain a law, but it is driving fishermen to illegality. The policy is now reaching a crisis. Equal access means that all new entrants with big fishing fleets but no waters of their own can catch fish in our waters. Spain has shown the way, but behind Spain stands a queue—Bulgaria, Poland and the Baltic states,
770
all with their own sizeable fishing fleets. This country will soon face a substantial reduction in its effort to make way for Spanish fishing vessels. After we have cut our effort by about one fifth, one fifth of our fleet will effectively be owned by foreigners.
As a system of conservation, this is nothing but muddle and bureaucracy. It is not a centralised system, which would be able to control catches at the port of landing and ensure a level catching ground so that other industries were not supported at the expense of ours; nor is it a system of national control. National control is the only way out, because only the nation state has an interest in conserving fish stocks and handing them on to future generations of its own fishermen. For others, those stocks are a resource to be looted, but for us they form an essential basis for the future.
I am a moderate man, and I represent an even more moderate party. Ministers have told us that they will fight for change, and they will fight for change all the more effectively if they have a big stick behind them to give them courage and confidence; but the odds are against their winning. Every other nation has a veto on concessions to us—the kind of concessions that we need. The system has not changed substantially in all the years during which it has operated. It merely gives us tighter quotas, and the tighter the quotas become, the bigger the discards will be, the more "black fish" will be brought into ports and the greater will be the degree of illegality—illegality that is becoming a way of life for many fishermen. But if those Ministers do not win, the Bill will give them the power to determine our future.
I admit that it is a question of will, but the matter must be seen in the context of our general relationships with Europe. Because the common fisheries policy is the worst policy, it is the best issue on which to test those relationships and take a firm stand in order to build a new relationship. The present relationship is disastrous. Both Government and Opposition want free association, a free market and co-operation between independent nation states, but what Europe wants is a constant drive towards deeper and tighter unities, and we are constantly dragged behind, grumbling, protesting, muttering and sulking, because we have no ground on which to stand. There is no legal basis for a new relationship that would stop the process.
The Bill provides that relationship by giving us that firm ground. I hope that this will not be seen as part of a pro or anti-Europe argument, because my main purpose is to rebuild and strengthen British fishing, which has been badly weakened and undermined. To do that, we must be able to enforce our own law, and impose our own fishing regime and conservation measures in our own waters before it is too late. If we are in control of our own waters, we can arrange swaps and deals with European countries in return for catching fish in their waters. We can reach arrangements with Iceland, Norway, Canada and other countries outside the area where we have traditionally caught fish, and they can be allowed a return catch in our waters. We can impose our own system of management and control—one that works for a change—and rebuild our industry. Most important of all, we can conserve and build up our stocks for our partners, for ourselves and for the next generation of British fishermen instead of prolonging the present disaster.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. William Ross, Rev. Ian Paisley, Mr. Nigel Spearing, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith and Mr. Christopher Gill.

FISHERY LIMITS (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Austin Mitchell accordingly presented a Bill to provide that the Fishery Limits Act 1976 shall have effect regardless of the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972; that Part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 shall have effect as though it had not been repealed by the Merchant Shipping (Registration etc.) Act 1993; and to confer upon the Secretary of State powers to license fishing vessels to fish within United Kingdom waters, to exclude specified vessels or vessels of specified nations from fishing within United Kingdom waters, to negotiate common policies with other countries to preserve fish stocks, and to invalidate any provisions of the Common Fisheries Policy of the European Community; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 129.]
FISHERY LIMITS (AMENDMENT)
  Opposition Day
  [13TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Opposition Day

    Westminster City Council
    Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    3.45 pm
    Mr. Frank Dobson: I beg to move,
    That this House deplores the scandalous conduct of the Tory flagship Westminster City Council; calls on the Government to condemn this malpractice on an unprecedented scale; and will regard any failure to do so as further evidence of electorally-motivated support for the council.
    On Thursday, the district auditor found that leading Tory councillors on Westminster city council, assisted by council officers, the most senior of whom had originally been seconded from the Department of the Environment, had used £31.6 million to promote the electoral advantage of the Tory party at the expense of homeless families, tenants and taxpayers in Westminster. The district auditor concluded that that was unlawful, improper and disgraceful.
    This homes-for-votes scandal is the biggest single scandal in the history of any local council, but it was not the only scandal in Westminster, and individuals who were found guilty and surcharged are not the only people involved.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dobson: No, I will not give way at this time.
    The financial scandals in Westminster now total over £100 million, so there are more auditors' reports to come. The Tory party and Government have been involved for a decade with the Tories on Westminster city council in a squalid effort to make sure that Westminster council remains Tory controlled. They have done that whatever the cost in money, in law breaking or in the harm done to homeless families and other people who had a right in law to turn to Westminster council for somewhere decent to live. That is why the Prime Minister and every other leading Tory refuses to condemn what has been going on in Westminster.
    The Prime Minister dare not condemn the wrongdoers because the wrongdoing has been known about, condoned and connived at by the Tory party and Government. Not only have the Government condoned the scandals, they have rigged the Government grant system, first to fix the poll tax in Westminster before the 1990 local government elections and secondly to keep down the council tax in Westminster. In recent years, the Government have been giving Westminster at least £20 million a year more than can be justified on any fair criteria. During that time, many Westminster services have been among the most expensive in Britain, but no Government action has been taken and not a word of ministerial criticism has been uttered because the Government have been accessories to what was going on.

    773
    In the 1986 council elections, the Tory majority on Westminster council was reduced from 28 to just four. The Tories retained control of the council by a 106-vote majority in Cavendish ward, which borders my constituency. Emerging from that bruising encounter with the electorate, the Tories contemplated worse to come in the 1990 elections, but the Tories in Westminster did not decide to change their performance or their policies—they decided to change the electorate instead. If they could not persuade enough local residents to vote for them, they would get in new people who would vote for them. They did that by concentrating a policy of designated sales of council flats in eight marginal wards. According to the former Tory chair of housing in Westminster, that started with a breakfast meeting between Lady Porter, the leader of Westminster council, and the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), who at that time was the leader of Wandsworth council, which was, she said:
    "definitely 100 per cent—the beginning of the designated thing—to target marginal wards and the sort of tactics one had to use to go about it".
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Dobson: I shall not give way for the time being.
    In September 1986, a secret paper was produced by officers of Westminster council's planning department. Its title gives the game away: "A Strategy for 1990—the Wandsworth Experience". It was a four-year strategy formulated by council officers to win the local elections due in 1990. The paper bemoaned the limited opportunities socially to engineer throughout Westminster, but added:
    "This should remain a longer term objective, but there is an immediate need to socially engineer the population in marginal wards".
    The paper was written by a council officer, a public official, paid for by the public.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dobson: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and then perhaps he will sit down for a bit.
    Mr. Arnold: Does the hon. Gentleman recall, in the 1970s, when he was leader of the London borough of Camden, the building of the Branch Hill council estate in Hampstead for four times the cost of what could have been provided elsewhere in the borough, and that the only common denominator was that the estate was in the Conservative marginal seat of Hampstead? Who is he to lecture the House of Commons on gerrymandering?
    Mr. Dobson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has been briefed by Tory central office, but it should do a little better than that. If we had been trying to gerrymander, we would not have built the estate in the safest Tory ward in Hampstead.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Dobson: I shall not give way.
    774
    The main aim of that election strategy was to gerrymander the electorate by shifting council tenants out of marginal wards into safe Labour wards, and by shifting homeless families out of Westminster altogether. Contemporaneous notes by council officers, revealed during the auditor's investigation, report discussions and decisions by leading councillors in the following words, all of which are accurate quotations:
    "suitable wards for housing the homeless long term, Westminster City Council families in Labour wards",
    a
    "very hard line on homelessness, try to ship them out
    how can we get the homeless out of Westminster?
    homelessness—be mean and nasty
    determine if more cases can be exported
    cash to homeless persons to get lost".
    Those quotations are all from handwritten notes by the council's paid officials. Official papers and minutes, prepared by those same officers, refer to
    "figures being prepared to show which initiatives were most likely to achieve electoral targets"
    and state that
    "the attached target schedules show the target for new electors in each of the eight key wards".
    The copy of the document containing the last quotation bears a manuscript note from the council's solicitor saying:
    "This paper should not have been written by an officer".
    He added:
    "This paper shows officers working for a Tory victory".
    The council officer who prepared the paper confirmed to the auditor that he was working full time on monitoring progress towards meeting the electoral targets in the marginal wards.
    From that and much more evidence, there can be no doubt that the whole approach by the Tory leadership of Westminster city council was geared not to the well-being of the people of Westminster, but to the electoral well-being of the Tory party. So there can be no doubt that those councillors set about emptying council flats and selling them, instead of using them to provide decent housing for homeless families and others living in overcrowded and degrading conditions.
    Whatever the council may have said in public, in private, it made no bones about this being its top priority. Lady Porter prepared a note for the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, which said:
    "We in Westminster are trying to gentrify the City. We must protect our electoral position which is being seriously eroded by the number of homeless we are being forced to rehouse … I feel that the problem is so serious you should look at this yourself … I am afraid that unless something can be done, it will be very difficult for us to keep Westminster Conservative".
    Mr. David Nicholson: I have no wish at this stage to defend or excuse Lady Porter or Westminster city council. However, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the fact that the same local government finance system that may have benefited Westminster city council also benefited the London boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark, which are very inefficient and incompetent Labour strongholds. Can the hon. Gentleman lay his hand on his heart and say that Labour councils, when they were able to spend vast sums of taxpayers' money on building

    775
    council houses, never used that money to build the Tories out of marginal wards? In the borough of Islington where I fought three successive elections, Labour succeeded in doing just that.
    Mr. Dobson: There is a paragraph or two later in my speech which deals directly with that absurd equivalence that the Tories have invented.
    As a result of those policies, homeless families were left living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and hotels. Other families were left in overcrowded and degrading conditions, while flats that became empty were sold to people who were confidently expected to be Tory voters. To get council tenants to move out, they were unlawfully offered grants by the council. Later, a Government grant scheme designed to get sitting tenants to move out to make room for homeless families was extended in the case of Westminster to induce families to leave so that their flats could be sold. That required the consent of the then Secretary of State, which was given after representations from the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler). His intervention at that time was understandable, after the former chair of Westminster housing committee had produced a paper for a Tory policy seminar, which specified as an objective:
    "to ensure that as far as possible, Westminster's housing policies achieve the type of social and residential mix that will enable us to retain control of the Council in 1990 and to help retain the Conservative majority in the Parliamentary seat of North Westminster."
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman dismissed my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) too lightly. I have a thorough knowledge of Camden because I was the vice-chairman of the Camden housing committee when the Branch Hill estate came up for grabs. We did not wish to build those expensive houses. We preferred to spend the money on less expensive housing in the borough, which we would have done had we retained control. As it was, Labour was trying to disrupt Lord Finsberg. The Labour-controlled council went on to build 600 houses on tennis courts and woods, which were zones for public open space, simply to get people out of South End ward, which was a Tory marginal. Gerrymandering.
    Mr. Dobson: Call me old-fashioned, but I have always believed that living in homes close to Hampstead heath should not be confined to the rich, but preferably should be available to everybody.
    The law required Westminster council to give housing priority to persons occupying insanitary or overcrowded houses, large families, people living in unsatisfactory housing conditions and certain homeless families. The council's own policies required it to give priority to what it called category A medical cases. Some of the purchasers who moved into empty flats may have fallen into those categories, but not many. Indeed, the families in those categories of need were exactly those who lost out as a result of the council's designated sales policy.
    Before we touch on the question of individual liability, lawfulness or the cost to the taxpayer, I invite the Secretary of State to tell us whether he condemns Westminster city council for ignoring the needs of the
    776
    homeless and the sick. Is that how he believes a council should behave? The Secretary of State makes no contribution.
    The auditor has found that that electorally motivated policy cost a fortune: a total of £31.6 million, made up mainly of such items as selling flats to newcomers at lower than the market value, loss of rent, grants to tenants to move out and the extra cost of providing further temporary accommodation for homeless families. Whatever the cost of each of those items, they were not obscure inventions of the auditor. They are the obvious, predictable losses that were bound to result from such a policy, and so the auditor has found.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not.
    It is difficult to exaggerate the huge scale of a total loss of £31.6 million. I have checked the total budgets of every council in England. No fewer than 272 have less to spend on the services that they provide each year for all their local people than the £31.6 million used by the Westminster Tories to win eight wards in a local election.
    I should like to cite some examples. Brighton's budget is £23 million, Blackpool's total is £20 million, Basildon's is £20 million, Chorley spends just £8 million, Crawley's budget is £10 million, The Wrekin's £17 million, Corby's £5 million, East Staffordshire's £10 million, Forest of Dean's £7 million, Gloucester's £11 million, and Exeter and Lincoln each have only £10 million a year to spend on services for their local people.
    Yet all the areas that I have mentioned, and hundreds of others, are represented wholly or in part by Tory Members of Parliament who cannot raise their voices in criticism of Westminster's scandalous misuse of £31.6 million—far more money than their local councils are allowed to spend in a year on the people whom those Tory Members of Parliament claim to represent.
    Mr. Jenkin rose—
    Hon. Members: Give way.
    Mr. Dobson: No, I have said that I shall not give way.
    Let us remember that the money was spent just for electoral advantage. Just imagine £31.6 million being spent to win eight wards in a council election. The election expenses work out at £4 million a ward.
    That was not the only public money that was devoted to keeping Westminster Conservative in the 1990s. Public money was also devoted to that by central Government when they introduced the poll tax during that period. The first exemplifications of the poll tax showed that the poll tax in Tory Westminster would be about the same as in Labour Camden next door, and that it would cost many people more than the rates.
    That is of course what happened in many other places, but, by then, the Westminster Tories were getting used to the idea that the law did not apply to them. So they lobbied for the grant system to be rigged to bail them out. Lobbyists were hired and local Members of Parliament went on delegations. The reports and briefings produced

    777
    by the lobbying firm GJW showed which Ministers were approached. They included the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was then a Minister at the Department of the Environment and is now the Secretary of State for the Environment.
    The briefings record:
    "John Gummer is the most alert of Ministers to political nuances … He will be particularly conscious that with safety nets a number of high spending Labour London Boroughs will appear to get 'off the hook' with community charges lower than Westminster".
    A further report by the lobbyists states:
    "Gummer is said to be angry that the D of E officials had failed to understand the real and political consequences of the redistributive effects of the community charge".
    The report also referred to a paper entitled, "Electoral Disaster: the effects of safety netted community charge on some households in the City of Westminster", which specifically referred to the effects on what were called
    "'marginal wards', like Cavendish and Little Venice".
    The report recorded that the paper had been sent to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal and that the lobbyists had discussed it with the right hon. Gentleman's political adviser.
    The paper referred to the effects of the poll tax on "identified, aspiring Conservative voters" in Little Venice and Cavendish wards, and stated:
    "the electoral consequences are bound to be adverse".
    The paper also called for the needs assessments in the Government grant to be skewed to help Westminster—and that was a lesson that the right hon. Gentleman certainly learnt. At the end were six tables said to
    "examine the financial impact on some of these groups in the two most marginal wards in the City".
    The paper explained:
    "It should be stressed that all the households examined are real ones, taken from the electoral and voting records"
    Table 7 extended the analysis of the effect of the community charge on Cavendish ward. It selected all pledged Conservative voters in Great Titchfield street and Hanson street and added:
    "Such voters are the heart of Cavendish Ward and are clearly essential to Conservative hopes to hold the City Council … It should be stressed that the properties in Table 7 are selected solely because they are pledged Conservative voters".
    So what happened? As requested by Westminster, the Government duly rigged the grant system to give the council enough money to levy only a low poll tax. Tory central Government found about £25 million in extra taxpayers' money to help Westminster win those same eight marginal wards.
    The rigging continues to this day. Having artificially kept down Westminster's poll tax for electoral reasons, the Government now artificially keep down Westminster's council tax for the same reasons. According not to me but to the present chief executive of Westminster council, the assistance is
    "equivalent to a Council Tax increase of £197",
    because the council gets grant to compensate for visitors, yet is also allowed to keep the £20 million or more that those visitors pay in parking charges.
    778
    Such is the extra subsidy given to Westminster that if it were applied to the whole country, no more than a handful of councils would need to levy any council tax. Most would be able to pay out annual rebates; Tamworth, Southampton, Redditch, Portsmouth and several other places would be able to pay rebates of more than £900.
    That is not the end of the electorally motivated scandals in Westminster. The recently published Barratt report found the council, led by the same prominent councillors involved in the homes-for-votes scandal, guilty of knowingly placing homeless families in asbestos-ridden blocks of flats, and said that that decision had been
    "influenced by considerations of Party advantage".
    It is hard to think of a worse example of the degenerate nature of the present Tory party than that—putting lives and health at risk for party political advantage. And the scandal goes to the top, because—
    Mr. Eric Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dobson: I shall finish this passage first.
    The scandal goes to the top, because the Prime Minister has refused to condemn the councillors involved in the asbestos scandal. He recently said of Tory policy:
    "it may have hurt but it worked",
    and apparently that has now become the Tory advertising slogan. It certainly describes Tory policy on homelessness, because it hurts a family to be left in bed-and-breakfast accommodation or in a hostel, and it hurts even more to be placed in an asbestos-ridden flat.
    That is what Westminster council called being
    "mean and nasty to the homeless",
    and it certainly worked. It gave the Tories gerrymandered local election victories in 1990 and 1994.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: Because of the general tenor of the Barratt report, will the hon. Gentleman give me the paragraph reference for his specific quotation from it?
    Mr. Dobson: I shall give it to the right hon. Gentleman at the end of my speech.
    Mr. David Shaw: It is not there.
    Mr. Dobson: The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has just accused me of lying, but I shall deal with him later.
    Of course, the auditor's report covers only the first period of the homes-for-votes scandal. Electors in Westminster have objected to the money wasted by Westminster on the scheme more recently—an estimated further £21 million. There is also the plain and deliberate failure—
    Mr. Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not.
    There is also the plain and deliberate failure of Westminster council to bill leaseholders for service charges and for the cost of major repairs—an estimated further £31 million, including interest.

    779
    Further examples of wrongdoing are yet to be investigated by the district auditor: between £6 million and £7 million lost on the disposal of property below market value; spending on propaganda in the run-up to the 1990 elections; unlawful capital grants; and environmental initiatives unlawfully concentrated on the eight target marginals.
    That is not the end of special Tory funding for Westminster elections. The Tories spent £1.5 million on a council propaganda campaign in the run-up to the 1990 elections. Not satisfied with all that money, Westminster Tories set up a charity—the Foundation for Business Responsibility. It channelled £98,897.96 to a public relations firm, Marketforce Communications, to help the Tories fight the local election. Contributions to that charity came from the Duke of Westminster and from Trusthouse Forte, at £5,000 each; from Taylor Woodrow, at £2,000; and from Allied Lyons, Rank Hovis McDougall, Brooke Bond OXO, Dewhurst, Whitbread and Grand Metropolitan, which all gave £1,000. None of those payments was ever declared. Another contributor was Gerald Ronson's charitable foundation, which gave £1,000. That was, of course, before Mr. Ronson went to gaol. The Westminster Tories were found out and the money had to be repaid. Even under this Government, charities are not allowed to fund political parties—not even the Tory party.
    The facts of the scandals are not really in dispute. While Lady Porter and her Tory apologists may dispute the scale of the loss, or even the legality or illegality of what they have done, there can be no doubt about what they have done or why they did it.
    So what is the burden of the complaint by the people surcharged and their friends? They complain that the system is unfair to them and that it places too much power in the hands of the district auditor. But that is not what the Tories said in the past about the district auditor. They were happy to give him the powers that he now enjoys under the Tory Local Government Finance Act 1982. They were quite happy to pass that law, which was to apply to every council and to every councillor in the land. I have carefully examined that Act of Parliament, which gave the district auditor his powers, and I am afraid that the Tories forgot to put in a get-out clause to say that it applied to every council except the Tory flagship council, or that it applied to every councillor except fat-cat Tory millionaires. It applies to them all.
    Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not.
    In 1989, after the district auditor had started his investigation into Westminster, the Government reasserted their view on the auditor's powers. They said:
    "The auditor must assemble the evidence, and is best placed to decide whether a case exists to invoke statutory sanctions. Transferring the responsibilities from the Auditor would reduce his standing and authority, thereby lessening rather than enhancing his effectiveness. The Government have therefore decided that responsibility for taking action under Sections 19 and 20"—
    of the Act—
    "should remain with the Auditor";
    and they remain there to this day.
    780
    Those Tories have been found with their hand in the till for electoral purposes, subsidising a Tory election campaign at the expense of other people, and especially at the expense of the homeless. But neither the Prime Minister nor the Secretary of State will condemn them. The Prime Minister said when the auditor's preliminary report was published:
    "if the allegations are confirmed, I will condemn unreservedly."—[Official Report, 13 January 1995; Vol. 235, c. 331.]
    The allegations have been confirmed. The auditor's inquiry has run its course and the decision has been made, but still the Prime Minister cannot bring himself to condemn the wrongdoing. Last week he said:
    "I understand that they"—
    the people who have been found guilty—
    "vehemently contest the auditor's report and that they have said that they will take the matter to court. In the face of such a clear-cut protestation of innocence, I think that any sensible and cautious person would be wise to await the outcome before making a judgment."—[Official Report, 9 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 362.]
    How long does this process go on? When is an outcome not an outcome? Lady Porter is a very wealthy woman and can afford to go on appealing and appealing. Should she lose in the High Court, will the Prime Minister tell us that his condemnation must await the outcome in the Court of Appeal? Will he tell us that we have to await the decision of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, the European Court of Human Rights or the International Court of Justice at The Hague? When will he condemn this wrongdoing?
    The Prime Minister's other excuse for not condemning his friends is that they have protested their innocence. But that applies to everyone who does not accept a verdict. The question that the Prime Minister must ask is, "Have our friends, our Tory friends in Tory Westminster, behaved as if they were innocent?"
    People who believe that they are innocent are not afraid for others to know the truth. They say, "Here we are, here are the papers. The papers will prove that everything was above board." But that is not what the Westminster Tories have done. No, they have obstructed the auditor at every turn. Documents were shredded. Attempts were made to erase items from the memory of the council's computers. Documents that the council said that it could not find were easily found by the auditor when he decided to take a look for himself. He also then found significant new documents previously undisclosed by these innocents.
    People with the responsibility for investigating the innocent do not usually have to resort to dawn raids on offices or hiring inquiry agents to track down the innocent. Innocent people do not usually have to be sub-poena'd to attend interviews. But all that has been required of the district auditor in his search for the truth. People who are innocent are usually willing to avail themselves of the opportunity to answer publicly questions about what they have done. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) did that at the auditor's hearing and got off. Lady Porter did not do that, but now complains when she loses her case. Her problem is not that the auditor would not hear her. Her problem is that he did not believe a word that she said.
    Innocent people do not usually attack the competence and integrity of the person investigating their case. "Tell the truth and shame the devil" is the motto of the innocent, but it is not the motto of Westminster Tories. They have

    781
    peddled rumours to the press about the auditor, held press conferences attacking the auditor, complained of delays by the auditor. But as everyone knows—
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not.
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: This is an extremely important debate and I am grateful for the opportunity to ask my hon. Friend to contrast the response of the Labour party in 1985, when 47 Labour councillors in Liverpool were surcharged £106,000, with the response of the Conservative party and the disgraceful way in which it is prepared to sit on its hands when the district auditor records that £28 million has been lost to the public as a result of the conduct of its councillors.
    Mr. Dobson: I do not need to repeat the point that my hon. Friend so clearly made.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not.
    As everyone knows, the auditor has done a very thorough job. He has sifted through tens of thousands of pages of documents. He has carried out a grand total of 135 interviews involving 50 people. Lady Porter was interviewed 12 times, always accompanied by her lawyers and other advisers. On one occasion, there were so many of those advisers that they could not all get in the room. The auditor gave her documentation in advance of the interviews and offered her the right to make written representations. She cancelled appointments and even asked the auditor to fly to Israel to interview her there.
    Then there is the question of what the innocent do with their money.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dobson: No.
    Following the auditor's preliminary report, Lady Porter sold up her personal holdings in Tesco and moved away. Is that the action of someone who is certain of her innocence?
    At the time when they were harming the homeless for electoral advantage, the Tories were so ashamed that they kept secret what they were up to. Now they claim that they had legal advice that it was okay. That is just not true. In March 1987, at a Tory seminar that included the right hon. Member for Westminster, North, the then chair of the housing committee warned of the possibility of surcharge. In the same month, the Westminster city solicitor wrote to Lady Porter:
    "Anything which smacks of political machinations will be viewed with great suspicion by the courts … The possibility of surcharge exists."
    Lady Porter was specifically advised:
    "the advantages of sale have to be considered not from any ulterior motive, but from the standpoint of what is right in view of the Council's role as a housing authority".
    782
    Two months later, the council consulted a QC, who is certain that he advised that it would be unlawful to target sales on the eight marginal wards and that any disposals of property had to be on legitimate housing and planning grounds. The only response from the Westminster Tories was the smokescreen of extending the policy to cover other wards while still concentrating the sales in the marginal wards, to achieve the electoral targets that they had set. Far from acting on their legal advice, it is clear that Lady Porter and her colleagues acted contrary to it. So much for all the excuses put forward by the Westminster Tories and their friends.
    The Prime Minister's other excuse for not condemning the Westminster Tories is that neither he nor his Ministers condemn councils that are being investigated until the process is complete. Clearly, the Prime Minister has either just adopted that new, principled approach or his memory is so faulty that he is not fit to be Prime Minister. Up to now, he has been ever ready to leap to attack any council accused of wrongdoing—provided that it is a Labour council. To give one example, he described Monklands council as a disgrace while it was being investigated by a QC nominated by the Secretary of State for Scotland. On 15 December, that inquiry cleared Monklands council of breaking the law. No apology has been forthcoming from the Prime Minister, nor, for that matter, have we heard one from the hon. Member for Dover, who has just accused me of lying. Yet the report states:
    "David Shaw, MP (Dover), had no evidence of substance to offer, notwithstanding repeated references by him to the large amount of information about the council which he claimed to possess and notwithstanding his having made reference to the council's affairs in Parliament on various occasions from late 1992 onwards … When I pressed him as to whether there was any direct evidence to support what was described as his allegation of nepotism, he said that there was not but that he relied on circumstantial evidence. He explained that in his view, the council were guilty of impropriety in a number of other respects which justified the inference of impropriety in the making of appointments. As his evidence went on, I became increasingly unimpressed by it. I regarded his attitude as irresponsible."
    Neither the Prime Minister nor any other Cabinet Minister can put together one cogent reason for not condemning Westminster. Neither innocence nor principle nor precedent is on their side. The real reason why they will not condemn Westminster is that the Tory party, from top to bottom, from central office to 10 Downing street, from Whitehall to Westminster, has been in these scandals up to its neck. The Tories are still at it—giving Westminster council millions of pounds more grant than it is entitled to, helping it to cover up and evade responsibility and letting it off discharging its duty to the homeless.
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not.
    Some Tories have tried to justify the outrageous conduct of Westminster Tories by saying that Labour councils build homes for party political reasons. In particular, those of a historical bent have claimed that under Herbert Morrison, London county council built homes all over London that were filled by people who felt grateful and therefore voted Labour. Perhaps they did, but there is no equivalence between Herbert Morrison's LCC and other Labour councils on the one hand and the scoundrels in Westminster on the other.

    783
    Labour councils used the powers given them by Parliament to provide decent homes for the homeless and for others who had nowhere decent to live. They did it proudly and in public. There is no comparison between them and the Westminster Tories, who decided, shamefully and in secret, to use their powers unlawfully to deprive homeless families and families living in overcrowded, unhealthy and degrading conditions. They decided not to house them but to deprive them of somewhere decent to live. Instead, they left those families to rot in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and hostels. Worse still, they placed some in asbestos-ridden flats—all to help rig a council election in eight wards.
    Those terrible decisions were taken by rich and powerful Tories. The victims were homeless families, who are usually poor. Sometimes they include men, but most homeless families consist of a poor woman and the children of that poor woman. What a life for those children—often having to cook, eat, sleep, wash, live, play and try to grow up in one rotten, shabby, infested and overcrowded room. Those children should have been helped by those in authority, but in Westminster they were not. Instead, the Tories ordered council officials to be mean and nasty to the homeless children.
    Above the doorway of the Old Bailey, these words, taken from the Book of Psalms, are carved in stone:
    "Defend the children of the poor and punish the wrongdoers."
    The Tories have reversed those ancient laws, which should guide the conduct of mankind. The Tories now defend the wrongdoers who punished the children of the poor. Their party and Government have sunk so low that they are beyond redemption. The only thing that they can do now is go—and go before they do more harm to more homeless families in our country.
    4.25 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "notes the publication of the Public Interest Report made by Westminster City Council's appointed auditor, Westminster City Council Audit of Accounts 1987–88 to 1994–1995; approves the action of the Government in insisting on the correct legal process; endorses the independence of the auditor; commends the Government's refusal to prejudge or condemn individuals before the conclusion of the due process of law; respects the view that parliamentary privilege is a powerful weapon for the protection of individuals and should not be used to provide cover for party political attacks; and notes that Westminster City Council provides high quality services at a value for money price.".
    I will begin by addressing the remarks by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) concerning the auditor's inquiry. The auditor to Westminster city council issued his note of provisional findings and views on objections made under section 17(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 on 13 January 1994. They were issued only to the parties to the objections and to the council. The auditor also made a short public statement summarising the process and his findings, which were that 10 former council members and officers should be surcharged—one of whom, Dr. Michael Dutt, has since died—and that seven former council members and officers, including Dr. Dutt, should be disqualified from office.
    The auditor invited those to whom his provisional findings were adverse to show cause why he should not take action against them. The respondents requested an
    784
    oral hearing, which was set for October 1994, to allow the parties to instruct counsel and to prepare their submissions. The full hearing lasted 34 days and was completed on 7 February 1995.
    The auditor published his final decision and made a public interest report on 9 May 1996. He has issued a certificate in the sum of £31,677,064 to each of Mr. Graham England, Mr. Peter Hartley, Mr. Paul Hayler, Mr. Bill Phillips, Dame Shirley Porter and Councillor David Weeks, under section 20 of the 1982 Act. They are jointly and severally liable for that amount.
    The auditor decided not to uphold the objections in respect of Councillor Judith Warner, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) and Mr. Robert Lewis.
    Those individuals surcharged have 28 days from the date that they receive the auditor's statement of reasons to appeal against his decision to the High Court. I understand that a notice of appeal was lodged yesterday evening.
    In my reply to a private notice question from my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) on Thursday 9 May, I made it clear that I was not going to prejudge the outcome of the appeals process that will follow. That remains my position. It would not be right, proper or decent to condemn people until the courts have had their say.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gummer: I will in a moment, but not now.
    I remind the House that Her Majesty's Opposition repeatedly pressed the Government to condemn the 10 former council members and officers to whom the auditor's provisional findings were adverse. If we had followed their advice, the House would have passed judgment on three people in respect of whom objections were not subsequently upheld.
    It is not sufficient for Labour Members to defend themselves by suggesting that the auditor was not complimentary about these individuals. Labour Members have stigmatised these individuals as guilty of charges of a most serious kind—charges that the auditor's final report does not uphold. Labour Members, in their rush to judgment, have offended one of our most elementary rules, and one that lies at the heart of the English legal system. They were so concerned to press party political advantage that they did not mind whom they condemned or whether those they attacked had had a chance to put their side of the case.
    Mr. Prentice: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Gummer: I shall give way in a moment—other hon. Members have been able to put their cases clearly, and I wish to do the same.
    In particular, the Labour party has condemned an elected Member of the House. It has condemned him unheard for allegations from which the auditor has since resiled. No one can consider that to be treatment in the best traditions of the House—indeed, it is the sort of behaviour that Labour Members would be the first to condemn in others.

    785
    Let me make it absolutely clear to hon. Members that, if the auditor's findings are upheld by the courts, I will not hesitate to condemn those responsible. If that condemnation were to come, it would be the more weighty and the more serious because it would be arrived at after the due process of law. Some hon. Members seem to be having difficulty understanding the legal position. Therefore, I shall refer to section 20 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982—a Tory Act.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Gummer: I shall give way in a moment.
    The Act provides that, if it appears to the auditor that a loss has been incurred or a deficiency has been caused by the wilful misconduct of any person, he shall certify that the amount of the loss or deficiency is due from that person, and he may recover the amount of loss or deficiency that he has identified.
    The same section provides that any person who is aggrieved by an auditor's decision under the section may appeal against the decision to the court. In the case of a decision to certify that an amount is due from any person, the court may confirm, vary or quash the decision, and give any certificate that the auditor could have given. Similarly, in the case of a decision not to certify that an amount is due from any person, the court may confirm or quash it and give any certificate that the auditor could have given.
    It is perfectly clear that anything I say about the auditor's report could be prejudicial to appeals under section 20, and it is no good hon. Members pretending otherwise, as it happens to be true. The fact is that any prejudgment I make is a prejudgment of a case that we knew to be likely, and now know to be certain.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), who was not present on the last occasion, will not want to miss what I have to say before I give way.
    That means any appeals. It does not refer only to appeals that have already been announced by those against whom the auditor has found, but also to any possible appeals by the original objectors against the auditor's failure to confirm some of his interim findings. Labour Members should recognise this point, and stop trying to make party political points at this stage in the process.
    Any statement about this case could be prejudicial not only to the case of Dame Shirley Porter and those who have been criticised in the report and against whom the objections have been upheld, but also to any case that might be taken against the auditor for not including those whom he had previously criticised. If I were to comment on what the auditor has said, I would prejudice the case against either side in this matter. That is why the only comment that I have made—
    Mr. Grocott rose—
    Mr. John Gunnell rose—
    Mrs. Helen Jacksonrose—
    Mr. Gummer: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman—he need not worry.
    786
    I have commented on this issue only by carefully pointing out one thing. Previously, the House was invited to criticise people because they were criticised by the auditor in his preliminary report. If the House had done so, it would have behaved in a way that subsequently, I think the Labour party would agree, would have been a mistake. That is the only thing I have said, and I believe, because I have taken legal advice, that it is not prejudicial. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Gunnell: Is the Secretary of State trying to tell us that we cannot repeat the comments that Mr. Magill, the auditor, makes about the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) because we might then find that the original objectors are taking the auditor to court on account of the fact that he has not included the hon. Gentleman among those whom he is surcharging and taking action against?
    Is that what the Secretary of State is trying to tell us? Is that why he says that, although the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West is unlikely to appeal against not being included in these charges, we cannot use those quotes in which the auditor states the things that are known by that hon. Gentleman, simply because we may put the auditor, Mr. Magill, in a difficult position by so doing?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Before the Secretary of State answers that question, I point out that interventions must be brief and to the point, and not mini-speeches.
    Mr. Gummer: I think that what I said was clear: that if I, as Secretary of State, make a comment on the report, it may—indeed might well—be held to be prejudicial to the interests not only of one side, but of any other side that might want to bring a case to court. That is all I am saying. The hon. Gentleman must judge with his conscience what he should say. I am merely saying that the legal position is clear regarding comments made by me, as Secretary of State, in a matter of this kind.
    Mr. Grocott rose—
    Mrs. Helen Jackson rose—
    Mr. Gordon Prentice rose—
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) rose earlier.
    Mr. Prentice: Is it not an uncontrovertible, recorded fact that section 20 of the 1982 Act allows the district auditor to make a finding of guilt, and that individuals are appealing against that finding of guilt? Will the Minister concede that the six named individuals are guilty?
    Mr. Gummer: What the Minister will repeat is that, if I make a comment about this statement, that will be prejudicial in any appeal that may be made on either side. Nothing would please me better than to be able to make a series of statements about this matter, but, when one is attempting to be responsible about such matters, one must take the best advice there is. If I were seeking the best advice, the hon. Gentleman would not be among my first choices.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Gummer: So that Opposition Members may have something more to say, I will give them a bit more on this subject, because it is important.
    First, there is the risk of prejudicing a court case that might take place from any angle, in any circumstances. Secondly, there is the issue of the use of the privileges of the House of Commons. When I answered the private notice question by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South, I made the point that we all have a serious problem when considering the nature of the privilege of Parliament.
    We are able to say in the House things that cannot put us into court. We have that privilege to protect those who need the protection of the House, so that we can stand up and say things that will lead to proper and due process of law. We know that, in this circumstance, there is to be proper and due process of law. I believe that the use of the privileges of the House of Commons in those circumstances—
    Mr. Mike Hall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the Secretary of State saying that he cannot confirm that the district auditor has found the six councillors guilty of misconduct?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. The Secretary of State is responsible for his own speech.
    Mr. Gummer: The privilege of Parliament, under which we all speak, demands a degree of reticence from us that is of considerable importance if the House is to live up to its best traditions.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Gummer: I shall be happy to give way, but I want to finish my thought. I am sure that the House is following me with great care. The reason—[HON. MEMBERS: "Waffling."] If hon. Members think that I am waffling when talking about privilege, they have lost their usual reputation for caring about privilege.
    We are able to use privilege as a defence on behalf of those who would otherwise not be able to prosecute their case or to maintain their innocence. In this instance, there is to be a court hearing, as a result of which we shall know the innocence or guilt of the persons concerned. Those who say that they know already about innocence or guilt are prejudging the decision of the court when the appeal takes place.
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a genuine point of order.
    Mr. Wareing: There are some who might feel that the Secretary of State is implying that we cannot reasonably comment on the district auditor's report because the matter is sub judice. If it were sub judice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, surely you would not have allowed the debate to have taken place.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may be helpful if I advise the House that, after careful consideration, Madam Speaker is
    788
    satisfied that the sub judice rule of the House, which is drawn much narrower than the terms of the rule commonly used, does not apply in this instance. The rule makes it clear that it comes into effect when a matter first comes before a civil court. That is
    "from the time that the case has been set down for trial or otherwise brought before the court."
    I understand that, in this instance, an appeal has been lodged, but the issue has not yet been set down for trial. In these circumstances, the House rule does not apply at this stage.
    Mr. Gummer: So the situation is clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The issue is not sub judice at this moment, but it will become sub judice the moment that the case is set down for hearing.
    The Secretary of State's position is simple. He is asked by all precedents not to say anything in the meantime that is prejudicial to the case when it comes before the court. I do not believe that it is in the best traditions of the House to depart from precedents. It does not seem sensible either for a Secretary of State to prejudice a case during a short period when he would not be allowed, by the rules of the House, to prejudice it once a date is set down for hearing. To do so would put me in an intolerable moral position, and not one in which I am prepared to be put.
    Mr. Grocott: The Secretary of State says strongly that it would be wrong to make any comments on anything until a final conclusion is reached. He says also that we are in grave danger of infringing or abusing the historic traditions of the House. Am Ito take it that the right hon. Gentleman condemns unreservedly the Prime Minister's decision to condemn Monklands councillors, using the privilege of the House in advance of the completion of an inquiry?
    Mr. Gummer: The quotation did not give much strength to that argument. I say clearly to the hon. Gentleman that, if the Secretary of State for the Environment were to pass comment on the Westminster case, I am advised that, without question, it would be prejudicial to any case that came before the courts. I would therefore be acting contrary to my duty to the House, and as a Minister, if I were to comment. I have no intention of doing so.
    There is a third element that we must take seriously before we deal with the rest of the matters that are before us.
    Mr. David Nicholson: I concur entirely with what my right hon. Friend has been saying so far. However, are there not two conclusions to be drawn from the Opposition's desire to raise these matters at this stage? First, there is probably a case to examine the prejudices in the local government finance system that supports Westminster but has supported also Lambeth, Southwark and other inner London boroughs. More particularly, should not the House be extraordinarily reluctant to return to local government the powers and resources to build council houses wherever it wishes? Those powers were sometimes part of a gerrymandering political and electoral system.
    Mr. Gummer: It would not be sensible or proper for me to comment on those matters. It is true, however, that the issue before us is not confined to whether we prejudice

    789
    a case for either side. If it comes before the courts—and certainly it will come before them as a result of the actions of one side—it is not only a matter of the proper use of privilege: there is a third consideration. It is not unreasonable to judge people by the way in which they treat others in circumstances where those others have still to take a case to court. It would be much more sensible, and would give much more weight to judgment, if we were to wait until judgment had been made.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Gummer: I shall bring my remarks to an end on this matter, because I want the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to listen to them. I believe that the weight of the hon. Gentleman's condemnation would be much greater if he waited until that condemnation were, if it were, upheld by a court of law. No court of law has yet heard the case. It would be better for us all—
    Ms Hilary Armstrong (North-West Durham): Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Gummer: Of course.
    Ms Armstrong: I wonder whether the Secretary of State will take himself back to the Widdicombe report. The report contained a recommendation that the Government introduce a system of appeals into the process of audit. I shall read a couple of lines from paragraph 6.9 of the Government's response to the report. The Government are commenting on the recommendation to include the power of appeal within procedures. The passage is:
    "Neither the Audit Commission nor the auditors would welcome this change of role. Furthermore, the Government does not consider the Commission, made up as it is of a balance of local authority members and other interests, to be an appropriate body to initiate legal action against particular councils' decisions … The auditor must assemble the evidence, and is best placed to decide whether a case exists to invoke statutory sanctions. Transferring the responsibilities from the auditor would reduce his standing and authority, thereby lessening rather than enhancing his effectiveness. The Government have therefore decided that responsibility for taking action under sections 19 and 20"—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is making a very long intervention.
    Mr. Gummer: The Government made that decision, and presented a clause to the House that included the right of those who were so announced to go to court on appeal. That is precisely what we are talking about. That which the hon. Lady says makes no difference.
    Ms Margaret Hodge rose—
    Mr. Gummer: I shall not give way, because I want to get on. I have some interesting things to say about Islington. I have no doubt that the hon. Lady will be interested in them.
    790
    It seems that we would all be much better employed ensuring that the due process of law can be carried through, that it is not prejudiced and that we do not use the privilege of this place to prejudge a court case for party political reasons.
    Ms Hodge: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Gummer: No. I shall give way to the hon. Lady later in my speech, when she will have more reason to intervene.
    Mr. Tracey: In general terms, can my right hon. Friend inform the House whether a district auditor is bound by legal precedent, and whether the precedent of any other decisions by district auditors should in any way affect the one involved in the current hearing?
    Mr. Gummer: I am not a lawyer, so I take advice on such matters. As I understand it, the auditor acts as an auditor and not as a lawyer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Opposition have given themselves away. They find it odd for me to say that the auditor acts as auditor, but throughout the discussion of these matters, they have been talking as if the auditor were acting as a judge or a legal figure. I am suggesting that he acts as auditor, and that it is for the judge before whom the case will be heard to act as a judge.
    Mr. Clive Betts: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Gummer: I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras gave way hardly at all. It would be more sensible to follow the case, as I have suggested.
    The position is very clear. It would be wrong for any of us to prejudge the case, not because we are partial to one side or the other, but precisely because both sides could be prejudiced by anything that we might say.
    Mr. Betts: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Gummer: No.
    Having left the auditor's report on one side, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras repeated his concept that, somehow or other, the standard spending assessment system was rigged, and had distributed central Government grant in favour of Westminster city council. He did so on the basis that, having said it so often, he pretends that everybody knows it. If one continues saying something as often as one can without examining the facts, it is easy to say that everyone knows it.
    It would be reasonable and dispassionate, however, if we went through the allegations carefully and saw whether they carried any weight. The hon. Gentleman tends to portray Westminster as a leafy suburb devoid of any problems—
    Mr. Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has repeated that it would be quite

    791
    inappropriate and wrong for him, in his high office, to make any comment that might be prejudicial, yet the amendment to our motion, which is in his name, specifically congratulates Westminster city council on the services it provides. The amendment states:
    "Westminster City Council provides high quality services at a value for money price."
    How can the Secretary of State claim that he is not making judgments, when his amendment does just that?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Secretary of State is responsible for his own speech, but I have already made a ruling—which I hope the House heard clearly—in respect of the scope of the debate. I have already explained to the House that at this stage debate is not prejudicial to any court hearing.
    Mr. Gummer: It is with very great care that the amendment that stands in my name and the names of my right hon. Friends refers to the provision of services by Westminster city council in 1996, or at this moment. That is not prejudicial to anything, because the case before the courts refers to events which, if they occurred, were some time ago, and were unconnected with the amendment before the House. The hon. Gentleman knew that, and that is why it is a pity that he raised the matter again.
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred to Westminster as if it were a leafy suburb devoid of any of the problems that characterise other inner-London boroughs. The hon. Gentleman is living in an entirely different world. I imagine that he is trying to catch up with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), and clearly spends far too much time with his new found middle-class status.
    The real Westminster is very different from the well-to-do picture that the hon. Gentleman paints. In his speeches in the House over many months, he has never mentioned north Paddington, Queen's park or Church street; he discusses only Belgravia and Mayfair. Evidently, new Labour talks about only certain parts of Westminster.
    Last week, I invited the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to take a trip with me. I suggested that we might visit all the long-sea outfalls of the United Kingdom to see the effect of water privatisation. The hon. Gentleman did not take me up on that, so I shall propose a shorter trip—one from Westminster to Pimlico. If he would accompany me, he would pass the Peabody Trust's Horseferry road and Old Pye street estates, the Grosvenor and Regency estates, the Millbank estate and the Lillington gardens estate. He would see the estates of some of the most difficult parts of London.
    The Government base our assessment not on the hon. Member's general comments, but on the facts. More than 100 languages are spoken in Westminster's schools, and 5 per cent. of Westminster's pupils are refugees. Of course, I am not referring to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who moved to Westminster in order to take advantage of its fine services.
    Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    792
    Has the Secretary of State notified my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn about his intention to launch that disgraceful attack?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair knows nothing about that. How the Chair can rule on that, I just do not know.
    Mr. Gummer: I am happy to say to the hon. Member for Blackburn that, if he does not live in Westminster, but sends his children to school there, I am sorry that he does not send his children to school in the borough in which he lives.
    In Westminster, 17 per cent. of pupils come from homeless families. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) should listen to the facts, as they might help him to compare his own borough with Westminster.
    In Westminster, 45 per cent. of pupils have English as a second language, compared with a national average of below 10 per cent. So when the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras says how ridiculous it is that Westminster gets sufficient resources to deal with those problems, he fails to recognise that 45 per cent. of pupils there have to be taught English. The turnover the pupils at a school such as St. James and St. Michael is 109 per cent. The turnover at Hallfield school is 59 per cent. So let us recognise the difficulties with which Westminster—along with many other London boroughs—has to deal.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Gummer: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I look forward to it.
    Westminster has a higher density of population than Hackney, Islington, Lambeth or Southwark; a higher proportion of people likely to be from ethnic minorities than Hackney, Islington, Lambeth or Southwark; a higher proportion of people living in overcrowded accommodation than Islington, Lambeth or Southwark; a higher proportion of elderly people over 85; and a higher proportion of elderly people living alone than Hackney, Islington, Lambeth or Southwark.
    Therefore, whatever else can be said about it, Westminster—like other London boroughs—clearly requires particular help with its heavy responsibilities and special difficulties. The cheap jibes of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras suggest that he knows only what he can see of Westminster from the House of Commons, and that does great damage to his reputation as a London Member.
    Mr. Banks: I remind the Secretary of State that Westminster also has a higher proportion of bent councillors that Lambeth, Islington or Southwark. I note that he did not mention Newham. Were Newham confronting the problems that he has just read out, these would seem like halcyon days.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman also explain why Westminster found it necessary to move large numbers of its homeless people into the London borough of Newham while keeping its own properties empty, waiting to sell them to potential Tory voters?
    Mr. Gummer: The reason why I made no comparisons with Newham was that I was making comparisons with

    793
    inner-London boroughs that were adjacent or opposite to Westminster in order to be as fair as possible, and I shall continue to do so.
    Mr. John Fraser: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Gummer: No. I will give way later to the hon. Gentleman, whom I know well and know to be very interested in London's problems, but I want to continue making what I consider an important point in the context of my argument with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.
    The hon. Gentleman has said that, for the purposes of grant distribution, the Government treat Westminster as the fourth most deprived place in Britain. That is not true. It is true that Westminster comes fourth on the social index, which is part of the SSA methodology, but it has a much lower score on the other indicator of deprivation, the economic index, on which it comes 64th.
    The five indicators that make up the social index are: shared or non-permanent accommodation; overcrowded accommodation; households in rented purpose-built flats; residents born outside the European Community, the old Commonwealth and the United States of America; and homelessness acceptances. Those are the criteria against which every council is measured, in exactly the same way, and it is on those criteria that Westminster is seen to have the problems it has. If the hon. Gentleman wishes them to be changed, I hope that at some future time—obviously, he will want to think about it—he will tell us which of them ought not to be included.
    The hon. Gentleman has advanced another argument. He has argued that Westminster ought to receive less money because it is currently benefiting from some special treatment by the Government. I have examined the position very carefully; I do not think that it is possible to act in that way, and, if I thought it possible, I would not think it right.
    If the hon. Gentleman had right on his side, he would have to prove the following. First, he would need to show that the system applied to Westminster is different from that applied to other local authorities. Secondly, he would need to explain why, if the current system is rigged in its favour, Westminster did better under the last Labour Government than it does under the present Government. If we have rigged the system, it is surprising that we have rigged it so that Westminster does less well than it did when the hon. Member for Blackburn was advising the last Labour Government.
    I note that the Labour party tries to cover that up. I shall repeat it, so that Hansard can record it again. If Westminster is being supported by some unsuitable activity, why does it do less well under the current system than it did under the system used by that earlier Government?
    Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman would need to explain why his doughty champions, the Labour leaders of the local authority associations, are not demanding a radical overhaul of the system. Fourthly, he would need to quote significant expert opinion supporting his case. Finally, he would need to promise major changes to the SSA methodology in the event of a Labour Government. If the
    794
    position is as the hon. Gentleman states, he ought to say publicly that, were there ever a Labour Government, they would change it, and he ought to say how they would change it.
    Mr. Michael Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Gummer: I want to make some more comparisons; then I will give way.
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has spent two years working on his argument—the same argument as I have heard throughout the two years during which we have been discussing the matter. Let us see how he is doing. Has he shown that the system applied to Westminster is different from those applied to other local authorities? No, he has not. He cannot, because the same formula is applied to every local authority in the country. The system is completely open.
    Has the hon. Gentleman explained why, if the current system is rigged in its favour, Westminster did better under the last Labour Government than it does under the present Government? No, he has not. [Interruption.] I think that the hon. Gentleman needs to listen to this. He knows that his own local authority, Camden, is treated more generously in comparison with Westminster under the present Government than it was under the last Labour Government.
    In other words, under the system employed by that Government, the hon. Gentleman's authority did less well than it does now, while Westminster did better. There was a different system, which was better for Westminster and less good for Camden.
    Ms Armstrong: Why was that information not included in a parliamentary answer to a question asked earlier this year? A Minister was asked
    "what was the total sum allocated to each English local authority from central Government resources in each year since 1974."— [Official Report, 15 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 659.]
    He replied that the requested information was not available before 1990–91.
    Mr. Gummer: The reason is that the question was an entirely different one. It asked about totalities; I have been using comparators. I have said clearly that I am comparing two local authorities. The hon. Lady clearly has it wrong.
    The amount that went to Westminster under the Labour party's system was proportionately more than the amount that went to Camden, while the amount that went to Camden was proportionately less than the amount that went to Westminster. If that is so, it cannot be true that the Government are fiddling the figures. It seems to me that the only fiddling of figures was done by the Labour party, which did it so badly that, when it left office, the system it had produced would not stand up.
    The reason is simple. Labour was able to change the arrangements for one authority as against another, while our system makes it illegal and impossible to change the arrangements for one authority: we can only change them for a whole class of authorities. That is why the comparison must be made by reference to a class of authorities rather than a single authority.

    795
    The whole system would have to be rigged—which could not be done without all the Labour councils pointing out that it had been done. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is the only person who believes that it was done.
    Mr. Stephen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, far from being imposed arbitrarily by central Government, the SSA methodology is worked out in careful consultation with the local authority associations, and that, if any change were made, there would be howls of protest from Labour authorities which would lose? Will he also confirm that the people of Scotland and Wales, which are represented mostly by Opposition Members, receive far more subsidy from central Government than anyone living in England?
    Mr. Gummer: Such issues are discussed regularly with representatives of all the local authorities, all of which are dominated by Labour, all of which are involved in any change in SSAs, and all of which disagree with one another on every individual case because they want what will help them in particular. I understand that, but we discussed these matters in great detail, which is why so many changes have been made.
    Mr. Peter Hardy rose—
    Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
    Mr. Gummer: I want to make an important point. We introduced other measures of deprivation into the index, including the problems of unemployment, specifically because the Labour-controlled local authority organisations wanted us to.
    Mr. John McWilliam: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gummer: No.
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has failed to produce any evidence that hordes of Labour leaders are demanding changes of the sort he wants. That is probably why he cannot make expert opinion support his case. I know that he would not expect experts to agree with him, because he has said that he does not always agree with them. The hon. Gentleman has said that he never felt compelled to agree with experts. But what do the experts say? They say that this is the most sophisticated system in Europe to give fair and equal treatment to the whole country.
    If the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras believes what he says, would he not have got up two years ago, a month ago, or even last Thursday, and said, "We propose a radical change in the share-out system." He did not do that; he left it to the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) to say what she thought about it.
    The hon. Lady told the Local Government Chronicle that she would not like to promise major changes at this stage. I am glad about that. [Interruption.] I think that, in the same article, she did not promise any radical change, but presumably she agrees with her hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, who said that this is a major scandal of the Government rigging the arrangements.
    796
    If the Opposition believe that, they would promise change, but they do not, because they know that the allegation is untrue. It is only in the House that they can get any vestige of support for their allegation, because they do not have support from the experts or from their friends in local authorities. They have no support from the facts, and they do not believe it themselves.
    A few weeks ago, the Audit Commission published a wealth of information comparing the performance of every council in the country. I considered that it was worth looking at Westminster council in 1996, because I thought that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras would attack that council in his speech. He attacked not just the council that was reported on by the auditor, but Westminster council in general. Indicator after indicator shows that Westminster city council provides a service far superior to that of its closest Labour neighbours—Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, Islington, and Southwark.
    It is worth putting the record straight. I hope that hon. Members will agree that one of a local authority's most important jobs is the collection of council tax. Poor collection means less to spend on services and higher tax bills. According to the Audit Commission, Westminster collected 88.8 per cent. of its council tax in 1994–95.
    Mr. Betts: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Gummer: No. I want to finish my speech, and there is not much time in which to do it.
    That compares with a collection rate of 86 per cent. in Hammersmith and Fulham, and in Camden, while Islington managed only 82 per cent., and Southwark managed only 79.9 per cent. Despite having the best collection rate, Westminster spent less per dwelling than Camden, Islington, and Hammersmith and Fulham on collecting the money. It takes longer to get a decision on a planning application for those who live under Labour.
    Mr. Betts rose
    Mr. Gummer: No, I will not give way. I want the hon. Gentleman to listen to these figures, because he might learn from Westminster.
    Westminster decided on 74 per cent. of household planning applications within eight weeks. Southwark managed 65 per cent., Hammersmith and Fulham 63 per cent. and Camden only 53 per cent. Islington said that it managed 48 per cent., but the Audit Commission has expressed doubts about that council's figures. Even if Islington's figures are correct, it is still the slowest council in London, and the second slowest nationally, in deciding on household planning applications.
    I thought that it was worth while looking to see how Islington performed on the council tax. I wondered whether it would be a good idea to consider what would happen to tax throughout the country if every council got the same Government grant per head as Islington. I took the views of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras on Westminster and transferred them next door to Islington.
    Mr. Terry Lewis: Oh, very clever of you.
    Mr. Gummer: It was not bad. It took some time, but we have done it. I thought it was also worth while to appreciate that Islington—
    Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can find no reference in the motion or in the amendment to Islington. I understand that it is in order to make passing references to matters that are not in the Order Paper, but the Minister is not doing that: he is rehearsing a whole volume, and I think that you should ask him to sit down.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the Secretary of State that the amendment states:
    "Westminster City Council provides high quality services at a value for money price."
    It would be advisable and to the benefit of the House if the Minister would return to that.
    Mr. Gummer: Of course I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think you will agree that to prove whether there is value for money, it is not unreasonable to compare how ratepayers' money is spent in neighbouring authorities. It is a sort of comparison shopping, as to which provides the better value for money. Value for money is a precise comparator, and it is the one I wish to use. Islington is not dissimilar to Westminster, but it gets more Government grant. If authorities received the same rate support grant per head as Islington, most of them would be able to give a rebate.
    Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I tried the Minister's tactics about 10 years ago, and Mr. Speaker rightly ruled me out of order. One can make only passing references to certain issues, but the Secretary of State is dealing with Islington, and comparing it—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair will decide what is in order.
    Mr. Gummer: Westminster council has a lower rate support grant per head than Islington, and is doing better than that council. The Opposition do not want me to speak about Islington, for a good reason. It is a dreadful council, and performs appallingly.
    If I were to go through the comparisons, Labour would be extremely embarrassed, but the one thing that I shall not do is to draw attention to, refer to or comment upon the internal report on what has been happening in Islington's social services department and elsewhere. That would be entirely wrong, and I would not do it. Therefore, one ought to rely on the figures. That is what I am doing, and it is quite clear that Westminster does much better than Islington, although it has special difficulties.
    In Westminster, 99 per cent. of vital social services equipment costing less than £1,000 is provided within three weeks of assessment. Camden manages 75 per cent., and Southwark only 60 per cent. Hammersmith and Fulham says that it managed 71 per cent., while Islington says that it managed 60 per cent., but again the Audit Commission has its doubts about the figures provided by those last two councils.
    798
    Children with special educational needs wait longer to be statemented elsewhere in London. In Westminster, 70 per cent. of special educational needs statements—[Interruption.] I know that Labour Members do not like Westminster comparisons, but it is time that they listened to them, because they do not understand.
    In Westminster, 70 per cent. of special education needs statements were prepared within six months. Camden managed 70 per cent. as well. Islington managed 50 per cent., Southwark 32 per cent., and Hammersmith and Fulham only 29 per cent. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras built himself up to a fury at the end of his speech, but I remind him that, without any allegations, statements or standpoints, in Westminster, 70 per cent. of children most in need were statemented within six months, and that, in Hammersmith and Fulham, 29 per cent of such children were statemented.
    All the indicators I have referred to and many more, if I had time to cover them, show how well Westminster does compared with authorities run by the Labour party. People do not pay more for those high-quality services. They have the lowest council tax bills—£295 at band D. That is £430 less than Hammersmith and Fulham, £436 less than Southwark, £484 less than Camden, and a staggering £558 less than Islington, a council that has a higher RSG than Westminster. The issue is therefore clear: people get a better service at a lower cost.
    In conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hooray."] Labour Members want me to stop because it is hurtful and embarrassing to them. The more the figures come out, the more the comparisons are shown and the more we see what it is like under Labour, the more Labour Members are embarrassed and the more the public recognise that that embarrassment is caused by what is happening now. That shows why Labour Members have to pretend that there is a plot to support Westminster. Otherwise, they could not explain away how bad Labour local government is in London.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gummer: I will not give way to the hon. Lady.
    In London, Labour councils are charging more and delivering less—we see that on the facts of the case. The reason is that Conservative councils run their business more efficiently, and therefore are more able to help people most in need.
    Before anyone starts talking about homelessness, I point out to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that the rough sleepers initiative, which I have promoted, pressed and protected, is one of this country's most successful operations, and that it has dramatically reduced the number of people who sleep rough, it has found homes for a large number of them, and it is widely supported by organisations and voluntary movements which are not Government supporters, but which believe that our approach to homelessness has been right, generous, determined and continued.
    If the Labour party spent its time trying to explain to the country why, today, Labour councils cost people more and deliver less, it would be in a better position to condemn, if and when a court has made its decision. I will not condemn in advance, but if the court were to

    799
    find that any of the people who have been named are guilty of what they have been named for, I would be the first to condemn. My condemnation will be weighty because it has waited for the evidence of a court of law.
    5.24 pm
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Some of us must feel speechless after that exhibition of sanctimonious gobbledegook from the Secretary of State for the Environment. He tells us that he does not want to prejudice the appeal to the court, yet he spent the last part of his speech doing precisely that by defending Westminster city council's record and the crooks who have been found guilty by the district auditor. Why are they appealing?
    Mr. James Couchman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to the people in Westminster as crooks?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not out of order, but I remind hon. Members that they should be moderate in their expressions.
    Mr. Couchman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has been at great pains to tell us throughout his lengthy speech, these people have recourse to the courts of law, they have not been found guilty in the courts of law and, therefore, they should not be called crooks. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. So far, the debate has been in order or the occupant of the Chair would have ruled that it was not.
    Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As mention has been made of whether it is parliamentary to use the word "crooks", may I remind you that, in my time as a Member of Parliament, Tory Ministers and Tory Back Benchers have several times accused people in Labour local government, some involved in surcharge, some not, of being crooks and that they were never once pulled up by the occupant of the Chair. The Secretary of State for the Environment has never apologised for it.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will not have been pulled up because they were not out of order. I have ruled in a similar way.
    Mr. Wareing: It is strange to hear such interventions from a Tory Member. I wonder what Lady Porter and the crooks in Westminster are appealing against if it is not the fact that they have been found guilty. I have never heard of anyone appealing against being found not guilty.
    I was intrigued by the comments of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) because, following the statement of the Secretary of State for the Environment last Thursday, he said that
    "it is a matter for grave concern for one person to act as investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and hangman, and to have the power to exact an unlimited fine in penalty".—[Official Report, 9 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 370.]
    800
    Where was the hon. Gentleman on 14 February 1986 when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) introduced the Surcharge and Disqualification of Councillors (Abolition) Bill, which sought to restrict district auditors' powers? My hon. Friend was seeking to ensure that councillors should be removed not by an unelected district auditor, but only by electors—in that case, the electors of Liverpool. However, when Liverpool, Lambeth and, going further back, Clay Cross were being criticised, Conservative Members were not reticent in their criticisms. They did not wait to hear whether Liverpool, Lambeth or Clay Cross were going to appeal to a court of law. They were quick to step in and to attack people, who, far from committing the sins of Lady Porter and the crooks in Westminster, were seeking to help people. Those councils were not pushing poor vulnerable people into asbestos-ridden flats. They were not selling cemeteries for 15p a time. We can argue about whether they were misguided in their financial methods, but they were trying to provide decent homes. They provided more homes between 1983 and 1987 than probably any other local authority in Britain.
    Mr. Skinner: Is there a distinction to be drawn between what happened under that squalid bunch in Westminster and what happened in Liverpool, Clay Cross and Lambeth? In those three instances, the Labour councillors did what they did openly—there was no secrecy. They wanted the world to know what they were doing. They were involved in a political act because they believed that more money should go to local government. In effect, they were trying to stem the Tory tide of money being taken away from democratically elected councillors and being given to quangos. It was an overt act.
    Mr. Wareing: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. They built good solid homes, bungalows for elderly people, sports centres for the youth and the first municipal park to be built in an urban area for decades.
    Of course, the Labour party did not excuse misdemeanours at the time and, although I did not agree with everything he said in his speech to the Labour party conference at Bournemouth, we should contrast the courage of Neil Kinnock with the mealy-mouthed words of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister.
    How low the Tory party has sunk. There are one or two honourable exceptions. After the publication of the provisional auditor's report, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said that he would condemn the council. He saw that this was the biggest outrage facing a Conservative Government over the acts of Tory local authorities. There were even a few honourable exceptions within Westminster city council. Councillors such as Patricia Kirwin, Tony Prendergast and Angela Killick were willing to give evidence. They did not have parliamentary privilege, but they condemned what was being done and gave some of the most important evidence to the auditor. Who defends them from the Tories?
    There was a time, perhaps during the days of Harold Macmillan, when Tory Ministers would not have tabled an amendment such as that before us today defending a council so rotten in its attitude to decent yet poor people. My friends in Liverpool who suffered the surcharge of £106,000 apiece were not millionaires like Lady Porter. In the main, they were poor, honourable and decent

    801
    people who wanted to do good for those whom they were elected to represent. They were not getting anything through the till. They were certainly not benefiting from any fiddles from a Tory Government. In fact, they took the actions they did precisely because they were being starved of funds by the Tory Government.
    Mr. McWilliam: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that no judge who has to deal with the case would, under any circumstances, be able to set aside the evidence that Westminster council under Lady Porter was deliberately leaving council houses empty, putting council tenants into unfit properties and shifting council tenants into other boroughs for party political purposes? Those are things no judge could challenge because the auditor has produced the evidence of that under the duty laid upon him. Does my hon. Friend think that the correct response from the Government should be a condemnation of corruption in local authorities, regardless of political complexion?
    Mr. Wareing: If they were an honourable Government, that is what they would be doing. They would be saying that they want to clean up local government without any view to party political advantage.
    I suspect that there has been some collusion between the Secretary of State and the Government and Westminster city council because some of the actions of the council required the sanction of central Government. Certainly, the Government have shown sympathy today for the actions of that recalcitrant local authority.
    There is a big difference between the actions of Westminster city council and those of Labour local authorities such as Liverpool which have fallen foul of the auditor. It is the difference between somebody pulled up for speeding and a serial killer. That is the difference between Lady Porter and the local authorities in Liverpool, Lambeth and Clay Cross.
    Mr. David Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat the comment about the serial killer for the media?
    Mr. Wareing: Perhaps I should repeat it now because the hon. Gentleman will not be here after the next election, that is for sure.
    In the flagship authority of Westminster, the so-called designated sales of property involved no less than 40 per cent. of the total stock—9,360 properties were to be sold off to what Lady Porter believed to be potential Tory voters.
    Some Tory Members have said in interventions that whenever council housing was built, that was some form of gerrymandering too. In Liverpool, in the days when the Tory party was at least honourable, even though one might have disagreed with its politics, it built council estates throughout the city. Was that gerrymandering? I was brought up in one such estate. In fact, that policy was good for beer sales because the chairman of the Tory party in Liverpool in those days was also the chairman of Bents brewery. If one wanted to know where a council estate was to be built, one had only to look over the fields and suburbs of the city to see where a public house appeared and one would know that a council estate would soon follow. That is a bit different from the gerrymandering we have seen.
    802
    How can the Tories defend this? We had a lengthy speech from the Secretary of State in which he hid behind the idea of sub judice. We were told by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this case is not sub judice. These people have been found guilty of a heinous crime against those whom they were elected to represent. When people come to see us in our surgeries, we do not say, "Did you vote for me? Did you vote Labour or Conservative?" When we are elected, we are elected to represent all the people in our constituency. When Tory councillors were elected in the marginal wards in London, they were elected to represent all the people in those wards. They were the councillors to whom people could go, but what was the reward for going? Their reward was to be put into asbestos-ridden flats. Their reward was to have their needs ignored. Their reward was councillors who were guilty of being crooked and have been found to be so by the auditor.
    Mr. David Shaw: Serial killers!
    Mr. Wareing: I said that there was a difference between what had happened in Liverpool, Clay Cross and Lambeth, and what happened in Westminster: the difference between a serial killer and somebody who drives over the speed limit.
    I think back to the arguments in the Chamber 10 years ago, when Tory Members were attacking Labour councils such as Liverpool and Lambeth, and I say to those Tories that the chickens have come home to roost. A Tory council has been found out, and in a very big way. I have as much sympathy with Lady Porter today as Lady Porter had with Liverpool 10 years ago: none.
    5.41 pm
    Mr. Peter Brooke: Once upon a time, my school headmaster told me that in an essay paper on gases that he was reading, one of the candidates had said of a gas that it had the unique capacity for seeking out the crooks and the nannies. It is a pretty conceit, and I am impressed that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) has the same quality—although if I possessed it, I think that I would keep it to myself.
    The trigger to this debate was the publication on Thursday of the district auditor's report on Westminster city council, on which I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment a private notice question, although the ostensible grounds for the Opposition changing today's business were the replies given in the House on Thursday by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. Conservative Members had been looking forward to an Opposition debate on standards in education, and we shall continue to look forward to it—when the Opposition have sorted themselves out on child benefit, which, incidentally, they will clearly have to do by Friday.
    My experience of preparing for this debate afforded me some sympathy for the Opposition's preparation for the Scott debate, although they had twice the amount of time. The pagination of the Magill report was already more extensive than that of Scott, but one's reading needed to be extended to the 642 pages of the Barratt report, given the Leader of the Opposition's somewhat gratuitous reference to asbestos on Thursday, to which I have been unable to detect any reference in Magill.

    803
    The Opposition have been accurate in describing the procedure that the district auditor has followed as being the product of a Conservative Act. One Westminster Labour councillor inquired whether I had been the Whip on the Bill, to which I incorrectly assented, confusing the local government Bill in 1980 with the one in 1982. I repeat what I said on Thursday in the House. Although I have been critical of the process, I have not been critical of the district auditor himself.
    I mention that because the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) said on 6 December 1995 on Second Reading of the Audit (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill that the stories heard about local Members of Parliament vilifying the district auditor and the Audit Commission were a disgrace.
    Ms Armstrong: I said that it was a disgrace that Members of Parliament were supporting councillors who were saying that. That statement arose from knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman attended a press conference arranged by a group of Westminster city councillors on 22 February 1995, entitled, "Westminster Conservatives Accuse Auditor of Paralysing Council".
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady is perfectly correct about the subject of the press conference and perfectly correct to say that I was responsible for acting as its host. It was a debate about what risk councillors would be under as a result of taking decisions that they had been advised were legal. Indeed, many journalists who attended agreed in private conversation afterwards that it was a reasonable subject to raise. Again, I am talking about the process. Her warning that she might say what she said did not reach me until after the debate, and I do not remotely criticise her for that. I was not present to challenge her at the time and mention it now only to set the record straight.
    On the process, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said in answer to my supplementary question on Thursday that it was not right during such a process to comment on the nature of the process or to suggest that perhaps a different process would be better. I do not dissent from that, but shall remind my right hon. Friend when he returns to the Chamber that he said when we visited these matters after the provisional report:
    "I am happy to assure the House that, when the case is complete, I shall consider again the issues that the hon. Gentleman has properly raised to see whether there are changes that I would wish to recommend."—[Official Report, 13 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 347.]
    Mr. McWilliam: Since I led for the Opposition in Committee on part III of the 1982 Act, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was definitely not the Whip. Does he accept that that Committee had plenty of opportunity to explore those areas of the process about which Lady Porter and others are now complaining? We tabled amendments on those areas, and they were all defeated by the Government.
    Mr. Brooke: I am perfectly happy to agree that one can, from time to time, make mistakes in legislation. I do not dissent from that for a moment. On Thursday, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) alluded to the exoneration of our hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) and the costs that our hon. Friend had incurred to secure that exoneration. To make the
    804
    point that the issue is bipartisan, I should say that it is a commonplace in Westminster that the objectors, too, feel that the necessary costs to pursue the process have been excessive.
    Far from criticising the district auditor, and having read the narrative element of his report, I think that he has been meticulous. I come to such a judgment with high family standards, for my brother was one of the inspectors on the Department of Trade and Industry report on Harrods, thus earning en série the hostility, first, of Mr. Rowland and then of Mr. Al-Fayed.
    Mr. Magill's meticulousness has compared favourably in these matters with that of some of the press. I shall not go into the legal conclusions—not least because I am not a lawyer and they will be tested in the courts—but the Opposition's apparent dismissal of the stage in the High Court has rung oddly given that background briefing by the press has shown that, in the past, a district auditor's judgment has been overturned in the High Court.
    No one in the House is more conscious than myself of the cruelty that television can inflict, but I found myself subject to a pang of distaste on Thursday night, when the cameras of the BBC's "Question Time" fastened on the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when she was clapping enthusiastically a young man who said that Dame Shirley should go to prison. It would be a mistake for the Opposition, in presuming as they have that Dame Shirley has behaved illegally, to be too careless of the niceties of the law themselves.
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was good enough to omit me from his speech today, just as he said that he was sad to include me in his questions on Thursday. I thank him for both. The Evening Standard had forewarned me of what the hon. Gentleman had said about me at his press conference, and on Friday, The Independent said that Labour sources had been playing the same card on Thursday evening—presumably in the Lobby.
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is my parliamentary next-door neighbour, and we get on every bit as well as most neighbours do. Thursday was real-time stuff. Had it been played at a more relaxed pace, I would have leaned over the fence and asked him what on earth he was on about.
    In fact the issue had arisen earlier, at the time of the provisional report in January 1994. As is recorded in column 349 of Hansard for 13 January 1994, the then shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), had alluded to the fact that "Panorama" had claimed that I attended a meeting in 1989. I had never concealed the fact that I attended that meeting, although I corrected the hon. Gentleman the next day and pointed out that it actually took place on 3 March 1988. I remark in passing that no reference to that meeting occurs in the Magill narrative.
    On 21 January 1994 The Observer asked me what other party meetings I had attended. Although I was visiting Manchester that day on Department of National Heritage business, I furnished the paper with a full account. Of a meeting on 13 December 1986, I said that I had no recollection of the agenda, but remembered that its raison d'etre was to look back at the council elections of 1986 and forward to those of 1990.

    805
    The Observer said that the meeting on 13 December 1986 was highlighted in the district auditor's inquiry as one of a series in which the alleged gerrymandering was developed. In fact, now that the district auditor's report has been published it contains no reference to that meeting. In the absence of such a reference, I cannot tell who placed the spin on the significance of the meeting for The Observer.
    As for the meeting on 3 March 1988, although The Guardian of 15 January 1994 said that the document, "Keeping Westminster Conservative", which underlay the meeting, included details of what it called the £21 million "homes for votes" strategy, in fact, as I said in 1994, the document made only a passing reference to designated sales—half a sentence in a 15-page, closely typed document—and contained no indication that the policy was not city wide, as indeed in overall terms it was. The Guardian also said that I was the chairman of my party when Westminster city council set its housing policy. That, too, was not so.
    Two days after the article in The Observer, when he had seen my statement in that article, on which he had in turn commented to The Observer, the hon. Member for Blackburn wrote to me. He reiterated the same questions as The Observer had asked me about meetings—questions that I had already answered. The following day, 26 January, as is recorded in column 302 of Hansard, the hon. Gentleman referred in the House to an intention to change the electoral base in 18 wards, rather than in the eight to which the Magill report referred. I have long regarded all as being fair in love and war, but there is also some obligation to be attentive to detail.
    As for "Panorama", I have twice been interviewed about Northern Ireland by John Ware, a journalist whom I greatly respect—once at great length and once more briefly. For whatever reason, he did not seek to interview me about Westminster city council on either of those programmes.
    I apologise for wearying the House with so much detail, but as a consequence of the statement by the shadow Secretary of State to the Evening Standard at the press conference, and of his subsequent allusions in the House last Thursday, constituents have been ringing me up to inquire after my welfare or otherwise. Given where the issue arose, the simplest method of response has been to answer those allusions likewise, in the House.
    In seeking to widen their net, the Opposition have demonstrated how long they have been out of power. Throughout the relevant period of Mr. Magill's narrative, give or take a few weeks, I was serving in the Treasury. I also spent part of the time as chairman of my party. There is no way in which someone who holds such offices can also keep track of a local authority as complex as Westminster, and of a narrative as dense as that which Mr. Magill unfolded.
    It is perhaps an index of that fact that the only references to me that I could detect in the report, in paragraphs 771 and 772, refer to a time when I had gone to the Northern Ireland Office, and a letter was being drafted to me as the local Member of Parliament. Of course, throughout such events one continues to be the local Member of Parliament, and to an inner-city Member, "building stable communities" had an immediate attraction.
    806
    At the 1983 general election my constituency had the lowest turnout in the country. In 1987 we moved up eight places, overtaking six seats in or near inner London, and two in Northern Ireland. In 1992 we moved up a further eight seats, overtaking the most inner-city seat in each one of a series of other British cities.
    There is something about an inner-city seat that makes for transience—hence the attraction of stable communities. In the High Court the law will take its course on such matters, but the instinct in favour of stable communities was a good place in which to start. Westminster has a disproportionate amount of low-income housing, but also a social cohesion that is immensely worth preserving, which is why people like living here.
    Against the housing mix in 1977, when I first became the local Member of Parliament, and that in 1987, when the critical housing committee meeting took place, the logic of designated sales was sensible. If, as the hon. Member for Blackburn said, the policy had a political implication, so did Herbert Morrison's programme, and so did Camden's purchase of private properties between 1965 and 1968 under Labour, under Dr. Ruth Glass's tutelage, which, as vice-chairman of finance, I had to help clear up after my party won in 1968. To neither of those programmes do I attribute illegality.
    Mr. Tracey: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the approach in several other cities. Does he share with me some disquiet at the fact that the district auditor investigating Westminster has taken a view completely different from that of the district auditor investigating Birmingham, where similar events happened?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is right in that observation, but I understand that, according to the process under which such matters are run, district auditors are not subject to precedents set by the behaviour of other district auditors. We still have to ask ourselves, however—
    Ms Armstrong: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. Allegations were made in the press about Birmingham, and the leader of the council, Councillor Theresa Stewart, invited the auditor in to examine the policy, which no one had said was gerrymandering. In his report the auditor concluded that
    "expenditure arising from "Meeting Needs" was lawful",
    and that
    "the initiative was not primarily an attempt to win votes".
    Mr. Brooke: I understand that the treatment in certain wards was not necessarily paralleled elsewhere in the city. But we do not want to have a long argument about such matters; the point that has been established is that the pattern of district auditors' thinking does not have to match on a precedent basis throughout the country.
    When I was serving at the Department of National Heritage, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who is an Etonian, once called me a patrician. One of my grandfathers was a clergyman and the other a professional illustrator, and my father was a politician in the House. Pace the Register of Members' Interests, there is no money in any of those callings. However, I would not regard being called a paternalist as an insult, so, the law apart, I have to ask myself whether I regret anything about Mr. Magill's narrative.

    807
    Contrary to what the late John Smith said on "Channel 4 News" on the night of 13 January 1994—the date of the provisional report—designated sales were not a method for flooding Westminster with votes from outside Westminster, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras half suggested. Nor does the Magill narrative say that that was in fact a consequence of the policy.
    Given the inherent stability of parts of Westminster, it would be silly if I had had no reservations about selling off quite so much of the stock, when I wanted the next generation to be able to live here in Westminster, for reasons implicit in Peter Townsend's seminal work on the lives of old people. As I said on Second Reading of the Housing Bill, I had similar concerns about the policies that the Peabody trust was pursuing at the same time.
    When eventually I learnt of the human cost in prolonging the time that homeless people spent in short-term accommodation, I was not at ease about that cost. The Leader of the Opposition raised that subject during Prime Minister's questions last Thursday, but the right hon. Gentleman must allow me to say that I hear the distant grinding of double standards.
    According to paragraph 60 of the Magill report, in September 1986, Westminster city council had 330 homeless in hotels in Westminster, while other boroughs were using hotels in Westminster for 1,000 homeless—or three times as many people.
    In paragraph 383 of the report, there is a moving passage, prior to the critical housing committee meeting in July 1987, in which Shelagh Laslett O'Brien of the Bayswater Coordinating Group addressed the committee. She stated that she wished to respond to the committee's apparent change of policy in transporting homeless families outside the borough—in other words, as an initial act. She stated that one of the positive aspects of the city council's practice had been that families who became homeless in Westminster had not been placed in accommodation outside the borough. It is an irony that other authorities had been placing their homeless in Westminster for years. But it was not simply a matter of location.
    Given the Leader of the Opposition's strictures last Thursday about putting the homeless in what he described as
    "appalling bed-and-breakfast accommodation",—[Official Report, 9 May 1996; Vol. 277, c. 362.]
    it is worth recalling that, according to paragraph 825 of the Magill report, on 31 March 1989, six out of the 10 inner London boroughs—Camden, Hammersmith, Islington, Lambeth, Southwark and Tower Hamlets—had more than 1,000 homeless households, ranging in number from 1,164 to 1,690, in temporary accommodation. That is the process that the Leader of the Opposition condemned last Thursday.
    On that same day, Westminster had 709 homeless families in the same condition. It was an era in which the Department of Social Security office, now the Benefits Agency—[Interruption.] That was a period in which those who were statutorily homeless were being kept in short-term accommodation. I am saying that a great many more people were being kept in such accommodation by the six boroughs I mentioned than by Westminster.
    That was an era in which the Benefits Agency office in Lisson Grove told me that an Irish family had only to arrive at Euston and call the Ealing housing department
    808
    to be accepted as homeless and then deposited in Westminster. Such use of Westminster's facilities, while of course legal, may have affected events in Westminster, including the pattern of voting.
    I conclude my speech by considering the observations about Westminster's finances made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, although I suspect that even he would not argue that designated sales had been responsible for the Conservative victory in Westminster in 1990—with an increase in the majority from four to 30 on a day when Conservatives were otherwise being defeated.
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras has to fall back on Westminster's community charge—indeed, he has done so—but he has done so by reference back to Government assistance. I noted that, in his quotations of GJW lobbying, he did not allude to their lobbying of me as a Treasury Minister. What I recall more vividly is that, prior to my voting against the Government on St. Bartholomew's hospital, the only time that I have not voted for my party was when the Labour Government gave Westminster its rate support grant settlement in 1978.
    As for services, Westminster continues to vote Conservative not only because of the level of the council tax but because of the quality of services. I cannot recall whether it was the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras or the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) who claimed that Camden's efficiency was characterised by its low cleaning charge as compared with Westminster's higher one. But one has only to visit the boundary between Camden and Westminster the day after a snowfall, when Westminster's streets are clean before the start of the working day and Camden's are still snow ridden at the close of the working day, to see where the differences lie.
    Attention to one's public does pay dividends. Westminster has been voted the cleanest borough in London despite a scenario in which, if I shake the hand of someone on the street during a general election, I have only a one in 20 chance of shaking the hand of someone who has the right to vote for me. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has listed similar comparative performance in other fields.
    Finally, on asbestos, the Opposition have given me two separate references for their quotation from the 642-page report. Tomorrow I shall compare the quotation of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras with the text. I agree that Mr. Barratt concluded that the council failed to exercise proper standards of management of the asbestos, but he also provided a coda to his report—in a letter to the Westminster chief executive, on 3 May—in which he confirmed that he had found no evidence of any intent whatsoever by any person deliberately to endanger the health of the flats' occupants.
    6.4 pm
    Mr. David Rendel: The Conservatives on Westminster city council have cheated. They have cheated their electorate, they have cheated the people of Britain and, above all, they have cheated the homeless. To pick on someone weaker than oneself is the mark of a bully, but to pick on the homeless is despicable.
    There have been many efforts in this debate to claim that no one has yet been found guilty. But the six people concerned have now, we have been told, gone to appeal. One cannot appeal against a finding of guilt until there has

    809
    been a finding of guilt. Moreover, the six have been sentenced—the surcharge certificate has been sent to them. One cannot be sentenced until one has been found guilty.
    So let us be clear about it. The proudest symbols of British conservatism have been found guilty of gross misuse of public funds, of sacrificing the homeless and, worst of all, of seeking to subvert the democratic process.
    This country's system of local government, sadly, has cracks that leave it open to abuse. Westminster's Tories have hammered wedges into those cracks. They have exploited the system to the full, and they have turned the abuse of power into an art form.
    What has been the response of senior members of the Conservative party in the House? They have sought simply to sling so much mud around that the general public have been left with the impression that those who have been found guilty are no worse than everyone else.
    Let us be clear about what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State could and should have done. They could have denounced what has happened in Westminster, declared that such outrageous misconduct was entirely unacceptable and thrown those who have been found guilty out of their party. By their failure to do so, they have brought their whole party into disrepute.
    Mr. Couchman: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is right that people should be condemned and subjected to an unlimited fine without due process of law?
    Mr. Rendel: The point, which appears to be missed by the Conservative party, is that there has been due process of law. That has continued for the past seven years, and a finding of guilt has now been made.
    The Conservatives' attempt to make out that what has happened in Westminster was no worse than what is happening elsewhere—throughout local government—is dangerous and sickening. What the guilty councillors and council officers did in Westminster has, in effect, been condoned by the Conservative party, by the Secretary of State and by the Prime Minister. So much for it being the party of law and order.
    By failing to recognise the judicial standing of the auditor's inquiry, the Government have sought as never before to mislead the public about the significance of the auditor's findings. They have not done so in the interests of justice but purely for their electoral benefit. They have wriggled and they have squirmed, but the fact is that six people have been found guilty of wilful misconduct.
    Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman talks about wriggling and squirming. Suppose that the court overturns the auditor's judgment when this matter goes to court. Who will have had the better judgment: my right hon. Friends, who have waited until they have heard what the court has to say, or the hon. Gentleman, who has condemned people before they have exhausted the judicial system?
    Mr. Rendel: I can only repeat the point, which apparently the hon. Gentleman has not listened to, that these people have been found guilty by due process of law set up under his Government. If he does not understand that, he had better go back and read Mr. Magill's report.
    Mr. David Shaw: I hate to disagree with an old Etonian, but I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could point
    810
    to anywhere in the district auditor's papers where the word "guilty" is used. In the paragraphs that I have been reading, I certainly cannot find the word "guilty".
    Mr. Rendel: That intervention is not particularly relevant. May I direct the hon. Gentleman to page 674 of the report, where the district auditor clearly says:
    "I have found as a fact that the Council was engaged in gerrymandering."
    If I am not allowed as a result of that sentence to say that the council was guilty of gerrymandering, the hon. Gentleman is misusing the word "guilty".
    Let us consider rather more closely what the inquiry has been all about. The process of the inquiry that the auditor pursued is that established by a Conservative Government. Under the Local Government Finance Act 1982, the auditor was appointed to make his inquiry as long ago as 1989, following objections made by a local doctor that people in need of social housing for medical reasons were not being found secure accommodation. At the same time, Westminster city council was selling just such housing, not to tenants but to the relatively well-off from outside.
    Two years ago the auditor produced his preliminary findings, based on 100,000 pages of documentation and countless interviews with councillors and officers. Seldom can a more detailed and careful report have been prepared. It should be said that some Conservative councillors and council officials went out of their way to obstruct the inquiry from the very beginning. That obstruction included the shredding of vital documents after they were known to be likely to be needed for the inquiry. I assume that that would have led to a criminal prosecution if the inquiry had been into criminal rather than simply civil misconduct.
    Following the provisional findings, the respondents had every opportunity to put their case and refute the allegations made against them. Now, after seven long years, the auditor has produced his final verdict. Six people have been surcharged. Of course they have the right to appeal. I understand that they are taking up that right. However, for the Government to argue that they cannot comment on any legal case where the verdict may be subject to appeal in a higher court is sheer nonsense. What if the people lose their case in the High Court and take their appeal to the Appeal Court, then perhaps to the Lords or even as far as the European Court of Human Rights?
    Are the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State seriously telling the House that they will not comment on any unlawful conduct by anyone where there remains any possibility of further appeal to a higher court? By the time the Government get round to condemning any wrongdoing, we shall all be long since dead, or at least—I suppose that this is really the point—it will be after the next general election.
    The auditor's findings were the result of three main lines of inquiry—the failure to fulfil statutory duties to the homeless, the misuse of public funds and the gerrymandering of elections. What the auditor has found on each of those matters demands greater public exposure. The report is some 2,000 pages long and costs £20—good value perhaps, but it will not be widely read. Let us consider the three aspects one by one.
    First, the question of homelessness. Mr. Graham England, the director of housing, in a briefing note to Councillor Porter dated 18 March 1987, is quoted by the district auditor in volume 3(A), page 438 of the report as saying:

    811
    "the effect of selling all vacancies and transfers in the key wards would be to lose 490 vacancies per annum. If 490 lettings were taken out of the equation then there would be 576 left to allocate. It can be seen from the table of demand that there would not be enough vacancies to house those people for whom we have a statutory obligation under the Homeless Persons Act. It would also not be possible to deal with high priority medical cases and community building schemes which could be considered to be politically sensitive. As the Council has an obligation to provide shelter for the homeless it would not be possible to reduce the number coming in without a change of legislation and therefore more and more people would be kept in temporary accommodation awaiting a smaller and smaller number of empty properties."
    That is pretty clear advice as to where the Conservatives' obligations lay.
    As the auditor himself put it on page 439, Councillor Porter
    "knew that there was no professional justification for what was proposed and understood that those proposals were considered by the Director of Housing to be inconsistent with the Council's statutory obligations to the homeless."
    Yet the Conservatives stepped up their outrageous plan for dealing with the problem of homeless people upsetting their electoral apple cart.
    In June 1987, in the Tory seminar document called "Setting the Scene", by Councillor Porter herself, she said:
    "The electoral register for the 1990 elections will be compiled in just over two years time. Some very ambitious policies must be implemented by then: providing a great deal of affordable housing in key areas; protecting the electoral base in other areas (for example, by controlling the impact of homelessness)".
    What more evidence does the Conservative party want? We now all know that the Conservative vision for controlling homelessness included, sadly, placing homeless families into blocks of flats riddled with exposed asbestos—flats that the council knew were unfit to live in. That particular practice moved Mr. John Barratt, in a separate inquiry commissioned by Westminster city council, to write:
    "Despite the availability of the clearest advice to the contrary, those acting on behalf of a public body took risks, for a variety of reasons, with the health of the people who ought to have been entitled to assume that such risks were not being taken."
    So it is important to stress the seriousness of Westminster city council's lack of care.
    Conservative policy in Westminster was not just social engineering. It was evidence of the Tories' obscene and callous disregard for the needs and rights of homeless people, simply on the basis that they did not vote Conservative. As that is the way in which Conservatives treat those people who do not vote for them, perhaps the scandal at Westminster helps to explain the Tories' national philosophy of sponsoring the haves in our society and leaving the weak, the vulnerable, the old, the sick and the homeless to fend for themselves.
    Secondly, the auditor has gone into great detail about the misuse of public funds by Conservative councillors. His report shows the full scale of the scandalous designated sales policy. The auditor's figures include the misuse of capital grants, £2.5 million; the cost of keeping dwellings empty, £1.6 million; losses arising from the disposal of dwellings, £38.5 million—including £4.2 million for the additional cost of housing the homeless in substitute accommodation such as bed-and-breakfast hostels—staff and professional costs, £2.1 million; and interest on those losses, £5.2 million. That brings the total of public money
    812
    misused purely for the benefit of the Conservative party to a staggering £49.8 million. It is only because of the assumed interest of £15.2 million plus some other minor savings and service charges that the surcharge figure is brought down to £31.7 million. That hardly represents financial prudence, leaving aside the political motives involved.
    Let us examine the capital grants. Payments of £15,000 were made to council house tenants to move out of their social housing so that their homes could be sold not to someone in need but to someone more likely to vote Conservative. The waste of public funds by Westminster city council has been shown to be of a different order of magnitude from that in any comparable local government scandal which has come to light. The council which the Conservatives called their flagship has turned out to be the single most wasteful council in the whole country.
    Thirdly, and most importantly, there is the question of gerrymandering. Conservative councillors did not only waste millions of pounds of public money and fail to fulfil their moral and legal duty to the homeless. The real disgrace is that it was all done purely for the electoral interests of the Conservative party. To any democrat, gerrymandering is a most serious offence. It is subversion of the very democracy upon which our society is based. The auditor could not be more clear. Conservative councillors have been found guilty of gerrymandering.
    Such gerrymandering would be pointless, if not impossible, if we used a proportional system of voting rather than first-past-the-post. The present system lends itself to attempts to gerrymander marginal wards, which would not exist in the same way under a proportional system. A change to proportional representation would immediately insulate the democratic process from people who seek to abuse their political power.
    Mr. Pickles: What about the single transferable vote system and the multiple transferable vote system in operation in Italy, which both readily lend themselves to gerrymandering?
    Mr. David Shaw: And corruption.
    Mr. Pickles: And corruption.
    Mr. Rendel: I am not sure what arguments the hon. Gentleman has to back up his assertion. He has given none. There is plenty of corruption in Italy, but it does not involve gerrymandering the electoral system.
    Of Lady Porter, on page 417 of the report the auditor concludes:
    "I find as a fact that she was concerned to secure an increase in the number of home owners and a reduction in the number of homeless households accommodated in marginal (or key) wards by 1990, in order to increase the number of likely Conservative voters in those wards in the 1990 local government elections. For her, the designated sales policy was a means to that end."
    Mr. Shaw: Can the hon. Gentleman say how it is possible in designated council house sales—a policy that I have supported—to determine whether the people moving in, or the existing residents if the house is sold to them, are Conservative or Labour voters? How is it possible to know that Labour voters have turned into Conservative voters as a result of the contract of sale?
    Mr. Rendel: Once again the hon. Gentleman misses the point. The policy was not meant to turn Labour voters

    813
    into Conservative voters but to ensure that people who were more likely, in the nature of things, to be Conservative voters lived in certain wards and that those who were more likely to be Labour voters lived in other wards where their votes did not matter. It is not a question of turning people's votes or knowing about each individual voter or house owner.
    On page 418 the auditor states:
    "On 5th June 1986, in response to a request from Councillor Lady Porter, Councillor Kirwan produced a note 'covering the possibilities of balancing the social mix in Westminster', having regard to 'a number of factors contributing to the drop in "our" natural support.' These included the cost of housing and the growth of hotels and hostels catering among others for 'homeless/down and outs, who are not our natural supporters.'"
    On page 419, the report states:
    "On 24th June 1986, Cllr Lady Porter, accompanied by Cllrs Weeks and Legg, attended a meeting of the Chief Officers' Board, at which they informed the Chief Officers that the majority [Conservative] party intended to win the next election, that this would be the focus of their attention and that majority [Conservative] party objectives included, 'Social engineering including Housing'."
    On page 422, the auditor states:
    "Councillor Kirwan also presented a paper to the Conservative Party seminar held on 6 September 1986. Her paper entitled, `Westminster's Housing 1986–1990' specified the objective as: `to ensure that as far as possible, Westminster's housing policies achieve the type of social and economic residential mix that will enable us to retain control of the Council in 1990 and help to retain the Conservative majority in the Parliamentary seat of North Westminster'."
    The evidence is damning and public and in the auditor's report for all to see and form a judgment on. The fact that six people were found guilty of wilful misconduct in their misuse of taxpayer's money does not exonerate others who received stinging criticism for their failure to put a stop to malpractice. In that, we must include, sadly, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg). The auditor has made it clear that the hon. Gentleman knew that gerrymandering was going on and did nothing about it and that he should have taken action to stop it. He is excused from any surcharge on the ground that he did not realise that he had a duty to stop the gerrymandering.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman has continued this ridiculous line about my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), who was exonerated in the report. If he cared to look, he would find that it was clear, and accepted by the auditor, that my hon. Friend accepted the legal opinion given by the Westminster solicitors that what was taking place—and this may still be proven to be so—was legal. On that basis, we have only an opinion of the auditor in hindsight but it does not change his overall finding. It is time that the hon. Gentleman withdrew that line.
    Mr. Rendel: The relevant section of report states:
    "The legal advice, of which Councillor Legg was aware, gave no support for targeting designation in the key marginal words to promote the electoral advantage of the Conservative party."
    The case is clear.
    The question that we and the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West have to answer is whether a man whose moral judgment allows him to take no action to
    814
    put an end to malpractice is a fit person to be a Member of the House? The only honourable course for a Member so heavily criticised for his poor behaviour in public office is to resign. The hon. Gentleman has condoned gerrymandering and so undermined the basis of our democracy. He should go.
    Mr. David Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is a councillor.
    Mr. Rendel: No I am not.
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman was a councillor. Will he confirm that his Liberal group on the council never took a political decision?
    Mr. Rendel: I am staggered by that question and do not quite know how to answer it. All political groups are in the business of taking political decisions. It is an amazing question. I shall continue and perhaps not take any more interventions.
    Mr. Gunnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Rendel: I hope that this intervention will be more sensible than the previous one.
    Mr. Gunnell: It was not the taking of a political decision that was wrong but the decision to use council money for the illegal purpose of gerrymandering. That is the auditor's charge. Of course the Westminster Tories are entitled to take political decisions but the auditor must decide whether they were reasonable.
    Mr. Rendel: That is correct and I thank the hon. Gentleman. Every decision taken by any council or by the House must be classified as political. If we did not take political decisions, we would have no purpose whatever. Some members of the public may think that, but hon. Members like to think that we have some purpose.
    To continue on a more sensible note, if Conservative Ministers showed signs of remorse for what their colleagues did in Westminster, it would be easy to be more charitable and to regard the matter as a problem caused by a small clique going awry.
    The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment have thrown back their opportunities for repentance and have shrugged off the findings of the seven-year inquiry. To them, a guilty verdict means nothing. Such is their arrogance in power that they feel impervious to the judicial system. That senior Conservatives committed the offences that they did for party political gain is a scandal—but the indifference of the Prime Minister and of the Secretary of State to that misconduct and to the process of law is truly shameful. By their failure to take action to remove the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West from the Conservative party and from the House, they too are condoning gerrymandering. They have brought dishonour to the House and to their party, and they too should go.
    6.29 pm
    Mr. James Couchman: Last Thursday, and again this afternoon, the House was treated to a shameless and cynical display of what I can only refer to

    815
    as humbuggery rarely equalled even by its author, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), on those two occasions. I am disappointed not to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, for there is the true inheritor of the mantle of Herbert Morrison. The hon. Gentleman accused the erstwhile members of Westminster city council of heinous municipal misdeeds. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) went even further and described them as crimes. He will be disappointed to learn that gerrymandering—unattractive though it may be, and it occurs in the hon. Gentleman's party as in others—is not a crime or a criminal offence.
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras accused leading members of Westminster city council of being in cahoots with the city's officials and with the whole Tory party, from top to bottom—including Conservative central office and No. 10 Downing street. The hon. Gentleman's promise last Thursday that an incoming Labour Government would establish a public inquiry rings hollow when one recalls the rich heritage of local government waste, incompetence, chicanery and gerrymandering presided over by Labour-controlled councils since the early years of this century.
    The hon. Member made much of Herbert Morrison's motives for building council houses in London, but he said precious little about Herbert Morrison's famous phrase:
    "I will build"—
    Ms Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Couchman: No, not at this time. Herbert Morrison said:
    "I will build the Conservatives out of London."
    Ms Armstrong: When did he say that?
    Mr. Couchman: He was leader of the Labour London county council between 1934 and 1940. Between 1934 and 1939, 84,000 council houses were built in London, and the Conservative party did not control London for another 30 years. Herbert Morrison was remarkably successful. The man who became Lord Morrison of Lambeth set out deliberately to ruin areas that he judged to be middle class, suburban and hostile to the Labour party. Did I say Lambeth? There is a resonance. It is the acme of appalling loony left councils.
    Ms Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
    Mr. Couchman: No, I want to make some progress. The hon. Lady has already made several speeches this afternoon, and doubtless we shall have to listen to her again at half-past nine.
    Who was Herbert Morrison? He must have been old Labour—but in a straight dynastic line, old Labour gave way to new Labour. Herbert Morrison passed down his Tammany skills to his grandson, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—that Rasputin of new Labour.
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, playing the part of Captain Humbug to perfection, failed to remind the House of his time as leader of Camden council. He failed to tell us about the report in The Observer in 1975, which calculated that Camden had the highest
    816
    spending on housing per head of population of any area in the country, by far the highest Government housing subsidies per head of any other area, the highest management costs in the country, by far the largest housing revenue account deficit per head of any other area, the highest rent arrears in the country, the largest programme of buying up already tenanted and adequately run blocks of flats, and by far the most council housing schemes. I wonder why the hon. Gentleman failed to tell us all that? He is probably embarrassed by comparisons between Camden and other councils, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described at length.
    Mr. Betts: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has spent a long time talking about Camden, Herbert Morrison and other issues that I cannot find in either the motion or the amendment. Will you give consideration to whether the hon. Gentleman is in order?
    Mr. David Shaw: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When Madam Speaker was in the Chair, and Mr. Deputy Speaker before you, the Opposition cited Liverpool and a number of other councils, including Monklands. You ought to be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the debate has gone extremely wide.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): As I understand it, the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) was making comparisons, which is in order. It would not be in order if no reference was made to the subject under discussion. I am not aware from my short time in the Chair that that has been the case.
    Mr. Couchman: Are you saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have not mentioned Westminster city council?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: On the contrary: from the short time that I have been in the Chair this evening, I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman—by the token that I have just given—has been out of order. In other words, the hon. Gentleman is in order.
    Mr. Couchman: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Camden is at the heart of folklore about bad local government. It not only rivals Islington, Hackney, Haringey and Lambeth—it is probably ahead of them in its grants to way-out groups in the name of political correctness and in neglecting its social service responsibilities. As a former chairman of social services, I deprecate that appalling lack of responsibility.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: If the hon. Gentleman is not out of order, he is way out of time. I presume that he is referring to Camden in 1975. We are now in 1996, debating corruption in Westminster city council. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Department of the Environment persistently praises Camden for its management of housing stock and for the way in which it deals with its lets? Camden has also received a citizens charter mark for the speed and efficiency with which it runs its housing benefit office.
    Mr. Couchman: I was referring to Camden not in 1975, but in 1994 when a report about children in the care

    817
    of Camden's social services department was made public. That report revealed that there were no coherent policies in place and that Camden's expenditure was among the highest in London. The money was spent to such poor effect that in some cases the council's records did not show where the children had been placed. The district auditor himself had to track down one child. Adoptions were not progressed—some had stalled three years. Many children had not been sent to school, and children were not prepared for adult life. One child approaching 18 had not been seen since 1988. Camden also appears to have been profligate in purchasing a computer system for £1.5 million, which it obviously did not use during those years.
    Mr. David Shaw: If there has been so much child abuse in Camden and Islington, why has no district auditor found the basis for surcharging the Labour councillors responsible?
    Ms Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) made no reference to child abuse in Camden or Islington. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) yet again to show that his turpitude is matched only by his ineptitude in so grossly maligning local authorities in relation to a matter that is not on the Order Paper and which has not been raised by the hon. Member for Gillingham?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not responsible for the content or accuracy of the speeches made by hon. Members. I have already explained that I will allow a certain latitude in drawing comparisons between councils. However, I expect hon. Members to return to the substance of the debate.
    Mr. Couchman: I do not want to go into the detail of the extraordinarily high tax bills laboured on the ratepayers of Camden, as we are here to discuss Camden council's neighbour, Westminster council—which runs its affairs much better, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has made clear. What a sorry tale the comparisons of those two neighbouring councils have been.
    I hold no brief for those people in Westminster council who may have abused or misused their elected positions if the courts find them culpable. However, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) was at pains to condemn them as though the due process of law had been exhausted, but the due process of law has not begun. The district auditor is not a lawyer and the courts will decide whether his findings are correct.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Has the hon. Gentleman been listening?
    Mr. Couchman: Yes, I listened very carefully to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is entirely proper that the people who have been named by the district auditor have the right to take their case to the courts, to be heard and to have their case examined by the due process of law.
    Ms Hodge: Of course those people have the right to appeal, but this is a report in the public interest. Does the
    818
    hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that the members of Westminster council, under their statutory obligations, will have to discuss this report in the public interest? They do not have the privilege that hon. Members have in the House. If it is a duty for them to discuss the report, how can it not be a duty for hon. Members also to discuss it?
    Mr. Couchman: I presume that the former leader of Islington council—the hon. Lady obviously spoke from experience—wishes to deny the due process of law to the six people involved. The appeal to the High Court of Justice, followed by a possible appeal to the Court of Appeal and beyond represents the continuation of the due process of law. The district auditor is no substitute for a magistrates court or a Crown court; he is an accountant. In the case of the Westminster inquiry, I am certain that he is a distinguished accountant, as he is a senior partner of Deloitte Touche. I believe that he is a part-time district auditor because he retains his responsibilities with that firm of accountants.
    As I said to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last Thursday, I am concerned by the process that has brought these people—whom some would call the Westminster Six—to their predicament. I am extremely concerned that the accountant district auditor has acted in the roles of investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and hangman.
    Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the auditor is merely an accountant and not a lawyer. He is casting a great slur on magistrates who are not lawyers.
    Mr. Couchman: I am not casting slurs on magistrates. My wife is a magistrate and I respect her integrity. Magistrates rely on the advice of lawyers and their decisions can be appealed. I am concerned that we have asked the same person to have the multiple roles that I have just described. That is against the principle of natural justice. I am worried that the Government prescribed those roles to the same person in the Local Government Finance Act 1982.
    The hon. Member for West Derby asked me where I was on 14 February 1986 when his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) introduced his Disqualification and Surcharge of Councillors (Abolition) Bill as a private Member's Bill. He will be amazed to hear that I can actually tell him: I was in my constituency speaking to some 200 people about the Government's proposals for Sunday trading. Had I been here, I would have expressed my concerns.
    Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot introduce any measures to revisit the 1982 Act while the Westminster case is proceeding, it seems to me that this is a most unsatisfactory process—the fact that the investigator, the prosecutor and the adjudicator is the same person and has the power to impose an unlimited fine, for that is exactly what the surcharge is. The auditor has suggested an enormous sum in this case.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Public money has been lost.
    Mr. Couchman: We shall see whether that claim is upheld by the courts. I am not convinced by the process used by the auditor to compute the sum. I accept the figures that the hon. Member for Newbury read out—I have read the same figures—but I am not convinced that that computation will stand up to proper scrutiny.
    Mr. Heppell: The hon. Gentleman has queried Mr. Magill's role in a number of areas and is now querying his role as an accountant. As an accountant, Mr. Magill has counted the cost—surely that is one thing that we can rely on.
    Mr. Couchman: I believe that Mr. Magill has also relied on other judgments. As an accountant, he has computed all sorts of curious figures which I do not have in front of me.
    Mr. David Shaw: My hon. Friend may be aware that three firms of chartered accountants disagreed with Mr. Magill, and they said so at the inquiry. There is some doubt about the accountancy methods used.
    Mr. Couchman: I defer to my accountant hon. Friend, who will understand the doubts that I have about Mr. Magill's computation in this case. My concern about this process is that it may have an impact on the future recruitment of able and qualified council candidates. As a former London councillor, I know that if I had read the report and if I had seen what has happened in this case I would have been extremely concerned. The people concerned relied on advice that they were given by the city's lawyers.
    Mr. Betts indicated dissent.
    Mr. Couchman: We are assured by those who are most intimately concerned with this case that they relied on the city's lawyers.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Couchman: No, I have given way enough and I wish to draw my remarks to a close. If this sort of thing happens time and again we should be worried for the future of local government. My local authority is to become part of a unitary authority and I wish to see next year's elections take place between candidates who are of a good quality across all the parties. This case will have a considerable effect on the willingness of people to stand as elected members of councils.
    6.48 pm
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: This has been an astonishing debate and, in fact, we have heard astounding comments since the district auditor's report was published. There has not been a single word of apology for anything that went on in Westminster; there has been denigration of the auditor and his report; and there has been denigration of other councils on completely irrelevant matters—they have nothing to do with anything that has gone on in Westminster or that is covered in the auditor's report on Westminster. The Secretary of State, who refuses to comment, made a nauseatingly sanctimonious speech about why he could not comment and spent the rest of his speech rubbishing other councils on matters irrelevant to the motion on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Brooke: In my speech, I referred to the observations of the Leader of the Opposition, and in
    820
    following up those remarks by the Leader of the Opposition I compared the behaviour of Labour councils in putting homeless people into short-term accommodation with that of Westminster. If the hon. Gentleman considers that that is irrelevant, he is doing a disservice to the leader of his party.
    Mr. Gerrard: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is the only Member on the Opposition Benches who has made a real attempt tonight to address the contents of the report. I shall come later to the points that he made about placing homeless families. I accept that he tried to address the issues, and he was unique, in speaking from the Opposition Benches, in doing that tonight.
    Mr. Brooke: The opposite Benches.
    Mr. Gerrard: From the opposite Benches. It will be the Opposition Benches soon.
    Ministers and most of the other Tory Members who have spoken have made no attempt to justify or apologise for what was done and to account for it politically or morally, even if they wish to pretend that what Westminster did was legally correct or argue that it may be proven legally correct. No one has denied what happened—what happened to homeless families, to flats that were kept empty, and to the taxpayers of Westminster, who have ended up losing large amounts of public money as a result of the policies that were followed in Westminster. The victims of those policies were, first, Westminster taxpayers and secondly, and most important, homeless people.
    Some of the quotations from the district auditor's report demonstrate the callous disregard that was shown towards the rights of people who were homeless in Westminster. We are told that there were notes from the director of housing, of meetings during which there were discussions about finding
    "suitable wards for housing homeless long term"
    and
    "how can we get the homeless out of Westminster City Council".
    There was a discussion on 23 September 1986, at the chairmen's group, of a "key policy" of
    "permanent rehousing of homeless outside Westminster City Council".
    It was said that
    "Officers should adopt a tougher policy".
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, that decision was reported to the chief officers' board on 25 September 1986 as, "be mean and nasty".
    Undoubtedly, as the district auditor said in his report, it is obvious from the housing strategy that was proposed after May 1986—concentrating activity in marginal wards and increasing designated sales—that the objective of the leadership of the majority party was to rehouse homeless people outside the marginal wards, which the Conservative party was especially concerned about.
    As has been mentioned several times, homeless families were put into flats containing asbestos, but that was done for more than one reason. The Barratt report says that there was advice. The hon. Member for Newbury

    821
    (Mr. Rendel) quoted a sentence from that report. A further paragraph refers to the decision in 1989 to accommodate homeless families, and states that that
    "in particular, appears from contemporary in house documents to have been seriously flawed in terms of lack of proper process … improper objectives, and … known asbestos risks being overridden."
    Mr. Barratt made it clear that there were additional reasons.
    One of the things that was going on at that time was that on the Waterton and Elgin estates, which is where the flats were, Waterton and Elgin Community Homes, the tenants' organisation, was trying to take control of that estate, using legislation that had been introduced by the Conservative Government with the intention that it be used in Labour councils. The Government were taken aback to find that one of the first places where it began to be used was in Westminster, on the Waterton and Elgin estates.
    Placing homeless families in the blocks on the Elgin estate was part of the strategy to fight off the attempt to take control by the tenants' association. Flats were deliberately left empty that could have been used.
    It is true, as the right hon. Member for Westminster, North said—
    Mr. Brooke: South.
    Mr. Gerrard: As the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) said, there was a period when homeless people from many London boroughs were in bed and breakfast in Westminster. At one time, many local authorities used bed and breakfast and families were scattered across London.
    Gradually, over several years, negotiations took place between the London boroughs. Agreements were made to rationalise, so that homeless families would not be placed in bed and breakfast. Boroughs also wanted to reduce costs to a reasonable level, because it was very costly for the boroughs for all the homeless families to end up in bed and breakfast.
    Towards the end of the 1980s, and especially in the early 1990s, most boroughs were gaining control of that position, but Westminster maintained a clear policy of shipping people out of the borough. The only borough that approached Westminster's record of shipping out homeless families at that time was Tower Hamlets, which was then under Liberal Democrat control and caused considerable problems for other councils in east London by shipping out homeless families.
    When those homeless families were dumped throughout London, the councils in the areas where they were dumped ended up paying much of the bill—the education and social services costs. Those families were often then made homeless in the borough to which they had been moved, which often ended up paying to rehouse them.
    Boroughs such as my own, Waltham Forest—one of two London boroughs that actively completely avoided using bed and breakfast during the 1980s—ended up paying the cost of Westminster dumping its homeless families on us, at the same time as Westminster city council was keeping flats empty in Westminster to sell to try to retain political control of Westminster.
    822
    The district auditor will not consider the cost to other boroughs. The £31 million does not include the extra costs of having to tackle that problem, which were passed on to other boroughs.
    Another part of the strategy that has not been mentioned much in the debate was the creation of what was called the Westminster Housing Trust. That was all part of the strategy of building stable communities. It was an attempt at social engineering—an attempt to manage the planning system with the intention that certain developers would acquire sites in the key wards and build expensive properties on them, in the expectation that the bulk of the people who moved in would be more likely to vote Tory than Labour.
    It quickly became obvious that that strategy alone would not be terribly successful. A report referred to what was intended. In a paper produced by a council officer in August 1987, when the council had been considering the target schedules for new electors in the wards, we read:
    "The overwhelming message from these figures is that the Council will have to rely very heavily on the housing trust/private sector and planning gain routes to achieve the electoral objectives in the key wards."
    Interestingly, on the copy of that paper obtained by the district auditor, the City solicitor has handwritten:
    "This paper should not have been written by an officer. Much more subtle approach required. This paper shows officers working for a Tory victory."
    That is the last thing that any council officer should be required to do.
    Trade-offs were part of the deal. One of the key people in the Westminster Housing Trust was Mr. Richard Loftus, the original proposer of the trust. Over the next three or four years, the company of which Mr. Loftus is a director was able to secure some significant planning permissions in Baker street. Those permissions overturned deals that had been done previously to keep properties in a conservation area. The permissions overturned also a decision by the then responsible Secretary of State in 1981. A great deal of money has been made in the Baker street area as a result.
    No doubt has been cast during the debate, or previously, on any of the documentary evidence that has been uncovered by the auditor. None of it has been challenged. No suggestion has been made that it is false. The documentary evidence stands. If individuals adopt certain actions, they must face the consequences. Conservative Members do not do much good by complaining about the 1982 legislation, including the power that it gives to auditors. Conservative Members did not complain when Labour councillors were being surcharged.
    Surcharging is a mechanism that should be discontinued. It applies only to councillors. How many bankrupt Ministers would we have had over the past few years if they had been surcharged for illegal decisions? The Home Secretary would probably have been bankrupted six times over by now. What about the Ministers who made the illegal decision on the Pergau dam? If a councillor makes such a decision, however, he is personally surcharged. I do not hold any brief for the surcharging system. It is too late, however, for those who introduced it to complain about it.
    I accept that councillors who break the law should face the legal consequences of so doing. They should be taken before the courts and disqualified. I am not suggesting

    823
    that councillors should be free from the strictures of the law. As I said, I do not believe that surcharging is necessarily the best way in which to proceed.
    Local government power was being used in Westminster for purely party political ends. We are all, of course, elected on political programmes. We all make promises about programmes that we want to put in place. We all do that in the hope that we shall win votes, win the next election and retain power to continue putting programmes into practice. We all understand that process. But that is not what happened in Westminster.
    There was not an open process in Westminster, with individuals putting forward legal programmes and trying to win support and electoral success on the basis of everyone being aware of what was being discussed.
    Mr. David Shaw: The point that the auditor makes in his report is that Westminster councillors made not a legal decision, as he alleges, but a political decision. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) have all told us that they have been members of council groups that have made political decisions.
    Mr. Gerrard: We are politicians and we make political decisions. But political decisions that are made by local authorities must be made within a laid-down legal framework. That framework makes it clear that political decisions must not be made behind closed doors for party political purposes. Public funds should not be used for purposes that the law does not allow. The district auditor is saying that public money was misused.
    Ms Hodge: Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members are deliberately getting things wrong? The primary purpose of the Westminster decision was political. [Interruption.] The purpose of other decisions that were taken in a political context was electoral advantage. [Interruption.] The by-product of such decisions is electoral gain, but it is not the primary purpose.
    Mr. Gerrard: I agree that—[Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is an increasing tendency for seated interjections, which are not confined to one side of the House. From whichever side they come, I deplore them.
    Mr. Gerrard: There is a deliberate attempt to misunderstand. There are many Members who have been in local government. They understand the constraints within which local government works. They understand also the difference between making a decision that it is hoped will be electorally popular and making a decision improperly. There are clear distinctions between the two approaches.
    Ms Armstrong: Is not the real issue that the Westminster city council solicitor told the then leader of the council that
    "the advantages of sale have to be considered not from any ulterior motive but from the standpoint of what is right in view of the Council's role as a housing authority."?
    824
    That was the council's primary duty as a housing authority. Therefore, the needs of the homeless had to come first, whatever the political considerations.
    Mr. Gerrard: Absolutely. That is an exact example of the legal constraints within which councils must work. Westminster was operating in a completely different league from other councils. Events in Westminster were the culmination of the Tory attitude to local government over some years. Since the Government took office in 1979, local government powers have been reduced. Local government spending has been cut. There has been increasing pressure on local authorities. Any local authority that was not Tory-controlled was regarded as an enemy, as an authority to be crushed. It was felt that it should have as little power and influence as possible.
    As we have seen fewer and fewer Tory councils—Westminster is the flagship council among them—the attitude of hanging on at all costs has prevailed. The Tories think, "It does not matter what we do because it is vital that we stay in control. Never mind whether what is being done is immoral or illegal. Those considerations must be subjugated in our determination to retain political control." That is what was going on. If Ministers are not prepared to condemn what took place in Westminster, ultimately they will be condemning themselves.
    7.7 pm
    Mr. David Shaw: Before commenting on Westminster city council, I shall take up some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who referred to my involvement in Monklands. Before my involvement in that area, wrongdoing was suppressed and covered up. Subsequent to my involvement, the people were told a great deal about what went on.
    People were told about an ombudsman's report that found against the council. There was a council housing fiddle, and a councillor's friend had precedence over a disabled elderly couple. They were told also about two industrial tribunals before which hearings had gone against the council because councillors had conducted secret meetings. We have been told that Labour councillors do not meet in secret, but that is what happened at Monklands.
    The people of Monklands were told about a taxi licensing fraud. They were informed of two police investigations.
    Ms Armstrong: Is this in order?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred to my work in Monklands. I am replying to his comments. The hon. Gentleman was held to be in order.
    Ms Armstrong: Is the hon. Gentleman denying the words of the judge who was called in by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who said of the hon. Gentleman:
    "As his evidence went on, I became increasingly unimpressed by it. I regarded his attitude as irresponsible."
    How does the hon. Gentleman expect us to take him seriously?
    Mr. Shaw: I thank the hon. Lady for repeating what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said earlier.

    825
    I shall return to that, but the hon. Lady has interrupted me in the middle of pointing out my success in terms of uncovering what went on in Monklands. The reference she quoted was from a report solely on employees. It did not refer to the ombudsman's report on housing, industrial tribunals, taxi licensing fraud or the two police investigations in Monklands.
    In addition, I personally uncovered losses of £6 million over three years in five council-owned companies in Monklands. With interest, those losses will rise to about £30 million over the next 10 years.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Shaw: Not for the moment; I shall make some progress.
    When costs are included, those losses of £30 million in Monklands will probably exceed any surcharge in Westminster. We need to put the Westminster surcharge into perspective. No councillors in Monklands have yet been surcharged, despite all the political decisions that were taken by Labour party groups behind closed doors.
    Labour party rules in Monklands stipulate that, if a decision is taken by a Labour group behind closed doors, every Labour councillor must abide by that decision or be thrown out of the local Labour party. Such a rule is common among Labour parties up and down the country. The Labour whip is enforced rigidly on political decisions.
    We need no lessons in Westminster supporting the argument that a political decision was taken. Labour councillors make political decisions every day of the week, and they enforce them rigidly. In many cases, those decisions result in financial losses. For some reason, however, the district auditor in Westminster has taken a different view of a particular political decision from the views of district auditors elsewhere in the country, who do not surcharge Labour councillors who lose vast amounts of money.
    In Lambeth and other councils, the Labour party has lost vast sums of money—far more than Westminster—yet, for some reason, the district auditors seem to leave those Labour councillors alone. However, the public know the truth.
    The Labour party in Monklands has backed me, as it has barred every Labour councillor in Monklands from holding office in the new council. The Labour party backed me in Monklands, because it finally had to admit that I had been right all along.
    I now turn to the QC's report. A QC decided that, although the council employed 45 family members of councillors, he could not find anything wrong. He did not determine in his report that there was nothing wrong or that my evidence was wrong. He said that he simply could not find anything wrong.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely the hon. Gentleman's speech cannot be in order. He has not made a passing reference to Monklands; his whole speech is about Monklands.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand that allusions were made to the hon. Gentleman's role in Monklands.
    826
    In those circumstances, he has some right to make his own case, but not at enormous length. However, he should now return to the main subject of the debate.
    Mr. Shaw: My comments on Monklands would have been shorter but for the intervention by the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) and the point of order that has just been raised.
    In conclusion, in his report, which cost the taxpayer £50,000, the QC said that he was unable to go along with my suggestion of proving his findings by reference to other councils' practices. It is a strange lawyer who does not look at precedents.
    I should like to turn to Westminster council, but before doing so, I make a declaration. I understand from the rules of the House that I am under no obligation to make the following declaration, but it could be relevant to the debate. I have always wanted to make very full disclosure. I should like to make it clear to the House that I have known John Porter for some 14 years, and I have had business connections with him since before I entered the House of Commons. I have had very little contact with his family.
    The House should also know that, much to my surprise, I have known a former Labour councillor on Westminster council. I knew him at a social event that I attended in the past few years. I have also known one or two Conservative councillors on Westminster council. In my experience, none of the people involved in the case are serial killers or should be compared with them, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said earlier in the debate. None of the people I have just mentioned has asked me to make a speech; nor have they been involved in its preparation.
    I lived in Westminster for four years. I voted in the 1990 council elections, and I voted for a policy of selling council houses. Westminster had a low proportion of home ownership, and the council owned far too many houses. During the four years that I lived in Westminster, it was a clean, well-run council, and there was a high turnout in council elections.
    We retained control of Westminster council not because of gerrymandering, but because people did not want Labour in power. There was one of the highest turnouts in council elections that many people had seen for many years. For various reasons, I now live in Lambeth, and I am saddened by the fact that in Lambeth even the road signs are gerrymandered. Lambeth has red road signs. The Labour party is trying to put its party colours all over Lambeth, along with the council flats and the unemployment that it has gerrymandered into Lambeth.
    If the surcharge imposed on Westminster councillors is confirmed by the High Court, it will be in complete contrast to all previous cases. Legal advice has been taken from eminent QCs at every stage. Officers were most careful, as were members of the council. After the initial decision to sell council houses—which I understand was a political policy decision similar to those made in every political party group on every council—the officers were the only people involved in the detailed implementation of the policy. They quite properly prevented councillors from interfering with individual sales, and restricted them to policy decisions.
    I shall address the main part of my speech to the objectors. Who are the objectors to the accounts that set the district auditor going? At one time, there were

    827
    13 objectors to the accounts of Westminster city council, but now there are only four. Nine of the objectors have pulled out. The ordinary members of the public have pulled out, and there are now only four Labour activists: a Labour councillor, a former Labour councillor, an activist in the Labour party, and a lifelong Labour party member.
    Those four Labour activists are financed by the trade unions and Labour party supporters through the Westminster Objectors Trust. The trust is run by Sir David Puttnam, the millionaire film director who helps the media-friendly image of certain people's actions, Baroness Jay, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). It is a totally Labour-run activity.
    Let me turn to the quality of the objectors. One objector who has withdrawn was the former girl friend of the main objector, Neale Coleman, but as soon as he dumped her, she ceased to object to the accounts of Westminster city council. That is how strong her objection was: as soon as she was dumped by the original objector, she was no longer interested in objecting herself. That is very relevant, because, as I shall demonstrate, the objections are based on corruption, and there is no substantive backing for them.
    According to one of the objectors, £200,000 has been raised from trade unions and Labour party supporters to fight the battle. That battle is being fought on political grounds, which is one reason why two churchmen withdrew their objections: they did not want to become involved in the heavy politics of Labour party trade unionism. I understand that Unison, the Labour-supporting trade union that does not encourage Labour Front-Bench spokesmen to declare their donations, has donated £21,000 to the Labour battle—as it is seen—in Westminster.
    All four of the Westminster Labour objectors are company directors as well as being Labour party activists. The primary objector, Mr. Neale Coleman, is a former Labour Westminster councillor who has a company—No. 2502022—known as Paddington Consultancy Partnership Ltd., with Mr. Stephen Hilditch, secretary and director of the Westminster Objectors Trust. Councillor Peter Bradley, another objector, owns company No. 2844795, which goes by the name of Millbank Consultants Ltd. In due course, I shall explain how those companies and their actions are involved.
    Mr. Gunnell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain why it is in order for him to use his privileged position in the House to attack the objectors personally, when it seems that it is not possible at this stage to comment on those who—in my view—have been found guilty by the district auditor.
    Mr. Shaw: That shows that the hon. Gentleman is approaching the matter on a political basis. The motion tabled by his party refers to wrongdoing on Westminster council; what the hon. Gentleman does not like is the fact that I am about to expose wrongdoing on the part of Labour members of that council.
    The three objectors to whom I have referred—former Westminster councillor Mr. Neale Coleman, Mr. Stephen Hilditch, and Councillor Peter Bradley—own companies which, in the past few years, have earned £1 million in fees from planning consultancy political work obtained through their membership of the Labour party.
    Ms Armstrong: So what?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Lady clearly could not care less about Labour corruption.
    Ms Armstrong: What is corrupt about a company that is legally registered, does work and is paid for that work, given that all that is declared, open and above board?
    Mr. Shaw: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to intervene again. Would she like to tell us that none of those companies, and none of the individuals involved, has ever earned those fees from Labour councils as a result of Labour decisions made in those councils?
    Ms Armstrong: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that any company that earns money from a political party, or from a council run by a particular political party, is, by virtue of obtaining the contract involved, corrupt? That is what he seems to be alleging.
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Lady is missing the point. The point is the word "favours", as I shall explain.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: If the hon. Gentleman suspects wrongdoing and corruption, what steps has he taken to refer the matter to the auditor? If he suspects criminal behaviour, what steps has he taken to refer it to the police?
    Mr. Shaw: If he is patient, the hon. Gentleman will hear more. Indeed, he will hear something of great interest to him about the people who booted him out of the leadership of the council with which he was involved.
    The hon. Gentleman should recognise that £1 million in fees from lobbying and political consultancy work is more than any Conservative Member has earned recently. We have been criticised by the Opposition: we have had to take some stick from them. But, when £1 million in fees for consultancies—political quid pro quos and backhanders—is floating around the Labour party, Opposition Members suddenly say that that cannot possibly be wrong if Labour is involved.
    Mr. Prentice: Get in touch with the police.
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman may want to do that when I have finished my speech, but perhaps he will stop interrupting. He is clearly very worried when anyone raises any concerns about the Labour party. Earlier today, we heard from Labour how perfect it is on this issue—how perfect it is when it wants to criticise people if there is any wrongdoing. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) should wait and see; he can decide whether he wants to criticise people when I have finished my speech.
    The objections to the accounts of Westminster council are not due to any concern for the residents of Westminster. Those people are using Westminster in order to operate within the Labour party in furtherance of their own financial interests. Let me start with Mr. Neale Coleman. He was born Dennis, but I understand that—much to the upset of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—"Dennis" is no longer fashionable, and Neale prefers to be known as "Neale". He was the original objector to the

    829
    accounts of Westminster council, but, strange as it may seem, the district auditor refused to call him as a witness at the recent hearing.
    Mr. Coleman was offered as a witness by the QC, Andrew Arden, acting for the objectors trust, but when it became apparent what questions he would be asked, Mr. Arden suddenly withdrew him.
    Mr. Betts: That is irrelevant.
    Mr. Shaw: It is very relevant to what was said earlier. Earlier, Opposition Members said that there should be full disclosure—that everyone should volunteer information and appear as a witness—but the Labour party did not allow its own member to be called as a witness. Labour and the district auditor did not want him to appear, and he did not appear in that last hearing that led to the district auditor's final report.
    Mr. Neale Coleman has a business that declares in its report and accounts that it is involved in council and voluntary organisation consultancies. He comes from a political family, closely connected with the Labour party. For example, his father ran the Ann Summers chain of sex shops, his mother is currently Labour mayor of Barnet and his brother Iain is currently a Labour political adviser on Islington council and leader of Labour-controlled Hammersmith and Fulham council, which I understand booted out the hon. Member for Pendle. Apparently, this political adviser on Islington council intends to become the non-political mayor of Hammersmith and Fulham council, on £12,000 a year.
    Interestingly, Mr. Coleman might be stopped by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which states that political advisers on one council should not be councillors on another. That, however, is the way in which the Labour party keeps tabs on what is going on.
    We should perhaps admire Neale Coleman in some respects. He is running a successful company: over the past two years, it achieved £400,000 in turnover from council and voluntary organisation consultancies. He uses Stoy Hayward as his auditor, and seems happy with it; but, funnily enough, Stoy Hayward is one of the auditors that Dame Shirley employed to disagree with the district auditor's assessment. It is strange that Mr. Coleman seems both happy and unhappy with Stoy Hayward.
    The House might also like to know that, when PC Blakelock was murdered at Broadwater Farm estate, Neale Coleman was there as a political activist. When Dr. Michael Dutt, a councillor at Westminster, took his own life, Neale Coleman was there, also as a political activist. That is the man who is the principal objector to the accounts of Westminster council, a man who is present when people lose their lives in unhappy circumstances.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he alleges that, at the scene of what the police discovered to be a suicide, another person was present. Surely that could not possibly be the case. To place such a slur on an individual with absolutely no evidence is surely not in accordance with the history of how the House exercises its undoubted privilege.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: It cannot be a point of order for the Chair, but perhaps it is an issue on which the hon. Lady would wish to intervene.
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Lady is deliberately trying to obfuscate what I am saying, and is so concerned that it might hit home that she is constantly trying to intervene. I made it clear that Dr. Michael Dutt—[Interruption.] Will you listen for a change instead of rabbiting on like a stupid woman?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember that he is addressing me and that he cannot address me in that fashion and get away with it.
    Mr. Shaw: I would never accuse you, Madam Deputy Speaker, of doing what I have just accused the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) of doing. I made it clear that Dr. Michael Dutt took his own life in tragic circumstances. I also make it clear that Dr. Dutt took his life because Neale Coleman started the ball rolling when he made the complaint to the district auditor. I shall give further information on his business details in due course.
    In 1989, Neale Coleman's partner, Mr. Stephen Hilditch, worked for Labour-controlled Hammersmith council on a restructuring study. Iain Coleman, the brother of Neale Coleman, is a councillor on Hammersmith council and held that position at the time the contract was awarded to Stephen Hilditch. In a letter to The Guardian, Stephen Hilditch complained about the difficulties of finance for the Westminster Objectors Trust. He is a director of a company that is pulling in £200,000 a year from local government consultancies. I shall shortly give more information about how those consultancies are obtained.
    Neither Neale Coleman nor Stephen Hilditch believes in paying tax on that money. Like some Labour people I have come across, they avoid tax; their accounts show that hardly any money has ended up with the tax man. That is the character of the people who are making accusations about Westminster council. However, they find money to pay sub-contractors' fees.
    I do not know whether hon. Members have ever contemplated what happens when political consultancies pay sub-contractors' fees and do not disclose to whom they are paid. Stephen Hilditch and Neale Coleman paid £75,000 in such fees in each of the past two years and donated £2,000, and they have not disclosed in their accounts to whom or what that donation was made.
    Councillor Peter Bradley is Labour's parliamentary candidate for The Wrekin and a Westminster councillor, but he does not disclose in the council's register of interests the names of his clients and their interests in the Westminster area. Here is new Labour, with no disclosure at all of councillors' financial interests in a council's register of interests. New Labour means no disclosure. But Mr. Bradley is well known to the fraud squad, which has recently been feeling his collar because he was interviewed as a result of his non-disclosure.
    On Westminster's planning committee, Councillor Peter Bradley tried to stop a proposed Waitrose shopping development that would have been near the store of his client, Safeway. He did not declare the interest that he is retained by Safeway: he decided that people should not

    831
    know about that if it could be avoided. If it had not been for one or two people who did a little investigative work, no one would have known that he was retained by Safeway.
    We may wonder why Safeway thinks that Councillor Peter Bradley, a man with no professional qualification whatever, should be so valuable that it pays him tens of thousands of pounds. Can it be because he is the deputy leader of the Labour group on Westminster council, a Labour activist and a Labour prospective parliamentary candidate, or is it because, as exposed by Andrew Pierce in The Times in January 1995, Councillor Bradley has been involved in gerrymandering in Camden's Chalk Farm ward?
    Camden has 15,000 unemployed and it needs jobs, but what did Councillor Peter Bradley gerrymander? He produced social housing. He helped Safeway develop social housing and a Safeway store. Hon. Members may wonder why two other proposals, one for the creation of 500 jobs and the other for 700 jobs, were defeated. Councillor Bradley engaged in a fiddle for Safeway in Camden—a gerrymander that the Opposition plainly do not like, because they have been rabbiting on throughout my speech. They are clearly sensitive on this issue, and must feel that there are possibilities for corruption.
    Single-handedly, Councillor Peter Bradley obtained planning permission for Safeway, and provided only 200 jobs, although there were alternative schemes for 500 or 700. Some 500 people will live in 202 social housing units. They will be unemployed because no jobs will be created, and they will live near the noise and vibration of a railway line.
    Who would propose to build social housing in an area that is scheduled for industrial use unless he intended to gerrymander? Obviously, the railway line will interrupt the peaceful nights of people living there. They will have to put up with noise and vibration, and, because of that and the inconvenience of an industrial area, their children will not be able to play outside.
    Mr. Couchman: In whose constituency is Chalk Farm? Is it in the constituency of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)?
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend makes an interesting intervention. Although it is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, the boundary commission attempted to attach that ward to the constituency of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate. That would have meant that she had more Labour voters, and that was behind the gerrymandering.
    The Labour party was not just worried about the ward remaining in Holborn and St. Pancras, but thought that it would go to Hampstead and Highgate under the boundary commission recommendation, and that they had better build some social housing quickly to increase the Labour majority in Hampstead and Highgate.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman deliberately to misinform the House? The boundary commission proposed to add Chalk Farm ward to Hampstead and Highgate, but my constituents countered that proposal; the boundary commission found in their favour, and the commission gave my constituency another ward.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I have explained to the House and to the hon. Lady before that the occupant of
    832
    the Chair cannot be responsible for the accuracy or otherwise of hon. Members' words. Normally, there is an opportunity for hon. Members either to intervene to challenge what they regard as an inaccuracy or to make a point later in their own speech, if they catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair.
    Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate for her helpful intervention. She has confirmed what I have said: the ward was possibly going to go into her constituency, and the Labour party was at work gerrymandering it before it went in. It wanted to ensure that, if the Boundary Commission had gone along with the proposal to put it in her constituency, it would have been gerrymandered. That is precisely the point that I was trying to make.
    The other point that I am making is that a Labour councillor on Westminster council was acting for Safeway in the gerrymandering process. I hope that, if any of my hon. Friends are going shopping in Safeway—if they ever do after my speech—they will consider that Safeway's directors are paying tens of thousands of pounds to a Westminster Labour councillor, who has no professional qualifications and no known skills that enable him to do the job, other than the fact that he mixes in Labour party circles.
    Councillor Peter Bradley, the Westminster councillor, has one other extremely dubious achievement in property circles. In Richmond upon Thames, he has succeeded in helping London and Edinburgh Trust to get out of—
    Mr. Grocott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Shaw: I will in a minute. May I make just this point? [HON. MEMBERS: "He has just walked in."] I know.
    Councillor Peter Bradley has acted on behalf of the London and Edinburgh Trust to get it out of a £20 million commitment to Richmond upon Thames's residents. That is what a Westminster councillor is up to in his spare time. He got the trust out of that commitment and, mysteriously, the council lowered the trust's commitment to £2.5 million. The trust saved £17.5 million, and Richmond upon Thames's residents lost on the deal that they were expecting from developers in the region. How was the money for that shady deal reduced from £20 million to £2.5 million, and how much was Councillor Peter Bradley, a man who had no professional qualifications, paid?
    Mr. Grocott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber. He must listen to the whole of a speech.
    Mr. Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have just walked into the Chamber and heard the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) make all sorts of accusations about an individual who is not, of course, in a position to respond. May we have guidance from you on whether it is an abuse of hon. Members' privileges to attack individuals who cannot reply? More specifically, may we have a ruling from you on whether the hon. Member for Dover, who will not be with us much longer, is prepared to repeat verbatim, outside the House, what he has just said? Will he please answer that question?
    Mr. Shaw rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Before the hon. Member for Dover continues, may I say that, in the view of the occupant of the Chair, each Member for Parliament is responsible for what he or she says.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the hon. Member for Dover answer the second question, then?
    Mr. Shaw: First, if he had any courtesy or any feeling for the House of Commons and its procedures, the hon. Gentleman would have been here for the debate. Secondly, if he had been here, he would have heard Conservative members of Westminster council accused of being serial killers, crooks and other things. What I am calling some of these people is mild in comparison.
    Mr. Grocott rose—
    Mr. Shaw: Sit down. You have had a little bit too much outside in the places where you should not be.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Dover for the second time that he is addressing me.
    Mr. Shaw rose—
    Mr. Ken Livingstone: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House definitely just heard the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) say that my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) had had a little bit too much outside. I understand that that is contrary to the rules of the House.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: It was not clear what it was.
    Mr. Shaw: Absolutely. Obviously, the hon. Members for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who have just come into the Chamber, should be less sensitive and less worried about what is going on.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Shaw: I am not going to give way, because I want to finish my concluding points.
    I want the House to consider these people.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules of the House well enough. If an hon. Member does not give way, the other hon. Member must resume his seat.
    Mr. Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What protection is there for people outside the House who are being libelled by the hon. Member for Dover, who, even now, will not answer a simple question: will he repeat outside the precise statements that he has made? If he will not, clearly he is using the protection of parliamentary privilege to abuse and libel other people.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The fact is that parliamentary privilege exists.
    Mr. Shaw: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    The consultants whom I have spoken about, Councillor Peter Bradley, former councillor Neale Coleman, and Stephen Hilditch, have a strange way of conducting their business. They do not advertise for business. They do not appear in any directory of consultants that trade in local authority work or any other work. The House of Commons Library has been unable to find any reference to their consultancy businesses other than in the telephone directory. They are not in any local government directory, they do not have professional qualifications, and they do not issue publicity material. It is strange how such people can get business; it appears that the only way in which they can do so is through their Labour party connections. In the past five years, that has given them £1 million-worth of business.
    I refer briefly to the fourth objector, Dr. Richard Stone, a company director on Pensioners Link Ltd., the Mangrove Trust, Charta Mede Ltd. and the Foundation for the Care of Victims of Apartheid. Dr. Richard Stone also comes from a traditional Labour family. His father was personal physician to Harold Wilson. He appears regularly on television as a neutral political doctor. He is supposed to be neutral, as he claimed in 1992 on Independent Television News, but he was wrong on two counts. First, he had retired as a doctor and therefore should not have been giving medical views on television at the time; secondly, he was a Labour party member and had been one throughout his active life. I believe that ITN was severely unimpressed about being misled by Dr. Richard Stone.
    Those are the four objectors: a misleading doctor who has been in the Labour party all his life and whose family has always been in the Labour party, and three odd consultancy operators who get £1 million-worth of fees in a few years from Labour party connections.
    Three firms of accountants have disagreed with the district auditor's figures. I have considered his figures, and, although I have my doubts, I not going to say whether I agree or disagree with them today. Unfortunately, however, the district auditor has a problem of a conflict of interest, which I do not believe has been reported.
    The district auditor's company, Touche Ross, has a connected company, Braxton Associates. One of its employees is a former Labour Westminster councillor, Mr. David Pitt-Watson. He is a close political friend of the main objector, Mr. Neale Coleman, because they shared a ward, so the district auditor's connected individual, who works in the group of companies that the district auditor is involved in, is a friend of the main objector.
    Mr. Pitt-Watson a still active in the Labour party in Westminster. He was a Labour candidate at the council elections in 1994. He would have had a Labour constituency recently, but he was defeated by an all-woman short list—my colleagues will be upset for Mr. David Pitt-Watson on that basis. The district auditor's conflict in this instance is that the more Mr. Pitt-Watson's friend, Mr. Neale Coleman, objects to the accounts, the more Mr. Pitt-Watson's employing partnership profits through more work for the district auditor. The more Labour objects

    835
    to the accounts of Westminster through the friend of one of the employees of a subsidiary of Touche Ross, the more the district auditor's income goes up. As one chartered accountant to another, I must tell Mr. Magill that he has an impossible and appalling conflict of interest.
    The four objectors left out of the original 13 are Labour activists. The district auditor has a conflict of interest. The objections are all political and are not founded on a sound or solid legal basis. Three out of the four Labour objectors are earning money through Labour party and Labour council connections. That is appalling. This is not the way to run an audit of any council.
    7.50 pm
    Mr. John Gunnell: We have just been treated to the most disgraceful speech I have ever heard in the House. I have never heard a speech which was less to the point. It concentrated entirely on vilifying the objectors. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has shown why he has been labelled the vilest man in the House—a label of which I believe he is proud. He has demonstrated that fully and I am appalled that a person can use his privilege as a Member of the House in that way.
    Mr. Dobson: Does my hon. Friend agree that anyone who listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Dover should bear in mind the statement of Mr. Nimmo Smith QC who inquired into the things that the hon. Gentleman said about Monklands councillors? He said:
    "Mr. David Shaw MP (Dover) had no evidence of substance to offer, notwithstanding repeated references by him to the large amount of information about the Council which he claimed to possess, and notwithstanding his having made reference to the Council's affairs in Parliament on various occasions from late 1992 onwards."
    Was not his speech tonight part and parcel of the smear campaign with which he has
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a rather long intervention.
    Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. That point has already been made twice by the Labour party in sheer desperation. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has just returned from whatever he was doing outside the Chamber to make the point a third time. He did not listen to my speech. Could you—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.
    Mr. Gunnell: I can see that it is a little difficult to get into this debate.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. As it happens, the quotation has been used before. The hon. Member for Dover spent at least the first 10 or 15 minutes of his speech dealing with Monklands council rather than Westminster council. We should concentrate on matters which affect Westminster council.
    Like the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), I have experience of the Audit Commission. I want to comment on the charge made by the hon. Member for
    836
    Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) that the auditor acted as investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury. I would have expected the Government to have been stronger in their defence of the Audit Commission, which they set up. In my view it has an unparalleled record. It is amazing that no Minister has spoken in favour of the procedures and that it has been suggested that the procedures were weak.
    Implicit in the way in which the Audit Commission works is that auditors are asked to judge on non-audit activity. The Audit Commission was set up with specific aims, one of which was to integrate the district audit service with private sector auditing and to bring private sector auditing into local government work. It has done that. Mr. Magill now works for Deloitte Touche and has been involved in local government audit for a considerable time. He has handled matters in Westminster other than that under consideration.
    When one starts to say that the Audit Commission is responsible for economy, efficiency and effectiveness in local government, one is widening the judgments that auditors are asked to make. They are asked to discuss not just the economy of services or the financial aspects but to consider and report on matters of effectiveness. On those terms, one cannot reach a judgment purely on financial probity. The way in which the Audit Commission has been set up means that auditors must act in that way.
    It is regrettable that the hon. Member for Dover attacked the auditor in this case. John Magill is a senior partner with Deloitte Touche. He has been the firm's legal partner on Audit Commission work since its formation in 1983 and has been appointed auditor to several councils. He has been with the firm since 1969 and became a partner in 1975. He has been the partner in charge of the firm's professional standards function. He has demonstrated his ability in the auditing profession. He does not need the additional work that Westminster has given him over the past few years. I am sure that it makes no difference to what he or his company earns. I believe that the hon. Member for Dover's words were an unmitigated slur.
    It is for the Government to say that the Audit Commission has acted properly and to stand by it. John Magill has been amazed by the amount of vilification that he has received from Conservative Members. He was described by someone involved with Westminster as
    "'a thin, gaunt man with narrow-rimmed spectacles' inflicting a `Kafkaesque nightmare' on Westminster Tories."
    He has done nothing of the sort. He has tried to discover the truth. In discovering what he believes to be the truth and reporting on it he has clearly upset many people, some of whom are in the House.
    As I have said, I expected the Government to be stronger in their support of the Audit Commission. They set it up and it operates according to the rules that they set for it.
    Do we need to revise the procedures? I was present as a member of the Audit Commission when section 15 reports were laid down on Liverpool and Lambeth councils. I regretted the decisions those councils made about setting a rate, but I believed that it was right to issue a report which was in the public interest.
    There was an earlier report in the public interest on Westminster and the sale of three cemeteries for 15p each. That report came from the same auditor. Those reports

    837
    are in the public interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) made it clear that people were directly affected by the policy. Those affected have a right to a report on what happened and why. It is clear that the ratepayers of Westminster have a direct interest in the report. It is right that we should be able to debate the contents of a report that is issued in the public interest.
    The Government have said consistently that they cannot comment on the report or the guilt of those concerned because it is going to appeal. The issuing of certificates to the Lambeth and Liverpool councillors took place on 6 September 1985. The Lambeth appeal was not heard in the House of Lords until 5 March 1986, and further judgments on Liverpool councillors were not made in the House of Lords until 1987. Did the Government find that they could not comment on the guilt of Liverpool and Lambeth councillors while the matters were on appeal?
    In reply to a private notice question on 2 December 1985, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) said:
    "I should be willing to meet a delegation of members from Liverpool city council when they behave reasonably and legally".— [Official Report,2 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 24.]
    He was therefore saying that they had behaved illegally. As a member of the Audit Commission, I believed that they had behaved illegally. Certainly, that was what their Lordships felt. Yet if the Government were consistent, they would not have commented on the matter. The same inconsistency was true of Lord Elton, then a Minister in the Department of the Environment, when he spoke in the House of Lords on 11 December 1985.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Is not the essential difference that those Liverpool councillors always accepted that they were acting illegally, but believed their action to be proper from a political point of view? There was never any doubt that they were acting illegally and the then Secretary of State was therefore right to say what he did.
    Mr. Gunnell: It is a question of double standards. There is no doubt that the Liverpool and Lambeth councillors suggested that, on principle, they would not set a poll tax rate because they did not think that they should, given the effect that it would have on the work forces concerned.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Gunnell: Since other hon. Members want to speak and the hon. Member for Dover has taken up rather a lot of the debate, I shall not give way further. The Government were prepared to express clear condemnation in the House, although I agree that there is a difference in the nature of the charges. Is it wise to go to court on such issues as those who have been charged in Westminster by the district auditor have chosen to do? Their behaviour may not only be a local government sin but a crime against the citizens of Westminster.
    On Lambeth and Liverpool councils' appeals, the Government took further action—to expedite those appeals. Will the Government take action to expedite the Westminster appeal? Since the matter has gone on for so many years, it is important that it be brought to a
    838
    conclusion as rapidly as possible. As a member of the Audit Commission, I was told that every possible means was being used to conclude matters concerning Lambeth and Liverpool as speedily as possible. I want to be sure that the Government are acting in the same way—I trust that the commission will act in the same way, too—over Westminster city council and that they will do their level best to expedite proceedings so that we may receive the sort of answers that we want.
    We should remember that Westminster city council was already very experienced in matters affecting the district auditor as a result of the cemeteries case, which found that, as such, Westminster council had not acted improperly. The auditor found that there was a regrettable handling of the sale for which members and officers were responsible, a regrettable lack of commercial awareness, and that council officers were so overawed by certain council members that they did not feel that they could say unpalatable things that council members did not want to hear. That is relevant to this Westminster case as well.
    We should not judge the result of the appeal in advance, but the Government could make it very clear that they expect people who are under investigation by auditors to co-operate. The ways in which the council was deliberately unco-operative in the investigation have been obvious because they have been catalogued by the district auditor. The Government should condemn that.
    The details of notes that were passed—they are certainly included in John Magill's 2,000-page report that the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) may have read but to which others have not had access—referred clearly to actions that were thought to be illegal. Indeed, the officers who wrote of them said that they had to be made legal. I shall confine myself to only a few examples of that.
    In 1987, Lady Porter made it clear that the "donkey work" for the designated sales had been done, and said:
    "all I had to do, as I had the personality, was to get it through the Committee".
    It was said that it was her intention to gain electoral advantage by selling more properties in marginal wards.
    At a strategy weekend, probably at Oxford, which was attended by officers, a paper written by Lady Porter entitled "Setting the Scene" was discussed. In that, she stated:
    "We face a tremendous challenge. The electoral register for the 1990 elections will be compiled in just over two years' time. Some very ambitious policies must be implemented by then: providing a great deal of affordable housing in key areas; protecting the electoral base in other areas … There is very little time to achieve these radical policy objectives."
    I agree that people take political decisions, but it is clear that people should not use council money to implement such decisions. Council money was used to empty properties and allocate grants, and rehouse people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I can easily imagine that there will be disputes about the actual figure, but it is indisputable that it runs into many millions of pounds. I am certainly prepared to accept that John Magill is better at arithmetic than we are in the House.
    I accept the figure of £31.6 million, which is a staggering amount to be spent in the pursuance of the policy. What is illegal is that council resources were used to fund a politically driven policy to achieve electoral gain. People will say at the appeal that they were not

    839
    responsible for the policy, but they cannot contest the fact that the policy was pursued or that the things written about it were not written. The appeal will have to consider the notes, who were the authors, who was responsible and who was implicitly involved in the policy.
    I think that the matter will go to the Court of Appeal. I hope that the Government will expedite matters to help it proceed as rapidly as possible. The Government should support the district audit service and make clear that the district auditor has in no way behaved differently from how we would expect him to behave. Hon. Members should be praising him for the meticulous way in which he has examined—despite the obstructions—all the affairs and reports in detail, as the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South has said. The right hon. Gentleman said that the district auditor's work was meticulous. He is the only person who has made it clear that the work has been very good. I would have hoped that the Government could assert that whoever is in political control, it is the role of the district audit service to make it clear that there is probity in local government. That was allegedly the reason why they set the Audit Commission to work—to extend the concept of financial probity to cover an examination of services in terms of value for money.
    According to those terms, Mr. Magill has found that Westminster city council's policy was pursued for electoral advantage, and we must accept that that is the case. That being so, it is up to the courts to decide who was personally guilty of perpetrating that policy and foisting it upon the council.
    8.9 pm
    Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), who has a distinguished record both in local government and as a member of the Audit Commission. It is entirely typical of the hon. Gentleman that he managed to cut through much of the froth surrounding the debate and get to the central problem. He asked why Conservative Members were reluctant to condemn the people named in the report, and why there may seem to be some inconsistency between our position now and our attitude to the former Liverpool councillors.
    The exchange between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) went to the heart of the problem: the difference is that the Westminster councillors say that they are not guilty. They do not believe or accept that they have broken the law, whereas the former Liverpool councillors accepted that they were deliberately breaking the law. They did so on principle, because they did not believe in the law or support it. That is the difference.
    The hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) seemed bemused, and asked about our reluctance, but I have given her the answer, although I cannot put it in quite such elegant terms as did the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South. We are unhappy about Opposition Members' determination to nail those six people to the tumbrils, and even more unhappy because they seem to want to throw in some extra bodies for good measure.
    We prefer to wait until the court system is exhausted before we attribute guilt. The exchange between the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) also went to the heart
    840
    of that problem, because when the hon. Member for Newbury said that the people concerned were guilty, my hon. Friend rightly asked, "Where does it say guilty?" The hon. Member for Newbury could not tell him.
    At that point I thought that I heard the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), who was on the Opposition Front Bench, say that that did not matter. He said something like "So what?" But guilt does matter; it is important, and it is only right that we should condemn people only when the legal system has been exhausted.
    It is a shame that great works of literature are sometimes over-quoted in the Chamber. People so often refer to an "Alice in Wonderland" situation that when that description is precisely applicable to something, one sounds a little coy when one uses it. But it describes exactly what is happening now. In the great trial scene in "Alice in Wonderland", with the Red Queen, we read words to the effect of "We don't want to hear the evidence or the judgment; we want the sentence first. Let's have the sentence before we look at the evidence." And that is what we hear now: "Never mind about the trial, the evidence or peoples' civil rights. Let's have the verdict."
    We have heard how upset Opposition Members were when my hon. Friend the Member for Dover named Labour members of Westminster council. We have the same feeling about naming the people in the report. They are entitled to a fair hearing at a fair trial.
    Mr. Brooke: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) is not in the Chamber now, but he did not give way to me during his fairly vicious attack on Ministers. Does my hon. Friend recall the debate in the Liberal Cabinet over the Marconi scandal, when it was said that the Tories were too stupid to take advantage of it? Winston, who of course had previously sat on the Conservative Benches, said, "Yes, some of them are too stupid"—then he paused for a moment and thought, and added, "But all of them are too nice."
    Mr. Pickles: My right hon. Friend's knowledge of contemporary history far exceeds mine, but that story has the ring of truth about it. I certainly thought that the hon. Member for Newbury brought some light to fairly dark proceedings when he suggested that the whole procedure could have been avoided if only there had been proportional representation. My mind went back to an old sketch from "Not the Nine O'Clock News", in which a "Question Time" audience was told that the world was about to end. The Liberal spokesman said that the real tragedy of Armageddon was that millions of people would die without ever having had the opportunity to enjoy a fair voting system.
    The added ingredient in the story has been Lady Porter. After all, she was the nemesis of the Labour party in London. She did not suffer fools gladly, and was not a quiet retiring leader; she was prepared to take the Labour party on. Ratepayers in London benefited to the tune of millions of pounds because of Lady Porter's willingness to stop the Greater London council spending large sums in its last few days of existence—the so-called "tombstone funding".
    It seems distasteful that people should be judged and convicted without a hearing, and without an opportunity to defend themselves.
    Mr. Livingstone: May I put the record straight? Lady Porter took the GLC to court to object to the fact that we

    841
    intended to give £100 million to voluntary organisations. She won the case, so we gave the money to housing associations.
    Mr. Pickles: I think that the hon. Gentleman's recollection is wrong, because Lady Porter lost the case, but still stopped the council giving the money away.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I was in court when the injunction was obtained, and although the case was not won, the point was, because by the time the injunction had been cleared the GLC had been abolished, the law had gone through, and the council could not and did not give the funding out, so the ratepayers got the money back.
    Mr. Pickles: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
    What I find distasteful is the way in which the Labour party is using the system to crush six individuals. What adds the extra spice is no doubt the fact that we are talking about the Tesco heiress, whom the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) described as a fat cat.
    The law should apply equally both to the Tesco heiress and to the person on the checkout at Tesco. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras quoted the words written over the door of the Old Bailey, but the last time I looked at the Old Bailey there was a lady standing on top of it—the symbol of justice. She carries the symbols of justice in both hands, and her eyes are blindfolded. It is important that everybody has the right to justice, regardless of his or her means.
    During proceedings on the private notice question last week, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras pledged that a future Labour Government would hold a public inquiry, although he did not repeat that pledge today. I think that he is nodding, acknowledging that to be true. However, what I thought he was offering was a political show trial. It was clear to me that he was not interested in the evidence or in justice, but simply in seeing the individuals concerned twist in the wind.
    Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening last Thursday, when the private notice question was asked, he would know that I was concerned not about the six individuals—they should be dealt with under the law passed by the Government in 1982 to apply to anybody, whether a person has a lot of money or none—but about the relations between central Government and Westminster, which have been corrupt throughout.
    Mr. Pickles: I refer the hon. Gentleman to column 368 of Hansard for 9 May, in which the context of what he suggested is clear. He might not have intended to do so, but he advocated a political show trial.
    If those six people are ultimately found guilty by a court, I make it absolutely clear that I will condemn them, the Conservative party will condemn them and, I have no doubt, the Secretary of State will condemn them. But I am totally certain that we will not have any business about trying to change the law retrospectively—such as we had in 1975 with the housing finance special provisions, when an attempt was made not only to remove the
    842
    disqualification of councillors but to remove some of the financial burdens placed on them. The Conservative party will not do that if the appeals fail.
    We are told that the right of appeal is unusual. We are told that, because it is unusual, we have a right to comment. But it is unusual for people to appeal in civil cases and it is unusual for people to go for judicial reviews against decisions of the Secretary of State, but they still do it. One cannot pray in aid the judicial service when it suits and dismiss it when it is inconvenient.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the purpose of the judicial appeal mechanism in this case is that the auditor is not legally qualified and it is not a judicial process? It is, therefore, necessary to confirm that through the judiciary when it is not agreed.
    Mr. Pickles: My hon. and learned Friend, who is a distinguished lawyer, is quite right on that point.
    I support the points made about Mr. Magill by my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). But just because one has doubts about the way in which he proceeded does not in any way strike at his professional competence. I have the mildest of criticisms of Mr. Magill. I think that it was a mistake to hold that press conference during the preliminary hearing. I think that it was an error of judgment and that it tainted his impartiality. I was very pleased that he did not repeat the same mistake at the full hearing. We all learn from our mistakes, but I am not sure that that undid the damage. On matters of investigation, form is just as important as substance.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: My hon. Friend is knowledgeable about local government. Is it normal for a district auditor to hold a press conference before he has completed his report? Possibly the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell), a former member of the Audit Commission, is aware of previous cases in which a press conference has been held by a district auditor.
    Mr. Pickles: It is a very unusual situation and, as I said, I think that it was a mistake. I am sure that the district auditor did not intend it to turn out in the way that it did and that it is a lesson for future district auditors on how they must conduct themselves.
    We have heard of Westminster council's excellent record on provision and taking care of applications from the homeless.
    I should like to talk a little about politics in local government, because I think that that goes to the heart of this inquiry and raises questions as to whether politics are inappropriate in local government and whether political parties should use their office to pursue popular political policies.
    If one starts with the parish council, it is possible not to have political parties involved and to run them with some pragmatism. Their functions, budgets and geographical areas in which they deal are very limited. I regret those areas of the country in which politics and the politicisation of parish councils have become commonplace. But with larger councils, such as the metropolitan authorities and the county councils, some of their budgets are larger than the total budgets of many of

    843
    the states in the United States of America. A policy of steady as she goes—or, put slightly more poetically by Alexander Pope:
    "For forms of government let fools contest;
    Whate'er is best administer'd is best"—
    is simply not satisfactory.
    Politics means choice in local government. We should not be ashamed of offering political choice to the electorate. Each party has its view, puts candidates up for election and it is supported or it is rejected. I should like to compare that against three popular policies.
    If the previous 17 years are marked by anything, it should perhaps be by the extension of share ownership. That extension was brought about by the Conservatives to persuade more people to vote Conservative, to increase the number of share owners and to accomplish the aim of a property-owning democracy with shares. We now have more share owners in this country than we have members of trade unions. That was a blatantly political act to get votes and to increase the number of people who were Conservatives.
    The right to buy goes at the very heart of the problem. It was a great touchstone between the political parties in the 1970s and the 1980s, although it is less so now. Implementing that policy was bitterly fought out. It was an attempt to persuade more people to vote Conservative than Labour. The same is true of the great debate taking place on grant-maintained schools.
    We are pursuing the grant-maintained policy because we believe that it is right for schools, but we also believe that the more parents have their children educated at grant-maintained schools the more likely they are to vote Conservative. There have been some references to the Birmingham case. When the Labour group was challenged about its policy document "Meeting Needs", the district auditor said that it was lawful and that the Labour group
    "was indeed trying to improve its standing with the electorate following poor results in May 1992, but we find nothing wrong with this principle in a democratic system. It is normal for any political party to revise its policies to reflect the views of the electorate as expressed in the ballot box."
    He went on to say:
    "The crucial test is whether all such schemes were subsequently properly authorised by committee or by Chief Officers under delegated powers. We are satisfied that the overall budget of £7.2 million was properly authorised and that most of the schemes were approved by the service committees."
    So when is it not appropriate to have politics in local government? I think that it is inappropriate to determine whether one will help someone on the basis of how they voted. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) spoke about that matter earlier. When people come to my advice bureau, I do not ask them how they voted. I do not look them up on our mark register to check how they voted. I certainly do not say to them, "You didn't vote for me—I'm not going to help you." In Brentwood and Ongar, I represent the whole community: Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Labour voters and those who voted for the Green candidate.
    I can recall that there was a trend in local government when Labour councillors would say that they did not represent Tories in their wards, and say "I represent my
    844
    class on council. I represent the working class, and those who are not working class cannot come to me for help." That is an example of when politics is inappropriate.
    Mr. Rendel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Pickles: We are pressed for time. It is not that I do not like the hon. Gentleman, and it is nice to see him back in the Chamber, but we are pressed for time. The Labour Whip is getting a little anxious, and I am coming to my conclusion—but we can, all of us, have a chat afterwards.
    I also believe that it would quite wrong to design a service just to service those areas that voted for one. That is absolutely and completely wrong. It is wrong to designate the way in which dustbins are emptied or schools allocated purely on the basis of how an area votes. That is an area in which politics is inappropriate.
    We have a system of local government and not of local administration. Government means choice; politics means choice. There is a right for the electorate to make those choices. I believe that this appeal, when it goes to court, will give us an opportunity to firmly establish the right of politics in local government.
    8.29 pm
    Mr. Clive Betts: I wish to refer to matters in the district auditor's report, a report that was drawn up through due process according to an Act passed by the House, introduced by this Government. We understand that the reason why the six people are appealing to the courts is that the district auditor came to a decision which is legally enforceable. The decision now stands that they misused funds, that they did it for the purpose of gerrymandering, and that in the course of doing so they ignored their responsibilities to homeless families.
    However, this is not just a little local difficulty for people in Westminster or Westminster councillors or officials. It is a matter for the Government. Whether or not they choose to deal with the issues now, at some stage the Government will have to come back to the House and explain their part in this sorry process. Throughout the period of the policy on which the district auditor reported the Government knew about the policy, they were advised of it and were consulted about it. They were asked for and gave approval about certain aspects of the policy.
    It is clear that, apart from the up-front issues, which we can discuss because they are on record, Westminster councillors and officials and local Members of Parliament did a great deal of lobbying behind the scenes with Ministers, their advisers and civil servants. It is on record that the right hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) was involved in those discussions.
    The basis of local authorities' housing programme strategies is the housing investment programme statement. The Government obtain information from local authorities to draw up the statement. I have been looking through the statements submitted by Westminster council for the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s. They are interesting documents. They show a change of policy following the discussions in Westminster and the decision that the council took in July 1987. They show a clear change from a policy of simply selling properties to one of social engineering. That was the purpose. Of course,

    845
    they did not mention political gerrymandering. That gives the lie to those who say that Westminster was merely behaving in a political way. None of the issues of gerrymandering came up front. They were all in hidden, secret documents.
    The public documents certainly talked about social engineering and trying to help a middle group of people within Westminster, even though at the same time the council was using its planning policies to ensure that private developments were built not for middle-income families but for rich and affluent families.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Betts: I am sorry. Much as I should like to, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because I am on limited time and I wish to allow my colleagues who have been sitting here throughout the debate an opportunity to speak.
    As well as outlining the change of approach, the strategy statements outline the increase in the target to 500 sales per year and the general intention to sell 1,800 properties per year. They also outline the cash incentive scheme as well as the designated sales scheme. That information was all passed on to the Government. They were consulted about it. They were asked for at least tacit approval, in the sense that they made their HIP allocations on the basis of those strategy statements. Indeed, the Government gave extra allocations to Westminster and sought to justify them by pointing to Westminster's appropriate and successful policies. That is how the Government were involved throughout the process.
    However, despite the sales policy, homelessness in Westminster was acute. The strategy documents reveal that more than £7 million per year was being spent on housing homeless families in temporary accommodation. Even in 1989, there were more than 700 families in temporary accommodation. That more than doubled in a five-year period once the homes-for-votes programme got under way.
    There was a recognition that there was a problem of homelessness and that people had to be exported to other boroughs. Letters were written to the Secretary of State advising that Westminster could not cope under the homeless persons legislation and asking the Government to change it. Requests were made for special capital allocations to provide hostels outside the borough. The most famous such allocation was the Government's attempt to give, outside their own guidelines, more than £1 million to provide a hostel in Croydon for Westminster's homeless families. It never got off the ground because there was a political row with the then leader of Croydon council about putting the hostel in his ward.
    A letter from Westminster to the Department of the Environment said:
    "To embark on such a large scale property designation we will reduce the number of properties available to meet the demand for social housing … If the designation policy is to be pursued alternative solutions to the homelessness crisis in Westminster will have to be found."
    So all the information that the Government received showed that the sales policy that Westminster was pursuing was causing it a real problem in coping with its homelessness and that it would require action from the Government to solve that difficulty.
    846
    Despite all that information, under section 32 of the Local Government Act 1985 the Government approved the designated sales policy. They argued about the sell-on values of properties, but they gave approval. They specifically approved allowing the right-to-buy discounts that would be available to a family if they bought the house that they lived in to be passed on if the family bought one of the properties in the designated blocks. They approved that change to the normal approach.
    The Government had issued guidance to the effect that where grants were given to families to buy a vacant property under any sales policy, the properties vacated by families who came from other council properties should be given to homeless families. That guidance was also broken by the Department of the Environment. It never bothered under its monitoring procedures to pull Westminster up and say that the net result of its policy was to deny homeless families homes instead of releasing vacant properties to house them.
    Westminster began to operate the cash incentives policy under section 137 powers. It was advised by its own lawyers that the policy was illegal. It continued the policy under section 129 of the Housing Act 1988. Implementation of the policy required specific consent from the Government. The district auditor's report is full of a series of correspondence between Westminster and the Government between 17 July 1987, when Westminster first asked for approval, and August 1988, when it was given approval. The reason for that correspondence, and why initially the Government refused to give approval but eventually did, was that Westminster had to get round the words in the legislation.
    Under the cash incentives scheme, where people were given a cash grant to move to another property, the property which they left had to be let to a homeless family. The Government colluded in getting round the words. They produced a review in 1990–91 of what happened to the cash incentives scheme. It showed that fewer than 40 per cent. of the properties vacated under the scheme went to homeless families. More than a third went neither to a homeless family nor to a council tenant in Westminster who moved over, as the Government's policy should have required.
    Despite that review, the Government gave Westminster council £4.5 million of extra capital allocations in the early 1990s to follow that policy through. The policy was operated contrary to their own guidance, but the Government gave consent to Westminster to do so under powers in section 129 of the Housing Act 1988. Nothing was done, despite the fact that the Government were providing housing subsidy to implement the policy.
    So the Government knew what was happening through information that they received under the housing investment programme. They gave extra capital allocations. They gave consent to the cash incentive grants. They gave consent to the grants to purchase vacant properties. They gave consent to a £1.3 million allocation for a hostel to house homeless families in another borough because Westminster complained that it would not have anywhere to put homeless families because it was selling the flats in which such families should have been housed.
    At the same time, the Government, tolerant of that waste of money and the fact that homeless families were being ignored, entered into discussions to set up a Westminster housing trust, even though officers advised

    847
    councillors that it was illegal. The purpose was to subsidise private landlords to gentrify blocks of flats and let them on to residents of Westminster or others, according to a process which would be controlled by the local Conservative party through the trust. That, too, was discussed actively with Ministers.
    While all that was happening, the head of the policy unit in Westminster was a Mr. Phillips, who was on secondment from the Department of the Environment. No one could believe that he was not reporting back to his masters in the Department of the Environment about the policies that he was pursuing. Mr. Phillips eventually became the managing director and was replaced by Mr. Reiter, another appointment from the Department of the Environment, in furthering those policies.
    There is no doubt that throughout all this business, the Government knew what was happening. They had the information. They were lobbied; they gave approval; they monitored what was happening by reports such as that to which I referred and they did nothing about it. No doubt they will eventually claim that they did not know everything that was being done. Despite having the evidence, they never put any concern on the record or took any action to stop the abuses that were so apparent to everyone when they were happening in Westminster.
    The Secretary of State told us that it is not the right time to condemn Westminster. He will wait for the rest of the legal process to be worked through. While he is waiting, perhaps he could consider carefully the role of his Department and the Government. When it is time for the Government to apologise for what Westminster council has done, perhaps we can have an apology for their actions in this sorry and sordid mess.
    8.40 pm
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I shall be brief because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. There are so many facts flying around that I do not intend to follow all of them—especially, hon. Members may be pleased to hear, those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), notwithstanding that some of his most illustrative facts will stay in our memories for some time to come, not least because of the way in which he made his points.
    Like my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who made an excellent speech, I wish to discuss one or two points. First, there is the process enacted by the House in 1982, which has been so devalued during this case, and the effect of the application of the auditor's report. That is a three-stage process. The Government are right to wait to apportion final judgment and blame because the key point is that the process was set up with a final judicial element so that if those accused did not agree, they had the full right to take their case to the judiciary and get a fair, impartial final hearing. After all, the person who sat at the oral hearing was the same person who had carried out the investigation. The difference from the cases of people who have been accused in the past is that many of them did not disagree with the finding of illegality.
    As regards stage one, the auditor's provisional report, the most important thing—apart from making the mistake of giving a press conference—is that when the initial findings were made available they were made available only to the accused and those who had brought the original charges.
    848
    It is important to note that the findings in the provisional report were covered by criminal sanction, quite rightly, because they were provisional. Otherwise, it would have been impossible for those who were accused to mount any sort of defence if they were vilified in public. However, immediately on the night the provisional findings appeared, in the media—and especially on "Panorama"—direct quotations were made from the report, which was covered by this criminal sanction.
    I have serious questions for my hon. Friend the Minister as to what was going on with the Law Officers when it was clear that a provisional report was being breached and quoted selectively in the media and by members of public. From that moment, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) and others who were accused had the most difficult uphill task to pursue their defence because of public vilification in the media and by hon. Members who should have known better. That all happened despite the fact that specific elements from the report were covered by a criminal sanction—and nothing was done about it.
    It is important to note the role of the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, the hon. Members for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), in concerting much of the vilification. I hope that at some stage they will have the decency to accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West was exonerated and that they were wrong to attempt to concert such vilification on the back of provisional report charges that have not stood in the final report.
    The most important point about stage two, the public inquiry and findings, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West has been exonerated, is that there has been no apology. The most important charge was whether he should have been surcharged. In the final findings, his name has been deleted from those who have been surcharged. There has been no mention of that fact. The Opposition have been winding around it, each trying to find an angle from which to accuse my hon. Friend.
    The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) made one of the nastiest and most vicious speeches that I have heard in this place. It was unnecessary and ridiculous because he attempted to malign my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West on the basis of a report that the hon. Gentleman had not read in full. I draw his attention to pages 383 to 412, which contained the detailed legal advice. If he had read them, he would have found that the matter was very complex. The selective piece that the auditor used at the end is open to serious criticism, but that is something with which others will deal.
    I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South that Mr. Magill has been meticulous at each stage of the three-stage process. He has pursued the job that he was given with the utmost care and his report has every imaginable detail in it. The charges that he makes on the back of that can now be examined by an impartial adjudicator. The question is not whether he was meticulous or behaved correctly—I have no doubt about that—but whether he should be able to act throughout as judge, jury and, ultimately, executioner. That is our real problem. I was not here in 1982, but I have long had considerable reservations about what we did in changing the nature of the relationship of councillors to the job that they are elected to do. The

    849
    process is fine when guilt has been admitted, but when it has not we are in great difficulty. My criticisms of the system are for the Government to note for the future.
    The report took some seven years to produce, and all sorts of assumptions and innuendoes have been made during that time. It cost £3 million. Unlimited costs were available to the auditor, but not to those who stood accused.
    Mr. Couchman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I do not wish to take long as other hon. Members wish to speak.
    The auditor had unlimited money at his disposal, but that was not the case for those who stood accused. If they disagreed with it, as many did, they faced great costs both in the original investigation and when they appeared before the inquiry after the provisional findings. They had to engage extremely expensive legal advice. That is not necessarily wrong, but it is almost unique that they have no chance of getting back any of the money used in respect of the findings and the inquiry when they are proved innocent of the charges. That is contrary to natural justice.
    Ministers should not forget Dr. Dutt, who committed suicide, according to the notes that he left behind, because he could not see how he could afford to defend himself. Intriguingly, Judith Warner, a co-vice chairman, has subsequently been exonerated. That is a human tragedy which we may at some stage need to consider.
    The real problem with the system, and I say this to Ministers in a constructive spirit, lies in the process from the provisional finding to the final report. The public inquiry stage is where the auditor goes into a quasi-judicial process without being qualified so to do. The problems lie in the cost structure in the period between provisional and final findings. We should make certain that auditors produce reports which are not provisional but can be acted upon in the courts. Reports should not serve as a quasi-judicial stage between provisional and final findings, which is where most of the difficulties lay. When we look back over these events, we shall see that the media managed to make ridiculous allegations, many of which have been proved to be unfounded during this period.
    It is important to acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West has been exonerated, on which I congratulate him, and that the third stage of the process must now be engaged. The accused individuals have said that they are not guilty. They must be subject to the due process of law. If they are found guilty, they should be sanctioned accordingly. If they are not found guilty, I hope that members of the Opposition Front Bench and others will have the decency, as they should, to apologise
    8.50 pm
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: I have been sickened by the debate. Conservative Members do not have the guts to condemn the events in question, and all Conservatives are implicated. The district auditor proved that there had been gerrymandering to win the 1990 council elections. The right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker),
    850
    a previous Secretary of State for the Environment, was chairman of the Conservative party in 1990 and masterminded the national strategy. In the right hon. Gentleman's book, "The Turbulent Years", published in 1993 and now remaindered, he wrote:
    "We"—
    meaning the Conservative party—
    "focused especially on the high-profile councils of Westminster and Wandsworth, where the Tories were led with verve by Shirley Porter and Paul Beresford. With spirit and imagination both had cut back expenditure but had improved services. They were the flagships of efficiency in local government."
    There is too much riding on the credibility of the Conservative party for it to do what is right and to condemn corruption.
    On 9 May Conservative central office published a paper to brief Conservative Members for this debate. It is an apology for what happened, and it tells Conservative Members that they should raise this key point:
    "The allegations in the report concern events which took place almost a decade ago."
    What about the families who were moved into asbestos-ridden flats? They do not care whether those events occurred a decade or 20 years ago. The brief continues:
    "The specific allegations in the report are a matter for councillors and officers concerned, the Council, the Auditor and the electors of Westminster, and not for the Government."
    That is untrue—the Government are up to their elbows in it. Most astonishing of all, the brief advises Conservative Members to tell the House:
    "This is not a party political issue."
    But it is.
    The auditor found six individuals guilty. There has been much ignorant talk by Conservative Members, including lawyers who should know better. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) ludicrously described Shirley Porter and the others as "the Westminster Six", as though we should feel sorry for them. The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) is also a lawyer. I refer both hon. Gentleman to the Government document "Spending Public Money" published in March—not by the Department of the Environment, but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
    That command paper specifically examines surcharging in local government. It draws a distinction between section 19, which concerns unlawful expenditure that can be referred to the courts, and section 20, which concerns wilful misconduct. The auditor found the six guilty of wilful misconduct. Under section 20, it is possible for the auditor to bring in a finding of guilt. Let us not quarrel about semantics. The auditor said that Shirley Porter and the other gallery of rogues at Westminster were guilty of unauthorised behaviour to the detriment of local taxpayers. The auditor's report runs to five volumes. I have not been able to read through them all, but I dipped into enough of the report to realise that the six are guilty. If they want to exercise their right to appeal, the law allows that—but let us not resile from the auditor's finding, to which Ministers will not admit, that the six were guilty.
    The auditor unearthed a bundle of documents. I will offer a couple of key quotations. Shirley Porter stated:

    851
    "A key element in building stable communities must be to attract home owners into Westminster. This means finding innovative ways of ensuring that the right sort of housing is available to the right sort of buyer or tenant. And it must be available by October 1989."
    What is the significance of October 1989? That was when the electoral register for the 1990 council elections in London was closed.
    We heard an infantile contribution from the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), whose facts are constantly wrong. He said that the councillors dealt with matters of grand strategy and that the details were handled by council officers. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman is not in his place to hear this. Notes unearthed by the auditor report an informal meeting on 1 September 1987 of chairmen of council committees—the people who were not supposed to deal with detail. One note stated:
    "Agreed: Officers to look at the implications of emptying Bruce House as quickly as possible and disposing of the property through the Housing Trust for conversion into 'Yuppie' flats … Agreed: (a) Head of Policy Unit"—
    a council officer—
    "would make sure that the 'right people' in the 'right' Housing Associations were identified."
    Shirley Porter, who sat at the centre of that web of deceit wrote:
    "What is gentrification? In short it is ensuring that the right people live in the right areas. The areas are relatively easy to define: target wards identified on the basis of electoral trends and results."
    The council's officers picked up the message that they were supposed to behave as Shirley Porter and the rest decreed, which is why there were appalling memorandums from people who should have known better. One from the special chief officers board, dated 25 September 1986—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred—stated:
    "Homelessness. Be mean and nasty."
    Westminster council was a flagship that the Conservative Government could not see sunk, but it is now holed below the waterline. The Conservatives won the 1990 election because of a massive manipulation of the grant system, which is why the council could introduce a low poll tax. I shall cite a set of statistics in this regard. In 1990—the year of the election that Shirley Porter and the others wanted to gerrymander unlawfully and improperly—my local authority, Pendle council, received £856 per head in total external support from the Government, and that is in an area which experiences deprivation and poverty.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): It is totally unlike Westminster.
    Mr. Prentice: No, it is not. These are figures from the House of Commons Library and from the Department of the Environment. If anyone is ignorant of the facts, it is the Minister. In 1990, Wandsworth council received £1,424 per head in total external support from the Government. In 1990, Westminster council—where the corruption took place—received £1,638 per head in total external support from the Government. That is why Westminster council was able to bring in a poll tax of £195, compared with £300 in my authority, in that crucially important year of 1990.
    852
    It is a sorry tale, and the thing that disappoints me more than anything is that Conservative Members have been steeped in sleaze for so long that they fail to identify it when it is staring them in the face. It is all very well for the Minister to wrinkle his brow and shake his head. I invite him to go to the House of Commons Library and to read the five reports of the district auditor. They describe the guilt of those six people.
    8.59 pm
    Mr. Barry Field: I had not intended to speak in the debate until I heard the putrescent piece of politics that emanated from the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) when he attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) last week. It was the most disgraceful behaviour that I have seen from any Liberal Democrat since I have been in this place—and I have seen quite a few examples over the years.
    When I entered this House I discovered that when the Conservatives took control of Medina borough council the constituency secretary of my predecessor, Stephen Ross—who had a lot to do with housing—had been chairman of the housing committee of the council. When tenancies were allocated to residents of Medina borough council they regularly received a letter which led them to believe that their Member of Parliament had obtained that allocation for them. Councillor Ian Morgan—the leader of the council in those days—took me to see some of the tenants to discuss it with them because they were convinced that their Member of Parliament was allocating the housing tenancies. I did not complain about that. It was a wonderful wheeze actually: catch as catch can.
    The hon. Member for Newbury attacked my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West, who has been exonerated by the report. The attack was quite horrific. When we took control of Medina borough council we found that some starter homes had been sold off in a great big rush, so much so that the councillors came to see me and asked whether there should be a district auditor's report.
    A number of the people who bought the starter homes already had homes on the Isle of Wight. I knocked on three doors and found that people who had been sold starter homes at a discounted price already had dwellings or tenancies elsewhere on the Isle of Wight. When I asked them why they had taken them on, they said that the price might appreciate and they might make a profit.
    As often happens when there is a change of political control, there is an air of "We are in charge now," and it was all forgotten, but it should have been the subject of a district auditor's report. As the hon. Member for Newbury knows perfectly well—because I have written to the leader of the Liberal Democrats—there was a district auditor's report into the council on the Isle of Wight. He sits there smirking smugly, but he made an unpleasantly vicious attack on a colleague in the House. His party had refused to publish the report. He should wash his mouth out because we are fed up with that kind of putrescent politics from the Liberal Democrats.
    When I was chairman of the housing committee I bought a large estate from the Greater London council when it was being wrapped up. I have watched this sort of process over the years. I put a lot of effort into getting that housing transferred to the housing association as I

    853
    did not want to allocate the tenancies. I do not want to gerrymander the system. I want for my constituents the best possible housing service, the best repair record and the fewest voids. The person who objected to that was the leader of the Liberal Democrats. Why? It was because he realised that a transfer of responsibility for housing was a transfer of power, and the Liberal Democrats wanted power over people's lives. They like gerrymandering: housing tenancies represented votes in wards that were crucial to them. That is why the Liberal Democrats did not like responsibility for housing being transferred to an independent body that would allocate homes, not on that basis, but on merit, and which would run things properly. Everyone, bar a few really ideologically motivated characters, now agrees that it is a great improvement.
    I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that one thing has really surprised me in the debate that has taken place last week and this week in the House and in the national press. Some of us are old enough to remember when the Greater London council promised that it would build out Conservative majorities using housing around London and with the Greater London council seaside homes policy. The sum involved was not £31 million. If my memory serves me right—I have eaten a lot of beef lately, so it might be failing me—it was about £300 million to £500 million. That was an enormous scam; it was gerrymandering in the crudest sense of the word and it was stated to be so. Such scams are as old as time itself. Remarkably, we have not heard a dicky-bird about that GLC policy in the debate on this issue.
    Mr. Livingstone: If this was all a wicked Labour plot by the Greater London council to build houses around the suburbs and in the south-east, why did the Conservatives continue those estate developments when they won control of the council in 1967? They did so for the simple reason that the previous Labour administration had done so. There was a vast waiting list in London, and in those days all political parties were competing to build more council houses because they believed in doing justice for tenants who needed places to live.
    Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman was wrong once tonight, and he is wrong again. As he well knows from his long experience of local government, a council cannot put the brakes on existing contracts overnight. He also knows how popular our policy on the right to buy has been; and my goodness, if anything will put a stop to all this gerrymandering and nonsense and total waste of taxpayer's money, it is that.
    My final point touches—I hope that I shall not be ruled out of order—on the sub judice rule. A new process has occurred in our legal and quasi-legal system in this country. The matter that we are discussing is obviously not fully within the judicial ambit, but it will be when it is brought to court. The Guinness trial dragged on and on. I firmly believe that the individuals involved in it were almost ground down by the system. We have witnessed a similar process in what is happening with the Maxwell brothers. That is why I said I hoped that I would not be ruled out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not refer to that again.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's hopes have been dashed. Anything to do with the Maxwells is sub judice.
    Mr. Field: There you go, Mr. Deputy Speaker; it just goes to show that my crystal ball is not so cloudy after all.
    There is a similar situation in the Westminster case. The report was seven years in the making. No one who is not reliant on public funds or legally aided could sustain that, never mind the nervous energy and tension that such things create and the constant pillorying by the press. Look at what my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West has put up with from the press week after week and what it has cost him, and we then hear that Members of Parliament are all supposed to be on the make. It is appalling. If there were any sense of decency left in the media, they would start to blow the whistle at that point, because seven years of such a process is a form of torture that no citizen of this country, whether they be the heiress or the check-out lady, should have to endure.
    As the Parliament which represents the people and defends their rights, we must ensure that those matters are dealt with far more swiftly and reasonably in future.
    9.9 pm
    Ms Margaret Hodge: I, too, will be swift. I know that other colleagues wish to speak.
    In preparing last night for the debate, I referred to the words that I thought would be used most. The first was gerrymander. Gerrymandering was a word that came about in 1812 in Massachusetts, when Elbridge Gerry redrew the boundaries in that area to look like a salamander, hence gerrymander. There was party political advantage for his party. Secondly came Tammany hall, which has not been referred to as often as I expected. The term arrived a little later than gerrymandering, in the 1870s. It was a reference to the headquarters of the Democratic party in New York city, which had become a rather corrupt and powerful influence on that city. Ironically, Tammany, for the interest of right hon. and hon. Members, stems from societies that sprang up at the time of the American revolution as patriotic anti-British organisations. St. Tammany became the patron of the sons of liberty clubs.
    Dame Shirley Porter can claim a unique achievement. She has managed to bring together gerrymandering and Tammany hall. She has in so doing probably created a new word for the political lexicon, which is portmander. I wonder what a political lexicographer would make of that departure in public administration. Will it be said that to portmander is a verb pertaining to the movement of electors, using taxpayers' money to influence the outcome of elections, frequently done without regard to the public health implications of a planned move—for example, into unsafe housing—and acting in pursuit of such advantage for a political party in a manner that is recklessly indifferent as to whether it is right or wrong?
    We have heard much tonight about the procedure that has been used to find members and officers of Westminster city council guilty. I agree that the procedure needs reform. I look forward to the Government—or to us, the Labour party, when we come into government—reforming the procedure. To pretend, however, that the procedure has not been fair and has not ended in a finding is at best naive and at worst rather obscurantist with the truth.

    855
    The procedure is semi-judicial. We know that many Queen's counsel and a great deal of money have been involved in implementing it over a long period. Tony Child, the Audit Commission's solicitor—I am not greatly fond of the man, given the trouble that he has caused many of us in local government over the years—is an expert lawyer. He advised the auditor in the Westminster case throughout the proceedings.
    It is worth referring to the summary of the report, because much nonsense has been said about there not being a guilty finding. There is such a finding. One passage reads:
    "My view is that the Council was engaged in gerrymandering, which I have found is a disgraceful and improper purpose and not a purpose for which a local authority may act."
    Later, the report states:
    "I have at all times borne in mind the grave consequences for any individual of a finding of wilful misconduct, and such a finding should only be made on the most cogent evidence. I have adopted the approach endorsed by Lord Justice Lawton in the Court of Appeal."
    Lord Justice Lawton said:
    "It should take a lot of evidence to tip the balance in favour of a positive finding because the accusation is serious and the consequences of such a finding are grave."
    I believe that Mr. Magill has acted with absolute diligence and total meticulousness in a semi-judicial manner. He conducted 135 interviews. The hearing lasted 32 days. His final report—I have read only the summary—covers 2,000 pages. He had information comprising 10,000 pages. It is absurd for Conservative Members to suggest that it is anything but a proper finding.
    It is worrying that Conservative Members will not accept the finding. Their attitude adds to the indictment that what is happening among the Tories in Westminster city council is in too many ways uncomfortably like what is happening among the Tories in the Palace of Westminster. Both are no longer able to distinguish between the public interest, the national interest and the Tory interest. For both, the end truly justifies the means—any means—and if it helps to keep the Tories in power, it must be right.
    As time is short, I should like to make two or three points that have not been mentioned. I condemn the council members involved. Dame Shirley Porter acted disgracefully throughout. She demonstrated her own guilt in an article in The Independent last Friday, in which she claimed to be completely innocent. She wrote:
    "Naturally, Labour hated our plans. They feared it would encourage former Labour voters to support the Tories."
    In saying that, she gave the game away. She was pursuing a policy to ensure that she could gerrymander that borough and retain it for the Conservatives. If she was so convinced of her innocence, why did she cancel appointments? Why did she not exercise the right to give evidence in public? Why did she shred evidence and why did the district auditor have to employ agents to find people to interview? Why did they have to look for evidence in the basement of Westminster city hall? Why did she not provide the documents on which the policy was based?
    One of the most disgraceful aspects of the whole affair is the role of the officers of Westminster city council. We have to consider why such a scandal could have occurred. Had information been made freely available to all members of the council, it would not have happened and
    856
    we would not be talking about the biggest scandal of political corruption for almost 30 years—since the Poulson affair.
    I find it particularly disgraceful that the director of housing, whom the district auditor has found guilty of misconduct, is still employed by Westminster council in a different job. We have to consider carefully the role of officers. They have a duty to ensure that all members of the council act in the public interest and that there is no illegality.
    I am extremely concerned about the implications that others outside Westminster council in the political parties knew what was happening. Let me quote briefly from a letter to the Prime Minister. I believe that the scandal and corruption probably went higher and further than Westminster, as that would explain the reluctance among Conservative Members to discuss the matter. The note to the Prime Minister from Shirley Porter on 19 December 1986 said:
    "We in Westminster are trying to gentrify the City. We must protect our electoral position which is being seriously eroded by the number of homeless that we have been forced to house … Both I and my Chairman of Housing Committee have constantly lobbied successive Secretaries of State with very little result. I feel that the problem is so serious you should look at it yourself … I am afraid that unless something can be done, it will be very difficult to keep Westminster Conservative!"
    Of course, politics plays a part in local government. On the whole, if local councillors get their policies right, they are re-elected. The district auditor accepts that in his report. What went wrong in Westminster was that the political advantage was not a by-product of the policies; it was their primary purpose. Unless Conservative Members understand and address that point, we shall have bad democracy.
    We owe the objectors an enormous debt, and the speech by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) was outrageous. If the objectors had not pursued the case with such diligence, it would not have been thrown into the open, and we would not have the evidence that is now before us and from which we should learn.
    We hear much from Conservative Members about the victims of crime. In this case, the victims were the homeless, who were either put into asbestos-ridden flats or came to places such as Barking courtesy of the Peabody housing trust. Barking is an hour's journey from Westminster. Those people were miles from their roots, their children's schools and their jobs and they became a financial burden on my local council in terms of social services.
    The Conservatives have got their politics wrong. If they wanted a proper debate allowing understanding of the issues at stake, it would not drag on. By refusing to comment now, they are allowing this ghastly political corruption to drag on, and failing—as representatives of a nation, and as a democracy—to learn the real lessons of a dreadful experience.
    9.19 pm
    Ms Glenda Jackson: I share the sense of nauseated disgust described by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). I also endorse everything that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). I have little doubt that the corruption inherent in the scandal goes much higher

    857
    than Dame Shirley Porter and members of Westminster council. Despite protestations to the contrary by Conservative Members, this must be one of the most shameful performances from a party that is undoubtedly degenerate in supporting those whom it regards as rich and powerful while neglecting those for whom it should speak in the House—the weak and vulnerable.
    We have heard much about millions of pounds. We have heard weasel words from Conservative Members. We have observed the Secretary of State attempting to walk a fine line, refusing either to condemn or to support the guilty Westminster council. The voices that we have heard remarkably little of are those of some of the victims to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Barking referred. We all know what started this gross scandal. According to Dame Shirley Porter, it was "building stable communities" or BSC. A more appropriate translation of that acronym would be "bovine spongiform conservatism", given the inordinate damage that such diseased policies have created.
    Let me refer to a family in my constituency. The father was a Westminster resident for 16 years; for six years, he, his wife and their two children were tenants of a flat in Westminster. One day, out of the blue, they received a letter from the council enclosing a glossy brochure and asking whether they would like to move to an estate in Staines where there would be a garden and a better quality of life. I understand that the development had been financed partly by Westminster council under the business expansion scheme.
    The family went to see the property. They had to make a decision in three days, and they duly moved to the estate. Under the same scheme, more and more families from Westminster moved to it. There were many children, and a large proportion were young teenagers. The estate was entirely inappropriate for young men, as there was virtually nothing for them to do there. It was a comparatively restricted area; there was nowhere for the children to play without causing huge disturbance to the other residents. To cut a fairly long story short, my constituents suffered severe harassment, to such an extent that they had to leave the estate. The wife, who is dark of hair and skin, was subjected to racial harassment, and her children were subjected to verbal abuse.
    Having moved away from the estate, my constituents re-presented themselves to Westminster council, which they deemed to be their local authority and to be responsible for rehousing them. Westminster sent them back to Staines, and the same pattern was repeated yet again. By that time, my constituents were unable to live together: the father was living with his mother, and his wife and the children with friends. The marriage has now broken up. The mother and her two children are in a hostel in my constituency, having been placed there by Westminster council. There have been endless hearings and applications to Westminster council, which categorically refuses to take my constituents back although its pressure forced them to move from a home in which they had been happy, contented and a family.
    That is the one real scandal—or one tiny part of that real scandal: the destruction of human lives, and the break-up of a family. The two young children are suffering; the daughter is suffering especially severely, because of the break-up of her family and the fact that
    858
    they have no secure home. I have letters from teachers in her school saying that, despite the move to Staines, when the children returned to the school that they had known since nursery age they readapted and were absorbed easily and speedily. That is no longer the case.
    It behoves the House to realise that Westminster council's practices and its gerrymandering, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking, for clear political advantage and with no regard whatever for taxpayers or for individuals or their families, were a scandal and a disgrace. Even more disgraceful is the way in which Conservative Members have, in a way, endorsed Westminster council's activities. The speech by the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has twice refused to condemn the council, was scandalous, but his inability to speak for the people of this country pales into insignificance compared with the speech by the Prime Minister more than a week ago on this issue.
    This is the House of Commons, and we are sent here to represent people whose basic interests are to live in peace and quiet in a home that they can call their own and in security with their children. Conservative Members significantly failed to speak for those people in a debate about what is surely one of the most outrageous and corrupt scandals in local government that the city of London has had to bear for generations. That is an utter disgrace, and I sincerely hope not only that the people of London will remember what failed to emanate from Conservative Benches, but that every voter in the country will remember it.
    9.26 pm
    Mr. Ken Livingstone: I thank those hon. Members who have helped me to get a couple of minutes to speak. I used to be the Greater London council member for Westminster, North and I had many contacts with Dame Shirley Porter. She is the only person I have ever met in whom I can think of not a single redeeming feature. It is inconceivable that someone can amass such vast personal wealth and still have a chip on her shoulder. I found her one of the most remarkably stupid people I have ever come across in public life.
    Why do we have this great scandal? It is because, as the GLC was drawing to its end, those of us in Westminster Labour party looked at the electoral map and saw that in a normal year, which is what 1986 was likely to be, if not a good year, Labour could win 27 of the 60 seats. We decided to concentrate on three Conservative wards, which in a normal year we would never have a chance of winning. Instead of putting our best candidates into safe Labour wards, we put them into those three Tory marginals and worked them as we had never worked them before.
    We thought that by putting much effort into the election and getting people out who had not been out before in those wards, we might have just one chance of snatching a couple of them and taking control of the council. We said among ourselves, "We shall get only four years. We shall catch the Tories only once because they will canvass afterwards and rebuild those neglected wards." We failed to take the wards, but we came within a few hundred votes.
    After the election, we thought, "That is it. They will never let us creep up like that on them again." In our wildest dreams, it never occurred to us that Dame Shirley

    859
    Porter would assume that the election result was an indication of some vast permanent shift to the Labour party. We had just had a damned good election campaign and it never occurred to us that she would set aside £31 million of public money, rig the entire local government system and browbeat and harass every local government officer who dared to say, "I think that this might be illegal, ma'am."
    Such happenings seem inconceivable. Any local government leader with an ounce of sense—I see many such people in all parts of the Chamber—would have looked at the result and said, "They will not catch us in that way again." All that Dame Shirley Porter had to do in 1990 was to get out, do a bit of canvassing and conduct a few ward surgeries. She did not need to rig the entire system but, as I say, she is not very bright.
    I do not join my colleagues in condemning the whole Tory party for supporting Dame Shirley Porter. Many Conservative Members approached me today and said, "They wanted me to speak in the debate, but I told them that I would not." A few people have been put up to bang the drum and they will live with the shame of that for the rest of their political careers. I am sure that their Labour opponents will make good use of it in the general election. By their absence tonight and by their refusal, when asked by their Whips, to justify this, many Conservative Members have shown that they are as disgusted as we are.
    Corruption is not a matter simply of Westminster. We have had corrupt Labour councils and Labour figures; we have just had Robert Maxwell, for God's sake. Let no one say that all the bad apples are in one barrel, but when he realised that the game was up, at least Robert Maxwell topped himself and saved the public a trial. Dame Shirley Porter has dragged it out for 10 years and burnt the documents, and when has a district auditor ever had to do a dawn raid on the leader of the council's office? The woman is a disgrace.
    My only worry is this. Dame Shirley Porter has bunked off to Israel, so I hope that we have an extradition treaty with it. If not, I know the enthusiasm of the Secretary of State for Defence. He could give the Special Air Services the job of going in and bringing her out.
    9.30 pm
    Ms Hilary Armstrong: I was about to start by saying that this is one of the saddest debates in which I have taken part in the House, but I enjoyed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). In his normal way, he has reiterated what Labour Members have said many times. It is not up to us to condone or to tolerate corruption and malpractice in any council, wherever it happens. In event after event, we have sought democratically to tackle, both through our party machinery and in the House, corruption and malpractice, wherever it has arisen.
    I have been horrified today to listen to Conservative Member after Conservative Member move around trying to avoid saying, "Whether this was legal or not, it was wrong." That is what we are here to do. We are not here as lawyers, even those of us who are lawyers. We are here as the public's representatives. Because of that, more is expected of us than is expected of accountants, lawyers, doctors or anyone else.
    We have a trust that is so precious, it is granted only through the ballot box and occasionally. In many countries, people are fighting and dying because they are
    860
    not given that trust. Hon. Members are now abusing that trust. The debate is about how public representatives maintain the trust of the folk they seek to represent.
    I am happy to admit that I am not an expert in legal matters, but I have a sense of what is right and of what is wrong and of how we, as public servants, are duty bound to behave. In that regard, the House has had one of its saddest days.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—[Interruption.]
    Ms Armstrong: It is all right. I am not bothered by the hon. Gentleman. He can stand there all night.
    We are sent here to fulfil that trust, and we have shown that some people have taken that trust and abused it dreadfully. As I say, it is a question not of what is legally right or wrong, but what is right or wrong.
    Mr. Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman has not been in the debate, and I need to respond to several hon. Members who have.
    I do not include the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) in that criticism. He was trying hard to say that the report contained things that he was uncomfortable with and that he did not like. I understand his difficult position, but he was prepared at least not to exonerate all the things in the report.
    The district auditor's report does find that Tory councillors on Westminster council were responsible for using £31.6 million-worth of taxpayers' money for party political gain. The report states quite clearly that councillors deliberately set about a course of action that not only wasted public money, but denied desperate homeless families permanent homes while decent housing was left empty until it could be sold. All that was done for party political advantage. Despite the shredding and all the other things that were done to try to prevent the auditor from gaining access to the facts, that evidence was carefully and painfully uncovered, and has been clearly outlined by several of my hon. Friends.
    I think that today will go down in the House's history. Hon. Members have refused to face up to the problems in the report, and have questioned the legality of the process. The Opposition are bound to have a little difficulty with that, because the process does not come from us; we did not create it. It did not come from on high. It came from the Government. They worked out the process and put it into legislation. They then defended it when the Widdicombe report recommended that the process should have some semblance of appeal within it. As I said earlier, in their response to Widdicombe, the Government said that that would undermine the authority of the auditor.
    Today we have heard Conservative Members—not all of them—seeking to undermine the authority of the auditor. That is sad, because it is our job to ensure that the integrity of people such as auditors is not undermined, and that they are trusted. We have asked them to work on our behalf. We have given them the job and outlined the process. It is our duty to trust them to get on with that job. The auditor has cleared that with the Audit Commission, made incredible attempts to ensure that natural justice was followed, and bent over backwards to ensure that justice in its smallest degree was offered to those involved in the report.

    861
    It is strange that some hon. Members say that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) has been exonerated by the report. I have read what the final report says about the hon. Gentleman. If that is exoneration, I would hate to see what condemnation and wrongdoing would look like. I would not want any of that written about me and the way I have conducted my public affairs.
    I am quite happy to concede that the hon. Gentleman has been taken off the surcharge list, but that does not mean that it is not clear in the report that he did things that he should not have done and that he was let off because he did not understand that it was his duty to inform others about what was happening. I do not think that that is exoneration. It is not exoneration in the language and values that I understand. It is surprising and disappointing that the hon. Gentleman is not here. I should have thought that he would want to defend himself before the House, but apparently he is not able to do that.
    The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is no longer in the Chamber, and I am not surprised. I came across the hon. Gentleman on many occasions when I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the right hon. and learned John Smith. At that time, I thought that he was the one person in the House who was prepared to say anything knowing that he could not back it up. He was prepared to see the worst in anybody and to say the worst about anybody. He was always prepared to find the worst in anybody. [Interruption.] I am trying to deal with the facts and the hon. Member for Dover's smears. He smeared and libelled people under the guise of privilege. We were lectured by the Secretary of State for the Environment about privilege, but then we heard the most disgraceful abuse of it.
    The hon. Member for Dover smeared the name of Peter Bradley. He told us that he had done all the research himself, yet, strangely, it all coincided exactly with the smears levelled by Lady Porter's henchmen in The Times. Peter Bradley was mentioned in an article in The Times in January 1995 written by Andrew Pierce, in which allegations were made about gerrymandering in Camden and Peter Bradley's so-called involvement.
    It is strange that the hon. Member for Dover failed to remember and tell the House that an apology and a retraction were printed in The Times, and that all the expenses of my friend, who I think will be the Member for The Wrekin one day, were reimbursed by the paper, which accepted that all the allegations were untrue.
    Lady Porter's henchmen tried again. They went to the Director of Public Prosecutions saying that Mr. Bradley had been involved in corruption with regard to Waitrose. The fraud squad told Lady Porter and those who had levelled accusations that it was outraged by the obvious smear, there was no case to argue, and would they please not repeat the accusations elsewhere.
    I invite the hon. Member for Dover, who, as I have said, is not here—he really understands the courtesies of the House—to say such things outside the House. If he does, Peter Bradley will more easily be able to pay for his election campaign. That would be putting the hon. Member for Dover to good use.
    Many things need to be said in this winding-up speech, but I do not have time. I wanted to ensure that my hon. Friends were able to speak. I find it very strange that
    862
    Conservative Members have sought to undermine the role of the district auditor, and not tried to uphold the auditor's words. They have also sought deliberately to misunderstand the legal process. Of course a member has the right to appeal; anyone has the right to appeal—if they have the money—against any judgment that is made of them at any stage in our legal process, whether through audit or in the courts.
    It seems that it does not matter what happens in Westminster, no matter how low the council sinks—we do not hear a word of condemnation from Tory Members of Parliament. It is little wonder that politicians have sunk so low in the public's esteem. The failure to put public duty before party interest undermines not only the standing of the Conservative party but politicians in general. I resent that, and I hope that the Minister puts another gloss on matters.
    We are waiting for the Government to express some sorrow for the victims of the scandal in Westminster. That is what I cannot understand. Yes, they may want to defend their friends, but surely they recognise that, when wrong has been done, whoever has done it, we in the House ought to express some feeling for those who have suffered because of it.
    We have had a remarkable debate, but a sad one. The Secretary of State ran away from the issues and tried to blame other people. It is never an answer to try to blame other people for one's own sins, or to say that one wrong can be outdone by another. No one here has sought to defend wrongdoing in any council—[Interruption.] I am being asked who the Secretary of State has blamed. In the past week, he has blamed the Labour party and the press—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes, he has. In his statement last week, he blamed the Labour party and said that it was scandalous of us to raise such matters.
    Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Armstrong: No, I will not.
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady may remember that I have blamed nobody. I have merely said that decent people wait for the due process of law before they condemn. I always hoped that the hon. Lady would be a decent person, but this evening she has shown herself unable to do that.
    Ms Armstrong: I am delighted that I gave way—because decent people recognise wrongdoing and say, "We shall not tolerate it; we are going to deal with it."
    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the individuals in the case before us, the council and its policy were wrong. Whether that policy was legal or not, it was wrong. Anyone who has read the Magill report cannot help being disturbed by it. I know that the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South was disturbed by it; indeed, we all were. I even think that the Minister who is about to reply was disturbed by it.
    This is the time for the House to say, enough is enough. It is in all our interests to clean up the Government and to recognise the responsibilities of public representatives. Perhaps the Tory party should meditate on the words of a former Conservative Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli:
    "All power is a trust; that we are accountable for its exercise; from the people and for the people all springs and all must exist."

    863
    I hope that the Tory party will return to that sentiment, and that we shall all be able to hold our heads high because we know that we are determined to insist on the utmost probity. But I do not believe that the Tories are capable of that—and if they are not, they must go.
    9.46 pm
    The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): I agree with the quotation that the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) used, about all power being a trust—but it is a trust that must be exercised indiscriminately. It is irrelevant whether we like people or not, and whether they are on our side or on somebody else's side. It is irrelevant by what process they have arrived at their positions. What matters is that their rights should be defended without favour and without colour.
    When the hon. Lady says that we have a trust by virtue of having been elected via the ballot box—in other words, that we have obtained our jobs by a unique method—I agree with her. But equally, it is part of our trust to ensure that, when people stand charged with serious misconduct, they have the right to defend themselves as far as the law will permit.
    When people are proved wrong beyond reasonable doubt—those are the terms in which the verdict of a court is expressed—they are condemned, and pay the price. So I agree with the hon. Lady that, when wrong is done and proven beyond reverse, it should be condemned, and I would be the first to condemn it.
    I wish to make one thing clear to the hon. Lady, because I do not want her to suffer from any misunderstanding. We may well have arguments about parts of the subject before us, but I want to define carefully where they lie, and also where there is no argument.
    My right hon. Friend and I have no argument about the role of the auditor. The auditor was acting according to statute accepted by the House—and, as a matter of record, introduced by the Government. I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not impugn the auditor's integrity or the auditor's method.
    I do not impugn the Audit Commission—to which the auditor is in a sense responsible, because appointments are made by it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have done our best to ensure that the Audit Commission is reinforced by the quality of the people who serve it, and in the range of activities that it can perform.
    I will not accept an accusation that I want to level charges against the auditor, against him personally or in respect of his function. I should also like to make it clear that I do not do so in relation to the process, of which I am conscious there have been criticisms. We know that there are criticisms, because we have heard them. I do not believe that it is right, in the course of this debate and this investigation, that we should bring into the discussion the question of the procedures. Such a discussion would not be right, and I do not intend to bring it into dispute between us.
    What is clear is that six people have been named in the auditor's report. The auditor has upheld the objection to the accounts in relation to those six people. The same section of the statute under which the auditor has issued
    864
    his certificates provides for appeal to anyone aggrieved by the decision. That provision is available to anyone who is aggrieved, whether they are aggrieved about charges levelled against them or about the fact that the auditor may not have pursued some of the charges that were made. That provision is laid down clearly in the statute.
    Notice of appeal has been lodged. It is therefore apparent that further legal process will take place. It is self-evident that that legal process could endorse the auditor's conclusions in their entirety—that is one possible outcome—in which case the councillors and the officials will stand condemned. They will merit that condemnation, and they will receive it from the Government, as they will from all the others who will no doubt level it.
    It is equally self-evident that the court could disagree with the auditor, because there are exceedingly complex issues of interpretation of the law and of interpretation of motive at stake. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are not prepared to judge that outcome.
    In a debate that has ranged from, occasionally, the banal to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke)—who reminded us of the gravity of the social circumstances and problems in Westminster that we must tackle and of the real nature of Westminster, which penetrates beyond College green—some very curious arguments have been levelled. I have already stated that I do not seek to impugn the auditor, and I place that very clearly on the record.
    One curious argument that has been made is that there is some moral variety in this matter, and that it is all right for one to act in some ways if it is done publicly. So, if one does something that is wrong but it is done openly, that misgovernment al fresco is all right; but if one does something else, it is absolutely wrong.
    I again agree with the hon. Member for North-West Durham—which is rather embarrassing for both of us, because there are a great many issues on which we agree—that, when we seek to get a system of honest, fair local government that is run on a basis of probity, everyone is part of the democratic process. A great many hon. Members on both sides of the House have experience of local government, although I am not one of them, and they know the importance of ensuring that that first level of democracy is one in which people can endow their trust and for which they can show respect. We all know that there have been difficulties and problems, that those have to be cleaned up, and that it is in the interest of everyone who votes to do so.
    The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) spoke about the difference between speeding and serial killing. That was hyperbole, and I at least give him credit for choosing perhaps the two greatest extremes possible. His comments seemed to introduce a note of exaggeration into the debate that does not help the genuine cause of those who are concerned about good government.
    The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) made one point which I should like to clear up for him. He said that somehow all the webs came back to the Department of the Environment.
    I wish to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that he is absolutely wrong in this regard. We receive from Westminster, as we do from all authorities, annual HIP

    865
    submissions which include strategy statements. They contain descriptions of housing practices. There was never any suggestion in Westminster's HIP submissions that the council used its policy on council house sales for improper purposes.
    It is equally true that, since 1952, irrespective of party, Governments have given general consents for voluntary sales into owner-occupation. The consents apply to all local authorities, not just Westminster. It is for each local authority, acting reasonably and in accordance with the law, to decide whether to sell. Routine statistical returns to the Department do not reveal the details of locations or purchasers. That applies to all authorities.
    Mr. Betts: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Curry: No, because the hon. Member for North-West Durham did not give way, and I have only five minutes to cover some wide ground. The hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly wish to return to the matter, and I shall be willing to do so.
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras repeated his frequently made charge that we rig the system in favour of Westminster. If what I am about to describe is rigging, it shows a degree of incompetence on my part which I repudiate. In every year since 1991–92, the changes in SSA per head for Westminster have been less favourable than for the average of London authorities. If that is rigging, it is an extremely idiosyncratic form of it. The fact of the matter is that the SSA for Westminster increased by 19.5 per cent. in 1991–92, but the inner London average was 22.6 per cent. In every year up to the most recent year, exactly the same phenomenon is repeated.
    Under the damped need assessments—the calculation used by the last Labour Government—Westminster did a great deal better than it has done under the Conservative Government. So that again is a curious form of rigging. I do not wish to accuse the Opposition of rigging in favour of Westminster, because that really would be incompetence on their part, but the figures show that the pound-per-head need assessment for Westminster when the Labour Government were in power was £487, compared with £454 for Tower Hamlets, £453 for Hackney, £343 for Manchester and £327 for Liverpool.
    The differential between all those authorities and Westminster is narrower now than when the system invented by the Labour Government was in operation. So if that is rigging, it is a curious form of it. It would have been a curious thing for a Conservative Government to do, but it was done not by them but by the Labour party. The Labour party's system shows that, even when Labour intends to target, it cannot manage it.
    If the system is so wicked, one wants to know what the Opposition would do about it. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras speculates. He says that perhaps a Labour Government will change to a grants system. When he talks to Labour party conferences, he makes it up as he goes along. The hon. Member for North-West Durham prevaricates. Every article that she writes about the new framework for Labour consists of about 700 words of strictly nothing. It is written in elegant prose, but it is devoid of content.
    866
    The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras goes around the country telling councils how much they would get if they received the same level of grant as Westminster. What he omits to say—this is the important point—is that, if we dished out grants per capita, we would have the most unjust, unfair, anti-social and perverse system of grant distribution that any Government could deliver. Unless grants follow need and deprivation, and unless they are designed to enable councils to tackle the real problems which face them, we will not have a system which can be defended.
    I meet dozens of local authorities year on year. Both Labour and other local authorities come to talk to me. In the force of circumstances, it is mainly Labour authorities that come to see me. Not one says that I am rigging the system for someone else. They do not say that we have got the whole thing upside down. They say that they understand that we are trying to run a system that distributes grant according to need. They want changes because they want a system that benefits them rather than other councils. There is not a single council that does not come along with objective ideas that just happen to benefit the particular requirements of that council. That is all part of the game, and I accept that.
    What I will not accept from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is the idea that I sit thinking of how I can rig the system for one council or another. I do not do it; I have never done it; I will not do it. If I tried to do it, it would become so obviously transparent that every council that came to my office would start with that accusation. Not one council does. The hon. Gentleman is unique in his obsession.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 288.

    Division No. 127]

    [21.59 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Ainger, Nick

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Allen, Graham

    Cann, Jamie

    Alton, David

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Church, Judith

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Ashton, Joe

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Barnes, Harry

    Clelland, David

    Battle, John

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Coffey, Ann

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Cohen, Harry

    Bell, Stuart

    Connarty, Michael

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Corbett, Robin

    Benton, Joe

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Corston, Jean

    Betts, Clive

    Cousins, Jim

    Blunkett, David

    Cox, Tom

    Boateng, Paul

    Cummings, John

    Bradley, Keith

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

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

    Dafis, Cynog

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Burden, Richard

    Darling, Alistair

    Byers, Stephen

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Cabom, Richard

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

    Callaghan, Jim

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    867

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Jowell, Tessa

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

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Denham, John

    Keen, Alan

    Dewar, Donald

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Dixon, Don

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

    Dobson, Frank

    Khabra, Piara S

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Dowd, Jim

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Lewis, Terry

    Eastham, Ken

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Etherington, Bill

    Litherland, Robert

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Fatechett, Derek

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Faulds, Andrew

    Loyden, Eddie

    Fisher, Mark

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Flynn, Paul

    McAllion, John

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    McCartney, Ian

    Foulkes, George

    Macdonald, Calum

    Fraser, John

    McFall, John

    Fyfe, Maria

    McKelvey, William

    Galbraith, Sam

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Galloway, George

    McLeish, Henry

    Gapes, Mike

    Maclennan, Robert

    Garrett, John

    McMaster, Gordon

    George, Bruce

    McNamara, Kevin

    Gerard, Neil

    MacShane, Denis

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    McWilliam, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Madden, Max

    Godsiff, Roger

    Maddock, Diana

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Mandelson, Peter

    Gordon, Mildred

    Marek, Dr John

    Graham, Thomas

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Griffiths, Nigel Edinburgh S)

    Martin, Michael J Springburn)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Maxton, John

    Grocott, Bruce

    Meacher, Michael

    Gunnell, John

    Meale, Alan

    Hain, Peter

    Michael, Alun

    Hall, Mike

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Hanson, David

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Hardy, Peter

    Milburn, Alan

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Harvey, Nick

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Henderson, Doug

    Morley, Elliot

    Heppell, John

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Hoey, Kate

    Mudie, George

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Mullin, Chris

    Home Robertson, John

    Murphy, Paul

    Hood, Jimmy

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

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

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

    Olner, Bill

    Hoyle, Doug

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Parry, Robert

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Pearson, Ian

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Pendry, Tom

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Pike, Peter L

    Hutton, John

    Pope, Greg

    Illsley, Eric

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Ingram, Adam

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Jamieson, David

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Janner, Greville

    Radice, Giles

    Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

    Randall, Stuart

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Reid, Dr John

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Rendel, David

    868

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Rogers, Allan

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Timms, Stephen

    Rooney, Terry

    Tipping, Paddy

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Trickett, Jon

    Rowlands, Ted

    Turner, Dennis

    Salmond, Alex

    Tyler, Paul

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Vaz, Keith

    Sheerman, Barry

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wallace, James

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Wareing, Robert N

    Simpson, Alan

    Watson, Mike

    Skinner, Dennis

    Welsh, Andrew

    Wicks Malcolm

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wigley, Dafydd

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

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Snape, Peter

    Wilson, Brian

    Soley, Clive

    Winnick, David

    Spearing, Nigel

    Worthington, Tony

    Spellar, John

    Wray, Jimmy

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Steel Rt Hon Sir David

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Stott, Roger

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Mr. Eric Martlew and Mr. Jon Owen Jones

    Straw, Jack

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Cash, William

    Alexander, Richard

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Churchill, Mr

    Amess, David

    Clappison, James

    Arbuthnot, James

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Ashby, David

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Coe, Sebastian

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Colvin, Michael

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Congdon, David

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Baldry, Tony

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Bates, Michael

    Couchman, James

    Batiste, Spencer

    Cran, James

    Beggs, Roy

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

    Bellingham, Henry

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Day, Stephen

    Body, Sir Richard

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Devlin, Tim

    Booth, Hartley

    Dicks, Terry

    Boswell, Tim

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Dover, Den

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Duncan, Alan

    Bowis, John

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Dunn, Bob

    Brazier, Julian

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Dykes, Hugh

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Elletson, Harold

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Bruce, lan (South Dorset)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Burns, Simon

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Burt, Alistair

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Butcher, John

    Evennett, David

    Butler, Peter

    Faber, David

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Carrington, Matthew

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    869

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Forman, Nigel

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Key, Robert

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Forth, Eric

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Knapman, Roger

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

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

    French, Douglas

    Knox, Sir David

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Gale, Roger

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Gallie, Phil

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Gamier, Edward

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Gill, Christopher

    Legg, Barry

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Leigh, Edward

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Lidington, David

    Gorst, Sir John

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Lord, Michael

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    MacKay, Andrew

    Gummer, Fit Hon John Selwyn

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Hamilton, Fit Hon Sir Archibald

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Madel, Sir David

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Hannam, Sir John

    Malone, Gerald

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Mans, Keith

    Harris, David

    Marland, Paul

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Marlow, Tony

    Hawkins, Nick

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Heald, Oliver

    Mates, Michael

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Hendry, Charles

    Merchant, Piers

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Mills, Iain

    Hicks, Robert

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Horam, John

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Norris, Steve

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Jack, Michael

    Ottaway, Richard

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Page, Richard

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Paice, James

    Jessel, Toby

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Pawsey, James

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    870

    Pickles, Eric

    Sykes, John

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Thomason, Roy

    Richards, Rod

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Riddick, Graham

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Robathan, Andrew

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Tracey, Richard

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Trend, Michael

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Trotter, Neville

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Sackville, Tom

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Viggers, Peter

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Walden, George

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Waller, Gary

    Ward, John

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Watts, John

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Wells, Bowen

    Soames, Nicholas

    Whitney, Ray

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Whittingdale, John

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Wilkinson, John

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Willetts, David

    Sproat, Iain

    Wilshire, David

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Steen, Anthony

    Wood, Timothy

    Stephen, Michael

    Yeo, Tim

    Stern, Michael

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Stewart, Allan

    Streeter, Gary

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Sumberg, David

    Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

    Sweeney, Walter

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House notes the publication of the Public Interest Report made by Westminster City Council's appointed auditor, Westminster City Council Audit of Accounts 1987–88 to 1994–1995; approves the action of the Government in insisting on the correct legal process; endorses the independence of the auditor; commends the Government's refusal to prejudge or condemn individuals before the conclusion of the due process of law; respects the view that parliamentary privilege is a powerful weapon for the protection of individuals and should not be used to provide cover for party political attacks; and notes that Westminster City Council provides high quality services at a value for money price.

  Orders of the Day

    DEER (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (Bills in relation to their principle)),
    That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
    Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

    WELFARE OF CALVES
    That this House takes note of European Community Document Nos. 13099/95 and 4647/96 on the Welfare of Calves; and supports the Government's objective of seeking early introduction throughout the European Community of space allowances and dietary requirements which fully meet the welfare needs of calves.

    CONSUMER CREDIT
    That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7774/95 and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 11th January 1996, relating to consumer credit; and supports the Government's view that proposals to change the Consumer Credit Directive would require critical appraisal.[Mr. Ottaway.]
    Question agreed to.

    Nursery Education (Grants)
    [Relevant documents: the Memoranda relating to this Order and Instrument contained in the Fifteenth Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, House of Commons Paper No. 34-xv.]
    10.20 pm
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I beg to move, That the Education (Grants for Nursery Education) (England) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 353), dated 15th February 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th February, be revoked.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient to take the following motion:
    That the Education (Grants for Education Support and Training: Nursery Education) (England) Regulations 1996 (S.I.,1996, No.235), dated 15th February 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th February, be revoked.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: We oppose the regulations because although they give the House the chance to debate and approve, albeit retrospectively, the financing of the pilot schemes, the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill affords no opportunity to the House for a similar debate on the main scheme in the light of the lessons that we hope will be learnt from the pilot schemes. It is to be noted that the first pilot scheme is now known as phase 1. Full implementation will be known as phase 2. I do not suggest that the Government have any intention other than to ram the scheme home regardless of any evaluation and regardless, too, of the problems that are already coming to light. Evaluation will be partial, conducted by, or for, the Department for Education and Employment internally.
    The statutory instruments offer an opportunity to debate the finance of the pilot schemes. They should be opposed, however, because they determine the financial underpinning for phase 1, which leads automatically to national implementation without proper parliamentary consideration subsequent to comprehensive and public scrutiny.
    The statutory instruments offer far more detail than the Bill. The Bill merely allows for grants to be made under arrangements to local education authorities, social services authorities and prescribed private providers. The SIs detail payments for maintenance, assistance and otherwise; for education purposes and for rate grant of 100 per cent. They provide for the condition, manner and time of payments; arrangements for adjusting over and underpayments; provision of administration costs, and requirement for an auditor's statement. No similar provisions will be made for national implementation. These will be covered by the all-embracing arrangements, so Parliament's ability properly to invigilate the spending of public money will be severely circumscribed.
    It would be helpful to the House, even in the context of a limited debate, to know why Statutory Instrument No. 235 is more detailed than No. 353. Surely both SIs should ensure that the maximum amount of information is put before the House to ensure proper scrutiny of the proposals. Perhaps the Government are already embarrassed by the shortcomings of the pilot schemes.
    The Secretary of State said on 6 July 1995 that she wished to select areas that were representative of the country as a whole. That has not happened. The right

    873
    hon. Lady has ended up with four authorities rather than 12 to act as pilots. And what has been their experience? The parental take-up, as predicted, has been incomplete. Nearly 3,000 of the 16,200 eligible parents failed to return their voucher application forms. That is, even to someone of a simple mind, nearly 20 per cent. of the total. Within the areas concerned there have been large variations in the actual vouchers being brought into the nursery institution.
    Confusion reigns. Parents cannot understand why they should be involved in a Government-inspired paper chase. Of course, those who will take up the vouchers are those in the private sector already. However, those in most need are most likely to miss out because of the bureaucratic nightmare. Thankfully, in London, where three out of the four pilots are operating, local education authorities recognise that it is not a viable option to admit only those with vouchers. The problem is exacerbated by the transient population, language difficulties and boundary considerations.
    There has been no real change in admissions in the London boroughs that are operating the pilot scheme. Sensibly, schools are being paid in advance, with or without the relevant vouchers. It can hardly be said, therefore, that the money is following the voucher, contrary to what the Government have consistently argued.
    Let us consider the much-vaunted provision of new places. In Norfolk, the chair of the education committee estimates a shortfall of 2,000 places. The vouchers will have little or no effect in Wandsworth, where almost all three and four-year-olds had places in nursery or reception classes. Westminster was already planning some expansion in partnership with the voluntary and private sectors. Kensington and Chelsea plans a little expansion, including partnerships, but faces space constraints.
    Moreover, there is some evidence that parents are switching from private nurseries to schools in order to secure a place in a favoured local primary school. Ominously, it is now being alleged that employers are withdrawing subsidies for workplace nurseries as the voucher scheme is introduced.
    What are the extra costs of making the pilot work? On the basis of written answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 29 April and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 24 April, I have computed that the initial subsidy allowed for propaganda purposes was £46.30 per child. The Minister admitted that the figure then shot up to £62.90 per child. Information garnered from parliamentary answers produced a total of £81.20 per eligible child, including the extra sweeteners in grant aid. When one considers the failure to participate of one fifth of those eligible for the scheme, the extra cost of the pilot scheme has now reached nearly £98 for every voucher-using child. That represents an add-on of almost 9 per cent. to the cost of the vouchers without providing extra places or delivering the quality that everyone outside the Government demands.
    Those difficulties portend far greater problems. That is why we have consistently argued that there must be a full and proper evaluation of the pilot scheme before an unequivocal commitment is made to extending the scheme nationally.
    874
    I should like to digress a moment to flag up to the Minister that concerns have been expressed to me about the role of Capita, the company handling the vouchers. Allegedly, that company is also involved in other activities in certain boroughs. Does the Minister agree that the fact that the company is also dealing with council tax collection on behalf of a local authority might lead to a conflict of interest? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I leave the House to draw its own conclusions on that. I am sure that such an organisation will have a database that can be cross-referenced and that might not be in the interests of people living in those particular boroughs.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I am sorry, but time is limited.
    At present, Capita is dealing only with the pilot schemes. However, on 13 May, the Western Mail ran an advertisement inviting contractors to tender for the second phase of the scheme. Although Capita apparently has failed to provide sufficient bilingual advice, the Government are talking about extending the scheme throughout the country. The advertisement makes allowances by stating:
    "In Wales, vouchers will be in English and Welsh, and there will be a bilingual helpline. In Scotland there will also be a Gaelic helpline."
    The pilot scheme has revealed the failure of those most in need to find out about the voucher scheme simply because provision has not been made for the multitude of languages, particularly in some London boroughs. I wonder what will happen in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), who tells me that more than 150 languages are spoken there. How will those people will able to gain access to nursery education?
    During the debate on the Gracious Speech on 21 November, the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), who chairs the Select Committee on Education and Employment, said:
    "this is essentially a pilot to see whether the scheme can work, whether it can provide what we all want: an extension of nursery education. I ask her"—
    the Secretary of State, that is—
    "to look at it with an open mind; if it does not work, she should have the courage to say so and that it should not be extended."—[Official Report, 21 November 1996; Vol. 267, c. 487–88.]
    Similarly, on Third Reading of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) sought assurances that the Government would learn from the pilot scheme before pushing ahead with national implementation. What price those assurances now?
    Opposition Members have consistently sought several things. We have pressed for decent buildings for nursery education. In the light of today's announcement about security arrangements—which was welcomed by Opposition Members, including my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—may I ask the Minister whether those arrangements, which will presumably apply to the 24,000-plus schools in the maintained sector, apply to the "settings", as they are euphemistically known by the Government? As the Minister knows from the

    875
    Committee stage of the Bill, the Audit Commission estimates the potential number at nearly 40,000; some of those overlap with schools, but will the security arrangements be extended to the vulnerable young children in the "settings"?
    As for teacher qualifications, we have been sadly disabused of any notion that qualified teachers will be made available at every stage—at least, qualified teachers as we understand them to be. We have argued for an effective system of inspection; yet, according to supplementary information for applicants on courses for those who wish to become registered inspectors, it is possible to be an inspector of nursery schools with a national vocational qualification at level 2, or to be an inspector with no qualifications at all, as long as the Government deem the applicant to have the necessary relevant experience—whatever that may be.
    A note at the bottom of the sheet of supplementary information defines the "settings", which include
    "a variety of schools, nurseries and playgroups".
    It seems that we are to ask unqualified people to inspect qualified professionals who are trying, in the face of great difficulties, to deliver quality nursery education.
    Incidentally, those who undertake the course are invited to attend
    "a three-day non-residential training and assessment course."
    They ought to be grateful, because
    "The training will be free of charge",
    although
    "applicants will be responsible for their own travel and subsistence costs."
    That strikes me as a rather shoddy way in which to provide qualified and experienced inspectors to consider the interests of nursery education.
    We are still no further in terms of special educational needs. As for the protection of existing provision, we are told to leave it to the market. A report by the executive director of education and libraries for the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea clearly states that the committee is having great difficulty in making the necessary provision. Paragraph 5.1 states:
    "Major expansion of nursery provision is severely limited by the lack of capital approvals and the physical constraints of some of our school buildings."
    There is little or no chance of the market providing in that regard.
    All those requirements add up to the delivery of nursery education of a quality appropriate to a modern society—a society that is concerned with preparing our children for a first-world nursery education system. I could say more—similar reports have come from Wandsworth and Norfolk—but I am conscious of the time. The statutory instruments offer the House the opportunity to insist that Government meet the demands of common sense before recklessly charging into a national scheme that will worsen the situation immeasurably. I ask hon. Members to vote against them, and to vote for the motion.
    10.34 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) has given no good reason for Opposition Members to object to
    876
    the regulations. They do no more than enable the Secretary of State to pay grant to providers in the state, the private and the voluntary sectors in exchange for nursery education for four-year-olds. The expansion of quality nursery education is, as I have been told many times by Opposition Members, a goal that is shared by all hon Members.
    The regulations are the means by which we can implement the first phase of the nursery education voucher scheme which, as the House knows, started last month. The scheme will be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom next year. The regulations will be used in England for a maximum of one year. For phase 2, subject to parliamentary approval there will be a specific power to pay grant to providers of nursery education under the relevant legislation.
    Revoking the regulations would simply delay the introduction of the scheme and, most importantly, remove the possibility of assessing how the scheme operates in phase 1. I can see no reasonable argument for doing that, and can only assume that the Opposition are running scared of the likely success of the scheme. There is no disagreement about the fact that nursery education is intrinsically good. Our intention is to give parents the power and the wherewithal to be able to choose the best place for their child. We want to bring that about as soon as possible while bearing in mind the fact that a scheme as new as this ideally needs to be examined on a small scale before full implementation. That is why we invited local education authorities to volunteer to join phase 1 from April. I am grateful to those LEAs that did so. They have helped to shape the detail of the scheme and are reaping the benefit of increased nursery places.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Norfolk county council is one of the authorities that are taking part in the voucher scheme. Any difficulties about the scheme that have been reported to me have been dealt with straightforwardly by the county council. Will the Minister confirm that the scheme in Norfolk seems to be running successfully and smoothly with minimum problems?
    Mr. Squire: I am delighted to confirm what my hon Friend has said. As he may know, in terms of vouchers issued as a percentage of the estimated number of parents, the Norfolk figure is 93 per cent. At the very least that suggests that the problems that the hon Member for Walton hinted at are not universal. It comes ill from the hon Member to jibe at the fact that there were just four volunteer LEAs because his words and those of his hon Friends no doubt dissuaded many LEAs from taking part, thus denying to the parents of four-year-olds the benefits that are available this year.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does the Minister share my astonishment at the sheer effrontery of the suggestion by the hon Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) that the scheme would not help much in Wandsworth because the vast majority of three and four-year-olds there already get full-time nursery education? Does the Minister agree that that is precisely because of the enlightened leadership in Wandsworth of a Conservative administration by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) and his successors? It is astonishing that the hon Member for Walton should quote Wandsworth in arguing against the scheme.
    Mr. Squire: Game, set and match to my hon Friend, not least because, as the House will remember, we are

    877
    regularly told that Conservative authorities have not been good at LEA provision. As my hon. Friend makes clear, Wandsworth has been doing well.
    The voluntary nature of phase 1 makes it all the more surprising that Opposition Members have prayed against the regulations. The local authorities involved have agreed to the funding arrangements that we are putting in place. No other local education authority region is affected. Private and voluntary providers in the phase 1 regions which do not wish to take part in the scheme and which have not registered with the voucher company will not be affected by the regulations.
    In truth, Labour Members want to obstruct the implementation of phase 1 in a startlingly cavalier fashion. It is as though they want to punish the local authorities that have taken a positive and forward-thinking step. Do Labour Members really want those local authorities not to be able to regain funding that has already been deducted for the voucher scheme? Do they really want to deny more than 16,000 four-year-olds a choice that they might not have had before?
    It is a selfish stance. It is also a strange one in the light of comments by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) that, in the event of a Labour Government, he will honour the vouchers that have been issued. What sort of promise is that in the face of tonight's action? I conclude that Labour Members want merely to make mischief and that, having lost the argument on the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, this is just a smokescreen.
    The hon. Member for Walton mentioned qualified teacher status, which, again, is familiar territory for hon. Members who served on the Committee that considered the Bill. Let me underline again that the Government do not share the view that quality nursery education can be achieved only if all voucher-redeeming institutions are led by staff with qualified teacher status. Labour Members have said that they too want the private and voluntary sectors to play an important part in the expansion of good-quality nursery places. Insisting on QTS would exclude the vast majority of those providers, who are providing excellent pre-school education.
    The staff leading the way and working in many of our nurseries and playgroups already have the relevant qualifications and experience to offer children a wealth of personal, social and learning skills. The new money flowing into those sectors can only improve the existing provision.
    Mr. Clive Soley: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Squire: I will give way, but for the last time.
    Mr. Soley: It is on that issue. Many of us are worried about the quality of education in some private institutions. Is the Minister saying that only the head needs to be qualified, or is he saying nothing about the qualifications of the rest of the staff?
    Mr. Squire: I refer the hon. Gentleman, who was not blessed with joining us on the Standing Committee and who obviously missed the exchanges on this, to the Audit
    878
    Commission's report earlier this year, which considered the various settings. One of the report's central conclusions was that, in terms of the quality of provision, no inherent assumption could be made that one setting was invariably better than the other. Not only Labour Members, but Liberal Democrats say that they wish to encourage these providers, but their suggestions, if adopted, would deny those providers the chance to take part in the expansion of nursery education.
    Let me turn to evaluation. Labour Members have regularly stated concerns about how lessons learned in phase 1 can be applied to phase 2. They have made that clear in debates in Committee, on Second Reading and during Report, but it makes no sense to block a move that will help to achieve one of their main demands. If there were no phase 1, the scheme would be implemented throughout the country without any evaluation. That is yet another example of Labour Members' inconsistency. They ask for something, it materialises and then they reject it.
    I am sure that many local authorities throughout the country are anxious for phase 1 to develop so that they can see how the volunteer authorities fare. It is in everyone's interests that any necessary fine-tuning takes place before phase 2. Let me make it clear that many LEAs, regardless of political control, will not thank Labour Members for their interventions tonight.
    Ms Margaret Hodge: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Squire: I have given way a lot, unlike the hon. Member for Walton, and other hon. Members want to contribute.
    It is self-evident that full evaluation of the scheme will not be possible until it is fully implemented. For such evaluation to be of any constructive use, clearly, it needs to be undertaken over a longer term, but it is equally clear that we can learn some important lessons from phase 1. As I have said, those in turn will ensure that phase 2 is implemented as smoothly and as successfully as possible. In fact, the interest and co-operation shown by volunteer authorities makes this a unique and valuable opportunity because we all want the scheme to work.
    The operational issues that we are looking at cover the mechanics of the issue and redemption of vouchers, the payment process and how money reaches providers and how well the voucher company handles the task. We are already learning lessons about the mechanics of issuing vouchers. Parents in the phase 1 areas have now received their first vouchers. We can review how effectively application forms are reaching parents of eligible children and how many of those parents have been contacted directly through the child benefit data base.
    I am happy to report to the House that implementation is proceeding as planned. I am happy with the progress so far. Some 630 providers from the private and voluntary sectors have registered to take part in the scheme. On average, over 80 per cent. of parents in the phase 1 areas have now received their vouchers and many will have already handed them over to providers of their own choosing.
    In a matter of weeks we will be in a position to know how the vouchers have been exchanged with specific providers. There are initial indications of an expansion of places in response to the voucher initiative. That is one of

    879
    the most important pieces of information. We have already made the first payment of grant to individual providers. We will be looking at how quickly the voucher triggers payment and how money reaches the provider, be it the local education authority, the Funding Agency for Schools or an individual establishment.
    There are other areas for consideration which have been set out in debates during the passage of the Bill, but in the interest of other hon. Members who wish to participate, I will not itemise them now. This is in the interests of parents, local authorities, providers and the children.
    It would be wrong to revoke the regulations. They serve a purely functional purpose, enabling grants to be paid to providers of nursery education to four-year-olds. They apply only to the four volunteer areas. More importantly, the first phase enables key operational aspects of the scheme to be fully tested so that phase 2 is a success. This is good news for anybody who may be anxious about the scheme and how it will impact on local authority provision. It should be welcomed rather than frustrated. I call on the House to reject the motions.
    10.46 pm
    Mr. Barry Jones: I have always appreciated the Minister's genial speeches but I disagree with him tonight.
    Young parents, head teachers, school governors, nursery school teachers and their class assistants have all lobbied me most vociferously against the scheme. I am only in my 26th year in this honourable House and I have never experienced anything like the protests I have received in my constituency. Previously, my biggest mailbag was on the sad case of the beagle dogs who were being experimented upon and being forced to smoke cigarettes. I am now being overwhelmed by letters and lengthy petitions against this scheme. I have received 5,000 signatures of young parents in my constituency.
    The professionals, the teachers and the young mothers at the school gate are adamant that they do not want the scheme and do not wish to see the "progress" suggested by the Minister. I have visited a dozen primary schools this year and I have held informal and formal talks and conducted several public meetings on the matter. At a public meeting in Connah's quay 60 parents decided that they wanted to debate the matter as soon as the school had closed. They left me in no doubt about their hostility, suspicion and anger over the voucher scheme. They felt that the scheme was liable to be socially divisive. They said that it might put money into the pockets of the well-off and menace the existing provision of nursery schooling.
    I have here a typical petition. It is from the Dee Road infants school in my constituency and is headed:
    "Petition Opposing the Proposed Changes to Nursery Education".
    It says:
    "We the undersigned would like to express our opposition to the proposed changes to Nursery Education in Wales. The present system is excellent and we feel the proposed changes would be detrimental to our children's education now and in the future."
    I was so impressed by the case made and the passion with which it was expressed that I undertook to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    In my county, we already have a very good nursery school system. My constituents—parents, teachers and governors of the schools in question—want none of the
    880
    initiative put forward by Ministers. My constituents have asked me to tell the House that, at the very least, they want Wales to be exempted from the scheme. We want a voucher-free zone. There is no call in Wales for this scheme; there is mounting hostility to it. We are saying to the Secretary of State for Wales that he can opt out; he has the powers to do so.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Jones: No, I do not have time. I hope that the Under-Secretary will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I thank him for his correspondence.
    The people of Wales want the Secretary of State for Wales to opt out. My constituents are saying to him, "If it works, do not fix it." Even at this late hour, we ask the Secretary of State to ask the Welsh Office to leave Wales alone. If the scheme has to go forward, let it be consigned to England.
    I remind the House that, 24 years ago, I heard and saw Baroness Thatcher, the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, make a very good speech about nursery schools at the Dispatch Box. It was on the lines of the debate on the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill. The speech was about her plans to increase nursery school places. The right hon. Lady, as she then was, wanted only £50 million a year for universal part-time nursery schooling, and only £100 million for capital expenditure. Of course, her plans were in being before the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries decided on a massive hike in oil prices.
    Perhaps in some respects, Mrs. Thatcher's speech was the most important departmental speech on education of the 1970s. As I remember—I have re-read it—it was an emollient speech. It was not Thatcherite in style. It was made before she succumbed to the 1970s ideology of the late Sir Keith Joseph. However, it contained one trailer of the Thatcherite future. She said:
    "There are such things as direct grant nursery schools where the capital provision is made by the parents".— [Official Report, 12 May 1972; Vol. 836, c. 1766.]
    Was that choice sentence that was embedded in her emollient speech that day the origin of tonight's grants and regulations?
    Since Mrs. Thatcher's speech 24 years ago, Britain has enjoyed about £120 billion-worth of North sea oil revenues and about £80 billion from privatisation moneys. For all but four of the 24 years since that speech the Conservatives have held power, yet the advance of nursery school provision has been wretchedly slow—[Interruption.] Please be quiet. Yes, once I was a schoolteacher, and two naughty girls—or rather, two naughty persons—are sitting in front of me. My hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Ms Hodge) and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) might have the courtesy to be silent while I am speaking, especially as they have been in the House only since 1992.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman can safely leave such matters in the hands of the headmaster.
    Mr. Jones: I am glad that you have offered protection to my hon. Friends, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because they mean well.

    881
    Britain now has a culture of drugs, of harsh violence, of offensive graffiti, of almost universal vandalism, of widespread unemployment and of urban decay. In that context, nursery schooling is vital, and my constituents are saying to me, "In Wales, can we consign the voucher system to the dustbin of history?"
    10.55 pm
    Mr. James Pawsey: I greatly enjoyed the reference by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) to my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher, and I am certain that she will enjoy his compliments.
    If you will allow me to digress for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall express my thanks and appreciation for what the Minister has said about security in schools. The whole House will welcome it, as well as the fact that all the recommendations have been accepted. I was also pleased to hear the cheerful comments—at least, those about security in schools were cheerful—by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). It is good to see some agreement on that important issue between those who sit on the two Front Benches.
    This is the third time that we have sought to debate the regulations. The first time, Opposition Members did not attend for the debate. They were not here, which gives us a clear idea of the importance that they really attach to nursery education. The second time that we tried, the business changed. Now we are on our third attempt and, having listened to the hon. Member for Walton, I wonder why he bothered.
    None the less, this will be a short but important debate about the Government's scheme to introduce nursery education vouchers—an initiative that will place in the hands of parents a voucher worth £1,100, which may be exchanged either for a part-time nursery place or, where one may be on offer, for a full-time reception class place.
    I have no doubts about the effectiveness of the scheme; my principal concerns are about the black propaganda currently circulating, which is clearly intended to discredit vouchers. That propaganda seeks to worry and distract parents by suggesting, for example, that the voucher scheme will reduce choice, and that it may not have adequate quality—the hon. Member for Walton said that again tonight. It is also suggested that there will not be enough places for all those whose parents seek to take advantage of the scheme, or that the system is bureaucratic. The usual phrase used—again, the hon. Gentleman used it—describes it as a "paper-chase". It is alleged that the scheme will cut the primary places now on offer for three-year-olds.
    All those fears are groundless, and all the concerns have been fabricated for political rather than for educational reasons. All those synthetic reasons have been advanced in an effort to secure cheap political advantage. What I have to say about Opposition Members applies to the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), too—I mentioned him deliberately, to wake him up, because I thought that he was dozing off. If Opposition Members had had the imagination or the courage to introduce vouchers they would now be telling us that vouchers were the best thing for parents since apple pie. But because Opposition Members do not have the wit or the imagination, they seek
    882
    to denigrate a first-rate scheme that will be of positive benefit and positive advantage to all the nation's nursery children.
    Mr. John Carlisle: I agree with my hon. Friend. The black propaganda that is being put out by the Labour party has certainly broken out in my constituency after the visit by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who encouraged people to march in the streets against this scheme. Perhaps my hon. Friend might reflect in his comments that the Opposition have failed to address the fact that the scheme will give many thousands of four-year-olds the chance of nursery education which they did not have before. Whatever the merits of the scheme, at least some children will be able to enjoy nursery education who were denied that provision before. That is something that the Opposition have failed to understand and that they have certainly failed to promote. I hope that my hon. Friend will promote it.
    Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend made one of his typically telling interventions. He raised a very salient point, and I am sure that the House has noted with the utmost care what he had to say.
    Contrary to the black propaganda, vouchers should not damage any existing local education authority schemes, and parents can continue to send their children to them if they so wish. Conservative Members have sought to add a greater element of choice, and the introduction of vouchers will not require LEAs to change existing admission patterns—which is quite contrary to what has been suggested by some Labour Members.
    I believe that some LEAs will, however, want to maintain or perhaps slightly modify their current admission patterns, which should increase the number of admissions and increase voucher income. That will assist materially in improving the quality of what is on offer. If an LEA wished to admit an entire year group into a reception class in September, it can do so. The voucher merely triggers the flow of resources from the Department for Education and Employment to the LEA, and then to the appropriate school.
    I can remember Jim Callaghan saying that a lie can be halfway round the world before truth has pulled on its boots. I mention that because it is alleged that the introduction of the voucher will destroy existing LEA provision for three-year-olds. That is simply not true. There is absolutely no reason why provision for three-year-olds should be damaged. No resources have been deducted from the LEA's standard spending assessments for provision for three-year-olds.
    It is anticipated that the total amount available for nursery education vouchers will be about £750 million, much of which will be derived from recycled funds that already exist for nursery education. But—it is an important "but"—a further £165 million of new money has been found and allocated. That is a clear indication of the importance that the Government attach to nursery education.
    I shall briefly, because of the lateness of the hour, return to the pilot schemes that are now up and running. More than 1,100 providers have so far registered to be part of the pilot schemes, and that figure includes about 650 applications from the private and voluntary sectors,

    883
    which is almost two thirds of the total. That number clearly shows the interest and the enthusiasm that has been displayed for this scheme. It also clearly shows that there will be more than enough places for children when the scheme goes national next April. I say that because I am again aware that the black propagandists—which I sometimes think is an alternative way of describing the Labour and the Liberal parties—have said that there will be insufficient places. Those who claim that are simply wrong and the success of the pilots underlines that point.
    I wonder if I might now turn to the motion. You will notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, unusually, the motion bears seven names instead of the usual six. Provision has been found for the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) to include his name on the motion, but the House will be surprised to see that no room has been found for the shadow Chancellor to do so. You may think that it is not simply an accidental omission. I make that point because I was interested to see in the Daily Mail today the comment:
    "Intrigue that left Brown a bitter man".
    The Sun said:
    "Labour in turmoil. Showdown. Sack PR boss Mandelson for his vendetta against me, rages Brown."
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What does that have to do with the motion? The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to the motion that we are debating.
    Mr. Pawsey: I was merely seeking to inquire why, unusually, the shadow Chancellor's name does not appear on the motion on the Order Paper. You will see that there is a substantial list of names, but that his is an important omission. I was merely suggesting to the House the reasons why it may not be there, but I was—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What does the Daily Mail report have to do with this motion?
    Mr. Pawsey: I was merely commenting on certain of the statements which that esteemed paper had made. I shall return to the motion and join my hon. Friend the Minister in urging the House to reject it.
    11.6 pm
    Mr. Don Foster: During our discussions in Committee, I was accused of having a special relationship with the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). So I was delighted by some of his remarks about me and about the Liberal Democrats, which I think will remove any fears that such a relationship exists. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one thing, namely, the Government's acceptance of the recommendations in respect of school safety. We were all delighted not only by the comprehensive nature of the recommendations but by the fact that the Secretary of State accepted them in their entirety.
    I disagree with the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth in relation to tonight's debate. He referred to black propaganda and accused those whom he said were guilty of spreading it of not having the wit or imagination to see how wonderful the scheme was. Unfortunately, in making such a remark, he criticises not only Opposition parties but all those organisations which have had any involvement with early-years education. Not one organisation involved in high-quality early-years
    884
    education has not expressed reservations to one degree or another about the proposals contained in the legislation, which will be triggered by the regulations that we are considering tonight.
    The "black propaganda" described by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth has been made by a large number of highly reputable organisations which join me in believing that the nursery vouchers proposals are cumbersome and bureaucratic; that they will not deliver high-quality provision; that they will not significantly expand provision; that they do nothing to help the provision for three-year-olds and could harm what provision exists for them; and that the scheme does nothing to provide additional support for children with special educational needs. In short, the scheme is a woefully underfunded gimmick which will not meet the needs of the nation.
    The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) called for Wales not to be included in the scheme. There are equally powerful calls for it not to apply to any other part of the country.
    To accept the regulations would imply support for an incredibly bureaucratic and cumbersome scheme that my party fundamentally opposes. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth tried to pretend that it was not bureaucratic and cumbersome. Let me remind him of how the scheme works in the trials and pilots. Imagine how it applies to a local education authority nursing school.
    Under the management of Capita Ltd., the scheme works like this. The Child Benefit Agency sends an application form to the parent. The parent completes it and sends it back to Capita. Capita sends back a voucher. The parent gives that to the school, which gives it to the LEA, which in turn sends it back to Capita. Capita confirms receipt to the Department, which sends the money earlier removed by the Government from the LEA's budget to the LEA, which then hands it back to the school. All that from a Government pledged to the removal of red tape. It is hardly surprising that many of the parents eligible for vouchers in the trial areas did not apply for them or thought that they could use them to buy school uniforms, despite the large sums that have been spent on advertising.
    It is hardly surprising that people in the pilot areas feel conned and cheated. They believed that vouchers would guarantee places for their children but there are insufficient places in the trial areas to meet demand. Many other concerns about how the trials operate have been expressed in those areas.
    For example, I received a letter from a head teacher at a Norfolk nursery school that stated:
    "Parents have been very confused and frustrated by the nursery voucher system."
    That is hardly surprising.
    In the same letter, the head teacher expresses her concern:
    "There has also been a noticeable decline in relationships between providers now that they are required to compete for nursery voucher children. This will not help the children as they move from one form of provision to another, e.g. from playgroup to school. Conflict and competition between providers has a negative effect on the whole community and therefore cannot be good for children."
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: The hon. Gentleman referred to Norfolk. As I said in my intervention on my

    885
    hon. Friend the Minister, I have of course had one or two problems in my constituency postbag. The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that every problem that I, as a Norfolk Member, have received has been clearly answered by the local education authority and sorted out. The level of complaints that I have received has been remarkably small considering that it is a trial period. He must not exaggerate the problems.
    Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman believes from his postbag and his experience as a hard-working constituency Member of Parliament that the trial can pass on happily without difficulty and be translated to full implementation nationwide, he has another think coming. One reason why some of the difficulties have been overcome in Norfolk is that significant additional sums of money and a range of bribes have been offered which will not be offered to other local education authorities for the full scheme.
    I hope that I have demonstrated why we do not support the scheme. To support the regulations would be implicitly to support the scheme as a whole. For that reason, we shall certainly not vote for the regulations.
    11.13 pm
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: It may be that the fears expressed by hon. Members will prove groundless—time will tell. We know that a remarkable consensus exists on nursery education, underpinned by its benefits and the absolute need to ensure the highest possible quality. Those are the givens in this debate, on which there is no disagreement either within or outside the House.
    I reiterate the concern that I expressed in the debate on the Loyal Address, to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) referred, when I told my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that if a pilot means anything it means objective analysis of every part of the scheme's implementation in the pilot areas. It means monitoring whether the scheme is working and delivering the quality that I mentioned. I hope that the Minister will repeat the assurance given by my right hon. Friend that if the scheme does not work the Government will be prepared to consider whatever amendments need to be made before we risk full implementation throughout the country.
    11.15 pm
    Mr. Clive Soley: Today we heard the Prime Minister commit the taxpayer to spending probably millions of pounds to deal with some of the problems found in and around our schools; yet tonight we are debating a pathetically inadequate and bureaucratic measure instead of well-funded, high-quality nursery education which would help to head off some of the problems facing our schools
    If the Government had only a small fraction of a policy for the families of Britain, they would not be introducing measures that will undermine family structure. When I intervened on the Minister, he seemed to indicate that a private sector nursery could have virtually no qualified staff. Although there are many private sector establishments—such as Bringing up Baby in my constituency, which I helped to establish—which are of a
    886
    good standard and use highly qualified staff, many are of poor quality. It seems that the Government are to take money from local authorities to subsidise a scheme which will not produce the standards that we want. Quality is critical.
    As the Liberal spokesman said, we are asking local authorities to implement an incredibly bureaucratic system. As the Minister knows, Hammersmith and Fulham council has one of the best reputations for good quality nursery education. For the first time in six years, it is having to cut nursery education because of Government-imposed cuts on local authorities. Prior to that, the authority was protecting nursery education by making cuts elsewhere. That is no longer possible. Good nursery schools such as James Lee and Vanessa have to suffer cuts. Sometimes that may be only a fraction of a teaching post, but I remind the Minister—who represents a London constituency, if one can say that Hornchurch is in London—that the capital has the specific problem, in addition to those affecting other inner cities, of multilingual children, including many refugees, who require extra tuition. Education authorities are asked to deal with that situation because the Government allow refugees—rightly, in my view—to enter this country. Why on earth are the Government introducing a scatterbrained scheme that does not address the provision of high-quality nursery education?
    The Minister answered my intervention in a way that suggested that the quality of staff training is not sufficiently high. Even the Government now recognise that poor quality education in Britain has been part of the country's economic and social problems for many years; yet they are prepared to give money to organisations that may not be up to the job. Nursery education should be high quality and use highly trained teachers, and it should be universally available. The Minister should rethink the scheme. He should not waste money on bureaucratic experiments that no one wants. Conservative parents and Labour parents agree on that. Parents want the money to be spent on achieving high-quality nursery education with well-qualified staff, whether in the public sector or in the private sector. If the Minister rethinks the scheme, he might get some support.
    11.19 pm
    Ms Estelle Morris: The debate is important because the regulations relate to the financial arrangements for phase 1 of the nursery voucher scheme and they will become the financial provisions that will govern phase 2 of the scheme. The Minister is absolutely right: this is a last chance attempt to stop phase 1 going to phase 2 before a proper evaluation takes place. There will not be a further opportunity for hon. Members to debate whether they want a nationwide nursery voucher scheme. Despite the best efforts of the Labour party, there will be no proper scrutiny or full evaluation of phase 1 before phase 2 is imposed.
    The hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) is Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Employment. He must reflect on this before he casts his vote this evening. No matter what the situation in phase 1 at the end of March next year, and no matter how serious the flaws, he cannot believe that the Government have no intention of proceeding with phase 2. That is the importance of today's vote—it is a last chance, but it is a real chance, to stop an unpopular and wasteful system being imposed on the rest of the country.

    887
    Throughout the consideration of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, the Minister failed to explain or to justify why he will not deal with the issue in a sensible and responsible way. Time after time—from the Queen's Speech in the autumn to Third Reading of the Bill in the spring—hon. Members on both sides of the House pleaded with the Minister properly to evaluate phase 1 of the scheme. The hon. Member for Crosby and his colleagues the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) and for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) must be deeply disappointed that the Minister has not listened to their calls for a proper evaluation.
    It is not only politicians who have urged caution: teachers, governors, parents, local authorities and nursery providers have all made a strong argument for evaluation before expansion. It is sad—it is as though the Government are trying to make up for lost time. It has taken them 17 years to learn what others have known all that time—that nursery education is vital for a child's success. The Government have spent almost two decades doing nothing, and now they will not be sensible enough to pause for thought. Late converts are welcome. The Minister must learn to listen and to listen well.
    There is already ample evidence that a second thought would be wise. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) talked about black propaganda—the only propaganda in this House is blue, not black. The Labour party does not talk about propaganda, it talks about the real experiences of real people in the phase 1 scheme. At the start of the phase 1 scheme, 2,000 parents have vouchers but no places, parents in Wandsworth have places but do not understand why they now need a voucher, and 20 per cent. of parents have not returned the application form.
    On the evidence so far, the House would be acting irresponsibly if it did not make the Government pause and properly evaluate before going any further; to do anything else would be an abuse of public funds. The Tory record on pre-school education is one of broken promises and missed opportunities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) said, from Margaret Thatcher in the 1970s to John Major in the 1990s, a generation of children have been denied the start that they need to their schooling because the Tories have failed to keep their word—and they are doing it again tonight. The Prime Minister's cast-iron commitment of last year is as far away today as it has ever been.
    On this issue at least, the Government could keep their promises. The money that they are earmarking tonight for the nursery voucher scheme could have been earmarked for real nursery places for real children in top quality nursery schools. But instead of spending the money to keep their promises, the Government choose to give it to men who will shuffle paper. The statutory instruments that we are discussing approve £10 million to be spent on shifting 20 million pieces of paper around the system. They approve £1.1 million in publicity. An undisclosed sum will be paid to a management company, That will mean reducing places for three-year-olds. What a waste of resources and opportunity.
    After two decades of failure and inaction, on this occasion the Minister owed it to parents and children to spend their money on places, not paper. It is foolhardy to implement the voucher system without proper evaluation.
    888
    To approve the statutory instruments before us tonight would do exactly that. That is why the House should approve the motion to reject them.
    11.25 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): As the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), said earlier, I must say that I have heard no intelligent argument from Opposition Members to convince me that the regulations that we have debated tonight should be revoked.
    I was surprised at the paucity of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), which was only exceeded by his ignorance of the regulations that he seeks to block. For his information, statutory instrument No. 235 is more detailed than statutory instrument No. 353. Statutory instrument No. 235 is a regulation made under the grants for education support and training scheme, a well-known scheme for specific funding. The primary legislation underpinning those regulations requires that detail. Statutory instrument No. 353 is based on a very general grant-giving power, and the primary legislation does not require the same detail. I fail to understand why the hon. Gentleman asked that question in his opening remarks.
    We had excellent interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), who showed us that the scheme is now working well in Norfolk. He was able to put the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) straight, as the hon. Gentleman obviously fails to understand the procedure for providers and parents, which is very streamlined. The hon. Gentleman gave exaggerated evidence of the problems, but I suppose that that is to be expected from the Liberal Democrats, who exaggerate at every opportunity.
    The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who graciously chaired our Committee proceedings on the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill, seemed to be having problems coping with his constituency correspondence. He spoke of the menace of nursery education and wanted a voucher-free zone, but the message that came across was that he wanted Welsh parents to have less choice than English parents. He would not even give way to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), who wanted to put him straight on the matter. I was surprised that the hon. Member also gave us the strong impression that he considers that women should be seen and not heard.
    A first-class contribution was made to the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who as usual showed great understanding of our education policies. As we sought to explain, the regulations are simply a vehicle to enable grant to be paid to providers of nursery education, and they are being used to implement the first phase of the nursery education voucher scheme. Moreover, the regulations affect only providers in four local authority areas, and on a purely voluntary basis. Revoking the regulations would penalise the very institutions that we should encourage—forward-thinking providers who want to expand the availability of nursery education. The four local authorities would not be able to regain the funding that has already been deducted for the scheme.

    889
    We want the voucher scheme to be a success for parents and providers alike. Ultimately, children will be the main beneficiaries. We are confident that, in time, the additional demand created by the voucher scheme will lead to all four-year-olds having the chance of nursery education. Phase 1 allows us to test fully the operational arrangements that we are, setting up. That process will ensure that when phase 2 is implemented it is efficient and cost-effective.
    As for quality, we have imposed important safeguards to ensure that only providers of good quality education take part in phase 1. The requirement that all providers must publish information about their provision, accommodation and staff will enable parents to make an informed decision.
    If the Labour party is so firmly opposed to nursery vouchers, where are its alternative proposals? At present, nursery education depends on chance—the chance that parents can afford it or that they live in an area where such education is provided. We want choice, not chance, and that is exactly what the scheme will deliver: choice to parents wherever they live.
    Dog-in-the-manger politics have brought the Labour party to the Opposition Dispatch Box in a mediocre and mean-minded attempt to rob pilot authorities of the funding that has already been deducted for the voucher scheme. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the Opposition proposals.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 236.

    Division No. 128]

    [11.30 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Ainger, Nick

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Alton, David

    Clelland, David

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Coffey, Ann

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Cohen, Harry

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Connarty, Michael

    Ashton, Joe

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Corbett, Robin

    Barnes, Harry

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Battle, John

    Corston, Jean

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Cousins, Jim

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Cox, Tom

    Bell, Stuart

    Cummings, John

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Benton, Joe

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dalyell, Tam

    Betts, Clive

    Darling, Alistair

    Blunkett, David

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Boateng, Paul

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

    Bradley, Keith

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

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

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

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Denham, John

    Burden, Richard

    Dewar, Donald

    Byers, Stephen

    Dixon, Don

    Callaghan, Jim

    Dobson, Frank

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Dowd, Jim

    Cann, Jamie

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Chidgey, David

    Eastham, Ken

    Church, Judith

    Etherington, Bill

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    890

    Fatchett, Derek

    MacShane, Denis

    Fisher, Mark

    McWilliam, John

    Flynn, Paul

    Madden, Max

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Maddock, Diana

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Mandelson, Peter

    Foulkes, George

    Marek, Dr John

    Fyfe, Maria

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Galbraith, Sam

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Galloway, George

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Gapes, Mike

    Martlew, Eric

    George, Bruce

    Maxton, John

    Gerrard, Neil

    Meacher, Michael

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Michael, Alun

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Milburn, Alan

    Graham, Thomas

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Gunnell, John

    Mudie, George

    Hall, Mike

    Mullin, Chris

    Hanson, David

    Murphy, Paul

    Hardy, Peter

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Harvey, Nick

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    O'Hara, Edward

    Henderson, Doug

    Olner, Bill

    Heppell, John

    Parry, Robert

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Pearson, Ian

    Hinchliffe, David

    Pendry, Tom

    Hodge, Margaret

    Pike, Peter L

    Hoey, Kate

    Pope, Greg

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Home Robertson, John

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Hood, Jimmy

    Raynsford, Nick

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

    Reid, Dr John

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Rendel, David

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Hutton, John

    Hooney, Terry

    Illsley, Eric

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Ingram, Adam

    Rowlands, Ted

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Simpson, Alan

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Jamieson, David

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

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

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Soley, Clive

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Spellar, John

    Jowell, Tessa

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Steinberg, Gerry

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

    Stott, Roger

    Khabra, Piara S

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Tipping, Paddy

    Lewis, Terry

    Trickett, Jon

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Turner, Dennis

    Livingstone, Ken

    Wallace, James

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Watson, Mike

    Loyden, Eddie

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    McAllion, John

    Wilson, Brian

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Worthington, Tony

    McCartney, Ian

    Wray, Jimmy

    Macdonald, Calum

    Wright, Dr Tony

    McFall, John

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    McLeish, Henry

    Mrs Bridget Prentice and Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.

    McMaster, Gordon

    891

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Duncan, Alan

    Alexander, Richard

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Dunn, Bob

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Amess, David

    Dykes, Hugh

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

    Ashby, David

    Elletson, Harold

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Baldry, Tony

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Evennett, David

    Bates, Michael

    Faber, David

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fabricant, Michael

    Beggs, Roy

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bellingham, Henry

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Forman, Nigel

    Booth, Hartley

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Boswell, Tim

    Forth, Eric

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bowis, John

    French, Douglas

    Brazier, Julian

    Gale, Roger

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Gallie, Phil

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Garnier, Edward

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Burns, Simon

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Burt, Alistair

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Butcher, John

    Gorst, Sir John

    Butler, Peter

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Cash, William

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Clappison, James

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Harris, David

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hawkins, Nick

    Colvin, Michael

    Hayes, Jerry

    Congdon, David

    Heald, Oliver

    Conway, Derek

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hendry, Charles

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Couchman, James

    Horam, John

    Cran, James

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Day, Stephen

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Devlin, Tim

    Hunter, Andrew

    Dicks, Terry

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jack, Michael

    Dover, Den

    Jessel, Toby

    892

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Richards, Rod

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Riddick, Graham

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Key, Robert

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Knapman, Roger

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Sackville, Tom

    Knox, Sir David

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Legg, Barry

    Soames, Nicholas

    Leigh, Edward

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lidington, David

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Sproat, Iain

    Lord, Michael

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    MacKay, Andrew

    Steen, Anthony

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Stephen, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stewart, Allan

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Sweeney, Walter

    Madel, Sir David

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Thomason, Roy

    Malone, Gerald

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Marland, Paul

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Mates, Michael

    Trend, Michael

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Trotter, Neville

    Merchant, Piers

    Twinn, Dran

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Viggers, Peter

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Walden, George

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Waller, Gary

    Nelson, Anthony

    Waterson, Nigel

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Watts, John

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Wells, Bowen

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Whitney, Ray

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Whittingdale, John

    Norris, Steve

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Wilkinson, John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Willetts, David

    Page, Richard

    Wilshire, David

    Paice, James

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Wolfson, Mark

    Pawsey, James

    Wood, Timothy

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Yeo, Tim

    Pickles, Eric

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Mr. Gary Streeter and Mr. Gyles Brandreth.

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Question accordingly negatived.

    Reading Tuition (Primary Schools)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Wood.]
    11.42 pm
    Mr. Graham Riddick: I submitted this topic for debate in the light of the report by the Office for Standards in Education, published last week, about the teaching of reading in a number of inner-London primary schools. The debate also coincides with the standard attainment tests that are taking place this week in primary schools throughout the country.
    My concern about some aspects of primary education do not, however, stem simply from last week's report. A number of reports in recent years have suggested that far too many pupils fail to reach educational standards appropriate to their ability and age.
    Last week's report on the teaching of reading in London schools was a shocker. Eighty per cent. of seven-year-olds had reading abilities appropriate to an age below their actual age; nearly 20 per cent. of those achieved no score at all. Four out of 10 11-year-olds were found to have reading ages two or more years below their actual age. The usual excuses about social deprivation and lack of resources will not do; the report made it clear that the quality of schools' intake was not a reliable guide to pupil performance, and that similar schools scored differently.
    Sadly, a growing bank of evidence suggests that the deficiencies in primary education that were exposed in last week's report are not confined to inner London. Last year, a report from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research found that the bottom 40 per cent. of 13-year-olds in English schools lagged two years behind their German equivalents, and never caught up. The author of the report, Professor Prais, was critical of the emphasis that had been increasingly placed on the child-centred, individualistic approach to schooling, in which pupils were encouraged to proceed at their own pace.
    By contrast, the emphasis on the continent is on teaching the class as a whole and on ensuring that pupils advance together to a high average standard. Last year, the Basic Skills Agency published a report which stated that the 30 per cent. or so of children who had not learned to read properly by the age of 10 never recover. I understand that this week the agency will publish a report confirming that about 32 per cent. of those going to secondary schools are reading at the level of nine-year-olds.
    Last year's national tests for 11-year-olds showed that 52 per cent. of pupils failed to reach national curriculum level 4 in English, the standard that is expected to be achieved by a typical pupil of that age. Additionally, nearly half the 14-year-olds failed to reach the expected standard in English and mathematics in their tests. The failure of so many of our young people to reach their full potential gives rise to massive concern for the future well-being and prosperity of this country. For young people, the lack of proper grounding in literacy and numeracy can range from inconvenient in later life to downright disastrous.
    I have no doubt that many of the social problems that face this country can be partly attributed to the way in which the education system has let down many people in
    894
    their early years, particularly in inner-city areas. Recently, people have asked me whether there is a problem about the teaching of reading in my constituency. I do not think there is, and from my visits I can say that I have some excellent primary schools in my constituency. I visited one such school on Friday, the Meltham Church of England junior and infants school in Holmfirth road, Meltham, which, I am pleased to say, has just received an excellent report from Ofsted.
    I cannot be certain about the achievements of my local schools, because, without information, it is difficult to make comparisons and judgments. That is why I am delighted that the results of this week's tests for 11-year-olds will for the first time be made public by school and in league table form. I hope that, next year, the results of the tests for seven-year-olds will also be made public in that form. Many heads and primary school teachers are unhappy at that prospect, but information, transparency and openness are crucial in helping to drive up standards in our schools.
    We need to get parents more involved in the educational process, and they can do that only if they have some meaningful information that they can use to compare local schools. The publication of the results will in itself improve standards, because schools that have not performed well, or as well as they would have liked, will have to look at their performances to see how they can be improved.
    There has been a change in the attitude of parents and the general public to tests, and particularly to the publication of the results in the form of league tables. Every year, I send a questionnaire to thousands of my constituents asking them a range of questions. For the past few years, I have asked whether they support the principle of testing and the publication of the results. Between 800 and 1,100 people usually respond, so it is a good sample. The increase in support for the regular testing of pupils has gone up from 73 per cent. of all respondents in 1993 to 80 per cent. this year.
    More interesting is the turnround in people's views on whether the results should be made public. In 1993, 38 per cent. of respondents were in favour and 50 per cent. were against. The support for the publication of results went up to 42 per cent. in 1994 and to 46 per cent. in 1995; this year, 50 per cent. of respondents were in favour of publishing examination results and only 32 per cent. were against. People want the information, and it is clear from the figures that I have quoted that we are winning that argument.
    Returning to the specific problem under consideration, what is the cause of the under-achievement? Last week's Ofsted report blamed weak teaching, inadequate lesson planning, poor teacher training and a lack of leadership by some head teachers. It appears that we are paying the price for more than 30 years of so-called progressive teaching in our schools, and for education being the vehicle for creating an egalitarian society as part of socialist efforts at social engineering. During those 30 years, child-centred learning in mixed-ability classes has done untold damage to many thousands of pupils. Reversing the process is taking much time and much effort, but reverse it we must.
    Socialists at every level have been driving that process of so-called progressive education. A Labour Government introduced comprehensive education and the teaching

    895
    reforms that changed the approach to education. Children betrayed in Islington, Southwark and Tower Hamlets have been betrayed under Labour local education authorities.
    As hon. Members know only too well, some middle-class parents living in those regions are sufficiently well-to-do to be able to send their offspring to grant-maintained schools, outside their local education authorities. Let us not forget that the Labour party has opposed all our efforts, both in the House of Commons and in local education authorities throughout the country, to give more information and power to parents.
    Labour has nothing to offer parents of pupils, and it was most illuminating that the Secondary Heads Association should describe the Labour party's recent education policy as simplistic, bland, short of ideas, unlikely to assist in raising school standards, poorly thought out, uncosted, lacking in detail and an uncomfortable combination of the naive and messianic. All those comments were contained in the SHA's report.
    So, away from Labour and back to the real world. One of the most common complaints I hear when I visit schools is that Ministers and others are for ever criticising teachers. I always reply that those same people spend enormous time praising teachers, although pointing out that more needs to be done. The problem is that the teachers hear or read only what the media report, and it is the criticisms that are reported.
    My experience is that the majority of teachers are hard-working, dedicated and committed to their pupils. Of course, as in any profession, some teachers are not up to the job, and should not be teaching. Last week's Ofsted report, however, was critical of teaching methods, and it is fair to say that the vast majority of teachers have experienced their training during the past 30 years, when so-called progressive teaching methods have prevailed.
    In 1991, Robin Alexander, from the university of Leeds, said in the summary document that accompanied his report "Primary Education in Leeds":
    "The document raises important questions about the reliability and efficacy of classroom methods and strategies widely commended in primary education since the mid-1960s. In common with several other studies it shows how the widespread commitment to group work, multiple curriculum focus teaching (different groups of children working simultaneously in different areas of the curriculum), thematic curriculum planning and delivery and enquiry modes of teacher/pupil interaction may present teachers with problems of class organisation which subvert the quality of children's learning and frustrate teachers' monitoring of that learning.
    The project highlighted the prevalence of the power of certain orthodoxies of primary teaching methods and the extent to which many teachers feel obliged to conform to these while in some cases being all too conscious of the problems they may pose. It is likely that this conformist culture has elevated particular class practices into ends in themselves."
    That is the most extraordinary and damning comment imaginable; some teachers are apparently following practices simply to conform with the prevailing culture. That clearly needs to change.
    I do not for a moment claim to have any great expertise on teaching methods, but last week's Ofsted report is clear that more whole-class teaching should take place in schools, along with more effective group work. The report also says that teachers have to be more knowledgeable about reading in order to teach it successfully. In particular, the report said that phonics contributed to the accuracy and fluency of reading by children of all abilities where it was taught well.
    896
    Last August, we saw a remarkable experiment, when Irina Tyk and others set up and ran the Butterfly reading project on the Mozart estate in London. It involved a highly structured method of teaching children to read and spell according to the phonic or alphabetic method. The children were sitting at desks in rows facing the front. They were working individually within a whole class. The result was that the 27 children aged between seven and 12 returned to school in September armed with written reports which showed that, in 30 hours of teaching on the 10-day course, their reading ages had been raised by an average of 13 and a half months. I should like to know what lessons the Department for Education and Employment has taken on board from that remarkable course.
    Last week's report also showed that mixed-ability classes were in use in some schools. It said:
    "These were more difficult for the teachers to manage and the pace of reading tended to be geared to the slower learners."
    Mixed-ability classes, part of education's drive for equality, are still too prevalent, and I have seen them in primary schools in my constituency. I believe that, where it is feasible to do so, schools should be setting pupils by ability, so that all the pupils in a class are progressing at more or less a similar level, so that the less able are not holding back the more able and the more able are not intimidating the less able.
    What is becoming increasingly apparent is that teacher training is crucial. Too many of the progressive notions being implemented in our schools today have been inculcated into teachers at teacher training colleges. Last week's report said that the vast majority of teachers held appropriate initial qualifications and were trained for the primary phase. Yet, as the report said, in spite of an array of professional qualifications, many of them related to reading, it was apparent that many of the teachers in both year groups lacked the range of skills they needed to teach reading in those schools.
    Many teachers told the inspectors that they did not believe that their initial training had provided them with the proper equipment to teach reading. I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister what further steps the Government intend to take to try to improve the quality of teacher training in this country.
    I believe that every parent should be enormously grateful to the chief inspector of schools, Chris Woodhead. Mr. Woodhead is determined to improve the quality of teaching in this country, so that all pupils can maximise their learning potential. It is a source of enormous regret that 50 Labour Members have seen fit to sign an early-day motion calling for his resignation, simply because he has, in their view, attacked teachers and comprehensive education. That EDM says more about today's Labour party than it does about Mr. Woodhead. I say to Mr. Woodhead, "Keep up the good work."
    I hope that this short debate has been useful. The ability to read properly and clearly is crucial to young people, and much clearly still needs to be done in our schools. I hope that the Minister will be able to demonstrate that the Government, like Chris Woodhead, are determined to take additional action to improve the quality of reading and all other subjects in our schools. I look forward to what he has to say.
    11.58 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) for raising this subject, and for the thoughtful and intelligent way in which he developed his argument. He has long established a reputation for knowledge in this sphere of education and for not being afraid to express strong opinions. I welcome that, as does the House, and I thought that tonight he gave an excellent demonstration of his range of knowledge.
    I will write to my hon. Friend in response to the specific query he raised about the impressive teaching skills demonstrated in the experiment during the summer months. Like my hon. Friend, I should like to see it developed further.
    Ensuring that reading is taught effectively is, quite simply, essential. Pupils' progress depends on good reading skills. Without a sound grounding, their performance in other subjects is bound to suffer. For primary schools to fail to teach children to read well is simply unacceptable.
    I share in full the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley about the weaknesses highlighted by last week's Ofsted report. The report exposes a shocking picture of poor teaching methods, coupled with a lack of leadership and monitoring of teachers' performance by head teachers. The use of teaching methods that were clearly not working is at the heart of the problem, and we cannot allow it to continue.
    Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend has said tonight and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has previously pointed out, other reports by Her Majesty's inspectorate and other sources suggest that the problem is not limited to a few London boroughs.
    Our education reforms have set in place a framework designed to improve the standards of teaching and learning in all subjects. The national curriculum sets out clear expectations of pupils at key ages as a focus for teachers' efforts. There are arrangements for assessment to common national standards so that schools and teachers can see how well they are doing. Teaching quality is the subject of published reports by registered inspectors. How schools are serving their pupils is therefore much more a matter of public record and—now, as we all know—public debate.
    That greater accountability is helping, and will help further, to lever up standards. Heads will know in future from Ofsted reports about the very good and very poor performers among their staff. In the light of the current review of appraisal arrangements, they should have regular and reliable information on the teaching quality of all their staff.
    As my hon. Friend has said, how far and how fast we can raise standards will depend on the quality of the teaching force. We have many excellent teachers—as my hon. Friend is well aware, not only I but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly make that point—but there is clearly much still to be done to improve standards.
    We established the Teacher Training Agency about 18 months ago to tackle standards in initial and in-service training. The agency has made progress. It is linking funding and quality in initial training. It is working on a
    898
    much clearer statement of essential teaching skills. From September, all primary teacher training courses must include at least 50 hours on the teaching of reading within at least 150 hours on the teaching of English. We must ensure that teacher training courses use that time well, and do not recycle the methods discredited by Ofsted's findings.
    Thanks to the TTA, Her Majesty's inspectors can report publicly on the quality of initial training courses. They are nearing the end of a programme of inspection covering all primary initial teacher training, which has had a particular focus on the teaching of English. When institutions are identified as not providing quality training, the TTA will take vigorous action, including, if it proves necessary, withdrawing accreditation and the right to train teachers.
    Those procedures are already having a real impact. We know that the publication of a recent critical Ofsted report on Charlotte Mason college has caused Lancaster university to consider its future role in initial teacher training. I know that discussions are continuing about the best future for the college, and I am sure that the university and the funding bodies will take full account of the views of students and staff; but we cannot disregard the great importance to pupils of well-trained teachers, and poor provision must be quickly brought up to scratch if it is to remain. Ofsted and the TTA are working together on a joint quality framework to tighten up inspection and quality assessment for the future.
    My hon. Friend welcomed the fact that performance tables were to be produced for 11-year-olds, beginning with this year's tests, and I thank him for welcoming that development. We are now in a position to consider introducing performance tables for initial teacher training institutions. Tables would increase the information available to those considering training to be teachers, and stimulate providers to raise standards. The information might include Ofsted grades for training providers, as well as other performance indicators, such as how successful students are in finding employment, or how well newly qualified teachers are graded in Ofsted school inspections.
    But it is not only new teachers who need training. There are only 20,000 newly qualified teachers each year, compared with 400,000 teachers already in classrooms. The TTA is working to improve in-service training for those teachers. It is defining the skills needed for expert classroom teaching; it has commissioned materials to help primary teachers assess their training needs in the core subjects, including English; and it is carrying out research into the effective teaching of literacy.
    But we cannot yet be confident that the available in-service training is effective in meeting the needs of our teachers. We invest £400 million a year in such training, in cash and in teachers' time, so we need to be sure that we are getting value for the money and effort involved. The TTA produced an initial report last year, and my right hon. Friend has now asked it to work with Ofsted on a further review.
    The Government have taken a specific initiative to tackle the teaching of literacy, with the establishment of 13 literacy centres, based in LEAs, under the national direction of John Stannard—a member of Her Majesty's inspectorate who is well placed to put Ofsted's messages about good teaching practice into effect.

    899
    Each centre will work intensively with local schools to audit current strengths and weaknesses, to set targets for pupils' achievements, and to give teaching staff the necessary support and training to ensure that the targets are met. We shall ensure that the national training and other materials produced by the project are available to help schools all over the country. The project is being run by the Department in partnership with Ofsted, the TTA, the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the Basic Skills Agency, as well as with the 13 LEAs involved.
    The latest Ofsted report on reading in three London boroughs, which my hon. Friend and I have both already mentioned, revealed that school leadership was effective in promoting the teaching of reading in only one third of the primary schools. We know that the quality of leadership is crucial to the success of any school. That is why we have invested so significantly in training specifically for head teachers. Last year, the TTA launched the head teachers' leadership and management programme—HEADLAMP, as it is known—which provides up to £2,500 to meet the training needs of newly appointed head teachers.
    But that is only a start. Through the tough new national professional qualification for headship, details of which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week, we shall equip deputy head teachers with the skills necessary to become effective heads. The qualification will be available from next September, and will be rigorously assessed to national standards. For candidates to pass, they must be assessed in five key areas covering the full range of leadership and management skills.
    Whatever other training they have received, head teachers must take a compulsory training module in strategic direction, and the implementation, monitoring and review of school policies and practices, so that they
    900
    can make sure that policies on reading are followed through and carried out in every classroom and for the benefit of every pupil.
    The Government have set the right framework, but there is a limit to what Government alone can do. Our role is to establish the framework; schools, LEAs and teacher trainers must accept their responsibilities for ensuring high standards of teaching. It is up to schools and their head teachers to ensure that they are complying with the national curriculum. It is inexcusable, for example, that almost half the schools covered by the recent Ofsted report were not meeting all the requirements of the national curriculum programmes of study for reading.
    For far too long, too many primary schools, especially in inner-city areas, have been allowed to fail to meet their pupils' reading needs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will meet the three LEAs involved in the latest report and ask what action they intend to take. However, as the problems highlighted in the report are scarcely confined to those three LEAs, we shall also ensure that all LEAs are alerted to those Ofsted findings.
    We owe it to pupils and to their parents to ensure that poor teaching of reading is not allowed to continue. Pupils in the most deprived areas have the most need for the skills that can offer them a better future. Our reforms have put in place the framework for delivering high standards, and the new measures announced last week will strengthen that. We must now press on until higher standards are delivered in each and every classroom. Schools, LEAs and teacher trainers have to take their responsibilities seriously, and we will ensure that their performance is carefully monitored.
    Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley for raising the issue today. I hope that I have been able, in part, to satisfy him that the Government fully share the seriousness that he attaches to the teaching of reading in our schools.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Twelve midnight.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police (Housing Allowance)
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to ensure consistent application of regulations relating to police officers' previous housing allowance where career breaks were taken prior to 1994. [28912]

  Mr. Maclean
  The application of the police regulations is a matter for police forces and police authorities. The regulations are clear about preserved entitlements to housing allowance for police officers who were appointed before 1 September 1994, including those who had been granted leave of absence for a career break. It would be for the Police Negotiating Board to consider in the first instance whether further amendment to the regulations was desirable and to make whatever recommendations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department it considered appropriate.

  Gardian Family (Llandudno)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received on behalf of the Gardian family of Llandudno, North Wales; and if he will make a statement. [28901]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We have received representations on behalf of the Gardian family from 12 hon. Members, two noble Lords and numerous members of the public. I have considered the relevant factors in this case and have decided that in the light of all the particular circumstances deportation action is not appropriate.

  Forensic Explosives Laboratory
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the work of the forensic explosives laboratory. [29688]

  Mr. Howard
  On 14 March, explosives contamination was found in a centrifuge at the forensic explosives laboratory which is a part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. The laboratory carried out a preliminary investigation and laid all the information before the Government in a formal report. A copy of that report has today been placed in the Library.

  The forensic explosives laboratory's primary role is to provide scientific support to the police service and to provide expert witnesses for the Crown Prosecution Service in cases involving the criminal use of explosives. One of the services that it provides involves the laboratory analysis of swab samples taken to determine the presence of explosives and the type involved. This "trace" analysis involves a range of procedures, including the use in many cases of a centrifuge.
  382
  The explosives contamination involved a small amount, not more than 30 micrograms or 30 millionths of a gram, of the explosive RDX, one of the main components of the explosive Semtex. It was detected in a part of a laboratory centrifuge which was probably already contaminated on its arrival at the forensic explosives laboratory in 1989. By normal standards, the amount of explosive detected was tiny; nevertheless, it should not have been there.

  The centrifuge involved was immediately taken out of operational action on discovery of this contamination and the trace laboratory thoroughly cleaned. No incidences of contamination from the centrifuge could, therefore, occur from that point on.

  There is a small theoretical possibility that any casework sample showing RDX traces may have been affected by the centrifuge contamination. Regular quality assurance tests undertaken by the laboratory have not revealed RDX traces at a level which would suggest that casework samples are likely to have been contaminated but this cannot be ruled out completely. This may call into question evidence submitted by the FEL in criminal cases involving RDX.

  On present information there may be around a dozen such cases which resulted in convictions, but the identification of all relevant cases and assessment of the possible risk of contamination are matters on which I want independent advice. I have therefore decided that an immediate independent review of the casework and procedures at the forensic explosives laboratory must take place. The terms of reference will require the reviewer:

  (1) to report on the general likelihood of contamination being spread from the centrifuge to samples in the laboratory;

  (2) to examine FEL papers on all cases in which RDX traces were found and a criminal conviction resulted and assess the likelihood of contamination;

  (3) to examine FEL procedures in the trace laboratory and make recommendations.

  Professor Brian Caddy, professor of forensic science at Strathclyde university, has agreed to undertake this review and will begin work shortly. He will report to me in the first instance, but the results and recommendations of his review will be made public.

  As soon as it is clear which cases involved an RDX trace and resulted in a conviction, we will notify the representatives of those concerned.

  Once the report has been completed, I will decide what further action should be taken, particularly with regard to any concerns raised about the possible contamination of casework samples which subsequently resulted in criminal convictions. If appropriate, I will consider whether particular cases should be referred to the Court of Appeal.

  From the information currently available to me, it would appear that the risk of contamination is small, but in a matter of this sensitivity I am determined to act only on the basis of the most rigorous and independent scientific assessments. I will keep the House fully informed of the outcome of that scrutiny and the measures which flow from it.

  Metropolitan Police (Inspector's Report)
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement as police authority for the Metropolitan police on the recent report by Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary on Metropolitan police area 1. [29689]

  Mr. Maclean
  Yes. We have today placed in the Library a note of the recommendations from the report, together with the Commissioner's responses and the police authority responses, which takes into account the advice that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I have received from the Metropolitan police committee.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Council
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from what source the redundancy payments for the employees of the British Council who lose their jobs will be funded. [28970]

  Mr. Hanley
  Redundancy payments and other compensation arrangements will be made by the British Council. The possibility of the Government helping the British Council with some of these restructuring costs is currently being considered in the context of the studies being carried out with the aim of avoiding overseas post closures.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent attack on the Governor of St. Helena; and what assessment he has made of the cause of the incident. [29263]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  On 19 April a demonstration outside the castle in Jamestown was organised to press demands for increased social security benefits. A number—about 60 to 70—of those demonstrators forced their way into the Governor's office. They were eventually persuaded to leave: there was no damage to property or harm to the Government servants involved.

  The ODA had sent an expert adviser on social security to St. Helena in March. He has recommended changes to the social security system on the island, which are being studied by the St. Helena Government.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 81, if the review is considering the rights of civil servants on temporary contracts to maternity leave; and when he expects the reviews to be (a) completed and (b) published. [29264]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The review of the unestablished work force in respect of maternity leave is now complete. A new order is in the process of being drafted for inclusion in the public service orders to make provision for unestablished females to be granted maternity leave. The order will be published by 1 June 1996.

  MI6 (Pensions)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to submit the administration of civil service pensions for employees of MI6 to(a) market testing and (b) privatisation. [29287]

  Mr. Rifkind
  There are no plans to do so.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Wembley Stadium (Disabled People)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what information her Department evaluated on access to Wembley stadium for disabled people; how it compared with such access to other major sporting venues; and if she will make a statement. [28658]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 13 May 1996]: My Department has made no evaluation of Wembley stadium or compared it with other sporting venues. The provision of disabled facilities in existing stadiums is the responsibility of the management of the ground in question. The Government strongly support improvements in facilities for disabled spectators at sports grounds, and the Sports Council takes into account disabled access when distributing lottery funds for grounds and facilities. Also, the Disability Discrimination Act creates new rights of access for disabled people. The Act places a duty on service providers to make adjustments to the premises, where reasonable, in order to make them more accessible. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Disabled is currently analysing the results of a consultation on the timetable for implementing the rights of access.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Wasted Costs Orders
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Attorney-General what considerations led to the omission of wasted costs orders from the annual reports of the Crown Prosecution Service. [28307]

  The Attorney-General
  Information on costs awarded against the prosecution is published in the departmental report of the Lord Chancellor's and Law Officers' Department, Cm. 3209, March 1996.

  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Attorney-General how many wasted costs orders have been made by courts against the Crown Prosecution Service in the last accounting year, with the breakdown of each Crown Prosecution Service area and the total sums for such areas and further broken down by the Crown courts and the magistrates courts. [28306]

  The Attorney-General
  Wasted costs orders are usually so described—that is, orders against the legal or other representatives personally, pursuant to section 19A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, are extremely rare in relation to representatives of the Crown Prosecution Service.

  I have taken the hon. Member's question to refer to orders made under section 19(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and regulation 3 of the Costs in

  385
  Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986, being orders based on an unnecessary or improper act or omission for which the prosecution is held responsible, which can arise for a variety of reasons. The numbers of such orders recorded against the Crown Prosecution Service, broken down by each Crown Prosecution Service area, and further broken down by Crown court and magistrates courts, are set out in the table. The final column of the table shows the amounts actually paid out by the Crown Prosecution Service in the last accounting year. This information cannot be separated between sums paid in respect of orders made by magistrates courts and those made in the Crown court.

  Costs awarded against the Crown Prosecution Service 1995–96

  Area

  Number of costs awards against CPS

  Amount paid £

  Crown courts

  Magistrates' courts

  North

  2

  19

  3,102

  Yorkshire

  11

  160

  8,215

  Mersey/Lancashire

  11

  6

  3,259

  Humber

  9

  6

  22,827

  North-west

  5

  14

  9,363

  East Midlands

  20

  39

  18,347

  Wales

  10

  4

  5,108

  Midlands

  9

  7

  7,503

  Anglia

  6

  16

  12,637

  Severn/Thames

  16

  16

  16,798

  South-west

  4

  4

  2,227

  London

  111

  95

  63,804

  South-east

  13

  26

  19,528

  Central casework

  Not available

  Not available

  52,003

  Total

  227

  412

  244,721

  1. Information is not available to establish the enactment under which the orders were made and awards of costs made otherwise than in accordance with the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 may be included.

  2. The information in relation to the number of awards is limited to Crown court and magistrates court cases. It does not include cost awards made in the higher court.

  3. The number of awards relates to all cases dealt with by the CPS areas, but does not include any orders made in respect of the specialised work handled by central casework.

  4. Information about the amounts actually paid includes payments in respect of orders made in the higher courts and those in respect of the specialised work handled by central casework, but the amounts paid cannot be broken down by type of court.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Police Training (ODA Funding)
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects or schemes under which the Overseas Development Agency has given funding to countries to finance training of their police officers(a) in the UK or (b) in their home countries. [29041]

  Mr. Hanley
  Assistance for police training under the aid programme is financed through the ODA's country aid programmes, whether the training takes place in the UK or in the trainee's home country.
  386
  Countries who received aid for in-country training from ODA under country aid programmes in 1994 and 1995 were:

  1994

  Albania

  Anguilla

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  British Virgin Islands

  Bulgaria

  Cayman Islands

  Czech Republic

  Gambia

  Hungary

  India

  Indonesia

  Jamaica

  Lesotho

  Maldives

  Montserrat

  Namibia

  Nepal

  Nigeria

  Pakistan

  Poland

  Romania

  Russia

  St. Helena

  Sierra Leone

  Slovak Republic

  South Africa

  Sri Lanka

  Swaziland

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  Uganda

  1995

  Estonia

  Latvia

  Lithuania

  Bangladesh

  Botswana

  Bulgaria

  Cayman Islands

  Czech Republic

  Hungary

  India

  Jamaica

  Kenya

  Lesotho

  Malawi

  Namibia

  Nepal

  Nigeria

  Pakistan

  Palestinian Authority

  Poland

  Romania

  Russia

  387

  St. Helena

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  Slovak Republic

  South Africa

  Sri Lanka

  Swaziland

  Uganda

  Countries receiving police training in the UK in 1994 and 1995 under country aid programmes were listed in the answer given to the hon. Member on 28 February, Official Report, column 546.

  It would involve a disproportionate cost to collect this information for earlier years or by projects.

  Nigeria
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the Nigerian Government's political programme for the creation of a democracy in Nigeria; if he will list, with proposed dates, the main elements of that political programme; if he will indicate in the case of each of those dates which have passed whether the stated goal had been achieved, with particular reference to local government elections; and if he will list those targets within the programme which gave rise to the concerns about a lack of progress expressed by the Minister of State in his oral answer on 3 April,Official Report, column 373. [29079]

  Mr. Hanley
  A copy of the transition programme, as announced by the General Abacha on 1 October 1995, has been placed in the Library of the house.

  We are not satisfied that the non-party elections held in March were free or fair. We are concerned by the introduction of new decrees which further extend the powers of the regime to control political activity and by the continued detention of opposition figures.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Probate Service
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when his Department will be announcing its response to the recommendation of the report on the structure of the probate service of September 1994. [28395]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Paul Boateng, dated 14 May 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the progress of the response to the Report on the Structure of the Probate Service.The Principal Registry of the Family Division forwarded a submission to Court Service Headquarters on 9 May. The submission will shortly be forwarded to the Lord Chancellor for his consideration. The Lord Chancellor will make a decision on the proposals in due course.

TREASURY

  Personal Alcohol Imports
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what restrictions apply to the importation of large quantities of alcohol from other EU countries in cases where the person importing the alcohol declares it to be for personal use; and what tests are applied to establish whether the alcohol is intended for personal use. [28690]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs apply no restrictions to private importations of alcohol purchased duty paid in another EU country by travellers for their own use. The definition of "own use" and the conditions applying to relief of excise duty on personal importations are contained in the Excise Duty (Personal Reliefs) Order 1992. The main criteria applied by Customs to identify goods being imported for commercial purposes under the personal reliefs provisions are defined in paragraph 5 of the order.

  Educational Trusts
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the School Fees Insurance Association concerning the taxation of educational trusts; and if he will make a statement. [28321]

  Mr. Jack
  Following the Charity Commissioners' recent decision that certain educational trusts are not truly charitable, I met representatives of the trusts concerned, including the SFIA, on 9 May, when I learned of the discussions they have been having with the Charity Commission and the Inland Revenue about ways of addressing current issues.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what would be the yield of a 50 per cent. rate of tax starting at £50,000 and a 60 per cent. rate starting at £100,000; and how many taxpayers would be involved; [28314]

  (2) what would be the yield of a 50 per cent. rate of tax starting at £50,000; and how many taxpayers would be involved; [28312]

  (3) what would be the yield of 50 per cent. rate of tax starting at £100,000; and how many taxpayers would be involved. [28313]

  Mr. Jack
  Estimated full-year yields, 1996–97 income levels, are given in the table. The estimates of income tax yields do not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of the increases in tax rates.

  Lower limit of taxable income for the 50 per cent. rate

  Full-year revenue Number of taxpayers yield1 at 1996–97 income levels

  Number of taxpayers affected

  £

  £ billion

  Thousands

  50,000

  2.3

  450

  100,000

  1.1

  110

  50,000 (and with 60 per cent. rate above 100,000)

  3.4

  450

  1 including the consequential effects on the yield of capital gains tax after allowing for likely changes in the volume of disposals.

  389
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) of 31 October 1995,Official Report, columns 151–52, on gross income and income tax liability by income band for 1996–97. [28581]

  Mr. Jack
  Available estimates are given in the table. It is not possible to provide reliable estimates for the specified bands of income above £100,000, nor is it possible to incorporate the detailed effect of mortgage interest relief which, in total, reduces income tax liability by £1.2 billion for taxpayers included in the table.

  1996–97

  Gross income1 £ millions

  Income tax liability2 £ millions

  Number of taxpayers (thousands)

  £20,000 to £30,000

  97,500

  17,200

  4,100

  £30,000 to £40,000

  42,200

  8,750

  1,200

  £40,000 to £50,000

  20,100

  4,920

  450

  £50,000 to £60,000

  12,100

  3,250

  220

  £60,000 to £70,000

  7,220

  2,070

  110

  £70,000 to £80,000

  5,630

  1,680

  80

  £80,000 to £90,000

  4,020

  1,240

  50

  £90,000 to £100,000

  2,630

  830

  30

  £100,000+

  25,600

  8,910

  130

  1 Gross income is defined as total income for income tax purposes. It excludes income from certain social security benefits and some investment income such as National Savings Certificates.

  2 Not taking account of mortgage interest relief.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) of 6 November 1995,Official Report, column 537, to 1996–97 on the average tax allowances and reliefs for those with gross earnings up to £120,000, differentiating between reliefs and allowances claimed (i) at the marginal rate and (ii) at other rates. [28580]

  Mr. Jack
  Available estimates for taxpayers in 199697 are in the table. It is not possible to provide reliable estimates for the specified bands above £100,000.

  Gross income range £ per year

  Average amount of tax reliefs and allowances claimed at marginal rates set against income £

  Average amount of tax reliefs and allowances claimed at other rates, set against income £

  0–10,000

  4,100

  650

  10,000–20,000

  4,400

  1,400

  20,000–30,000

  4,800

  2,300

  30,000–40,000

  5,300

  2,700

  40,000–50,000

  6,100

  2,800

  50,000–60,000

  6,700

  2,850

  60,000–70,000

  7,200

  2,950

  70,000–80,000

  7,900

  2,900

  80,000–90,000

  8,300

  2,950

  90,000–100,000

  9,000

  3,000

  Over 100,000

  13,900

  3,100

  Average

  4,500

  1,400

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 4 May 1995,Official Report, columns 262–63, to provide estimates for 1996–97 for the number of taxpayers with gross and taxable income in income bands up to £150,000, supplying data at intervals of not more than £10,000. [28582]
  390
  Mr. Jack
  Available estimates are given in the table. It is not possible to provide reliable estimates for the specified bands of income above £100,000.

  Number of taxpayers by range of

  1996–97

  Gross income1 (thousands)

  Taxable income2 (thousand)

  Under £5,000

  1,400

  8,100

  £5,000 to £10,000

  7,800

  6,500

  £10,000 to £15,000

  6,000

  4,500

  £15,000 to £20,000

  4,200

  2,900

  £20,000 to £25,000

  2,700

  1,500

  £25,000 to £30,000

  1,400

  770

  £30,000 to £40,000

  1,200

  750

  £40,000 to £50,000

  450

  300

  £50,000 to £60,000

  220

  150

  £60,000 to £70,000

  110

  80

  £70,000 to £80,000

  80

  50

  £80,000 to £90,000

  50

  30

  £90,000 to £100,000

  30

  20

  Over £100,000

  130

  110

  Total

  25,800

  25,800

  1 Gross income is defined as total income for income tax purposes. It excludes income from certain social security benefits and some investment income such as national savings certificates.

  2 Taxable income is defined as gross income for income tax purposes less those allowance and reliefs which are available at the taxpayer's marginal rate.

  National Debt
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the national debt for the end of the current fiscal year; and what the figures were for each of the last seven years. [28858]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  New forecasts for debt will be published in the summer economic forecast on 9 July. The table contains the information requested.

  Net debt £ billion1 2

  1988–89: 155.8

  1989–90: 150.0

  1990–91: 153.6

  1991–92: 167.2

  1992–93: 204.5

  1993–94: 251.7

  1994–95: 290.8

  1At end March.

  2 First estimate for end-March 1996 will be published in the summer economic forecast on 9 July.

  Tobacco Products
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are being proposed by Her Majesty's Government to create greater tax harmonisation on tobacco products within the European Union. [29163]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government will continue to take every opportunity to press the case for higher minimum rates of excise duty on tobacco products.

  Welsh Language Birth Certificates
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make available birth
  391
  certificates in the Welsh language for babies of Welsh parentage born in England; and if he will make a statement. [28902]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  There are no immediate plans to make available birth certificates in the Welsh language for Welsh babies born in England.

  The White Paper "Registration: proposals for change", Cm 939, published in 1990, recommended that such events be registered in a bilingual—Welsh and English—register held by the Registrar General from which certificates could be issued when required. The Government remain committed to implementing the White Paper proposals when parliamentary time permits.

  Inland Revenue (National Insurance Charts)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints the Inland Revenue has received regarding late delivery to small firms of charts for calculating national insurance contributions of employees. [28747]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 13 May 1996]: The Inland Revenue head office, which had responsibility for monitoring the west midlands combined pack trial, received one complaint about the late arrival of material.

PRIME MINISTER

  Isle of Skye (Visit)
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to pay an official visit to the Isle of Skye. [28020]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 May. [28291]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have(a) been refused unemployment benefit and (b) had their unemployment benefit reduced under section 30 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. [29179]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The number of unemployed claimants in Great Britain on 10 August 1995 who had their unemployment benefit reduced under section 30 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 was 17,000. Of these, 8,000 had their unemployment benefit fully abated.

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample of unemployed claimants in Great Britain taken on 10 August 1995
  392

  Suspension of Benefits
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many awards of benefit he has suspended under regulation 37 of the Social Security (Claims and Payments) Regulations 1987 in each year since 1990. [29383]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) on 10 May,Official Report, columns 277–78.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many independent schools there are in the United Kingdom; and how many are registered as having charitable status. [29068]

  Mrs. Gillan
  There are currently 2,275 independent schools in England registered with this Department. Of those, 1,323 have informed us that they have charitable status. Questions regarding independent schools elsewhere in the United Kingdom should be addressed to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Drugs (School Inspectors)
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provision is made to ensure that schools inspectors are able properly to assess the efficiency of a school's drugs policy and drugs education performance. [29307]

  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 my hon. Friend.

  Hurworth School
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total cost of the inquiry into allegations of misinformation concerning the ballot on grant-maintained status at Hurworth school; and if she will publish the evidence collected during the course of this inquiry. [29178]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Costs to the Department of the investigation are part of normal running costs and cannot readily be calculated as they involve a range of staff who also have other responsibilities. The evidence collected during the course of investigations into ballots for grant-maintained status is not published. Those who provide evidence may prefer their comments not to be made public. In the case of the investigation concerning Hurworth school, some respondents specifically asked that their evidence be treated in confidence.

  University Funding
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has had on the need to restore the capital allowance for
  393
  university equipment and minor works and on the need for stability in the level of funding received per student; what replies have been sent; what action she is taking; and if she will make a statement. [28662]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received a large number of representations about higher education funding. The UK HE sector is currently receiving £7 billion in public funding, 20 per cent. of the funding for education as a whole. That is a large sum, and a substantial share of available resources. We are working with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and other HE bodies to collate evidence about the effects of levels of public funding on universities, and to consider the private finance initiative in HE.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many professional and executive job clubs have been closed in the last two years; and in which areas. [28900]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Michael Meacher, dated 14 May 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about Jobclubs. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  Number of executive jobclubs by region Quarter ending figures 1994–1996

  Region

  March 1994

  June 1994

  September 1994

  December 1994

  March 1995

  June 1995

  September 1995

  December 1995

  March 1996

  Northern

  10

  8

  8

  9

  11

  9

  8

  8

  7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  11

  7

  10

  9

  10

  10

  12

  11

  12

  East Midlands and Eastern

  19

  19

  19

  19

  20

  19

  14

  15

  14

  London and South East

  46

  55

  53

  79

  65

  49

  60

  53

  43

  South West

  19

  14

  18

  20

  18

  19

  16

  14

  13

  Wales

  8

  8

  8

  6

  6

  4

  5

  5

  5

  West Midlands

  15

  16

  16

  16

  15

  16

  16

  15

  14

  North West

  14

  14

  12

  11

  10

  8

  10

  10

  10

  Scotland

  10

  9

  10

  10

  9

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Total executive jobclubs

  154

  149

  154

  179

  164

  144

  151

  141

  128

  Total all types jobclub

  1,461

  1,373

  1,446

  1,443

  1,389

  1,345

  1,423

  1,398

  1,338

  Grant-maintained Special Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many grant-maintained special schools have admitted pupils who do not have a statement of special educational needs. [29204]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Most special schools, whether local education authority-maintained or grant-maintained, may admit pupils without statements of special educational need in certain circumstances. The latest available data on the number of pupils and statements relate to January 1995, when there were two grant-maintained special schools. Both had admitted pupils without statements.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many grant-maintained special schools have admitted pupils who have statements which do not name that grant-maintained school. [29205]
  394
  The Employment Service currently maintains a network of 1,338 Jobclubs throughout the country. This will provide places for around 204,000 unemployed people during 1996/97. This includes a number of specialist Jobclubs for particular groups of people including a number catering for the needs of unemployed executive and professional job seekers.

  Decisions about the type and location of Jobclubs are made by my 154 District managers who are responsible for the delivery of the full range of Employment Service programmes within their Districts. Wherever possible they will seek to maintain a network of Jobclubs which will be accessible to the vast majority of our clients and take into account the circumstances of the local labour market. In many locations this may mean that a standard Jobclub is provided which is able to cater for a broad range of clients, including professional and executive job seekers. You may be interested to know that research has shown that 16% of the people who leave all Jobclubs to start work, take up professional and managerial positions.

  Information about the number and location of executive Jobclub closures is not collected routinely. However, regional totals of the number and type of Jobclub are collected at the end of each quarter. I have therefore attached a table showing the total number of executive Jobclubs in each region on the quarter ending dates between March 1994 and March 1996.

  You will note that the number of executive Jobclubs has fluctuated during the period, reflecting changing labour markets and client needs in different locations. In addition the fluctuation in the numbers will be due to different patterns of contract tendering in each region during the operational years.

  You will note that there are currently around 128 executive Jobclubs which represents some 10% of the total network.

  Jobclubs remain successful and in 1995/96 helped over 95,000 unemployed people find jobs.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Department does not collect this information. Admissions to grant-maintained special schools are the responsibility of the governors, subject to admissions arrangements approved by the Secretary of State.

  Primary Teacher Training
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what percentage of entrants to primary teacher training have had qualifications above GCSE or O-level in English in each of the last five years; [29206]

  (2) what percentage of entrants to primary teacher training have had qualifications above GCSE or O-level in science in each of the last five years; [29207]
  395
  (3) what percentage of entrants to primary teacher training have had qualifications above GCSE or O-level in mathematics in each of the last five years. [29208]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Office Space
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the square footage and cost of office space rented by her Department and its agencies and the number of her Department or agencies' buildings partly, or fully unoccupied together with the square footage of that unoccupied office space and its estimated rental value where available in each of the past five financial years. [27734]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 7 May 1996]: The following tables contain the information available for the DfEE estate, including all headquarters buildings and outstations. The estimated costs for occupied properties include rent, rates and service charge.

  Occupied DfEE leasehold properties

  DfEE HO and outstations

  Employment service agency

  Area = sq ft for 1995–96

  621,831

  8,914,290

  Estimated cost 1991–92

  Not available

  £44,920,494

  Estimated cost 1992–93

  Not available

  £57,781,989

  Estimated cost 1993–94

  £29,051,367

  £62,285,889

  Estimated cost 1994–95

  £29,249,929

  £59,331,224

  Estimated cost 1995–96

  £27,625,884

  £56,004,487

  Surplus/partly vacant DfEE leasehold properties

  DfEE HO and Outstations

  Employment Service Agency

  Number of properties in 1995–96

  21

  126

  Area= sq ft for 1995–96

  183,039

  904,176

  Estimated rental value 1991–92

  Not available

  Not available

  Estimated rental value 1992–93

  Not available

  Not available

  Estimated rental value 1993–94

  £1,965,793

  Not available

  Estimated rental value 1994–95

  1,704,930

  Not available

  Estimated rental value 1995–96

  2,303,885

  4,022,276

TRANSPORT

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the final cost of the Jubilee line extension; and if he will make a statement. [28643]

  Mr. Norris
  I understand from London Underground Ltd. that it estimates the final outturn cash cost of the Jubilee line extension to be approximately £2.1 billion.

  Tottenham Court Road
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he estimates that the present road works in Tottenham Court road will be completed. [29142]
  396
  Mr. Norris
  The London borough of Camden is the highway authority responsible for the works in Tottenham Court road. Officers at the borough expect the works to be completed by 15 May 1996.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the non-executive directors he and his predecessors have appointed to the board of London Regional Transport, giving their main occupations. [28593]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested, giving the main occupation at the time of appointment, is as follows:

  Name

  Main occupation on appointment

  Mr. Keith Brown

  Partner, W. Greenwell and Co.

  Miss Eileen Cole

  Chairman and Chief Executive of Research International (Unilever Ltd.)

  Dr. Stephen Glaister

  Cassell Reader in Economics with special reference to Transport at the London School of Economics

  Sir David Hardy

  Directorships—Waterford Glass Group, The Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, Electra Investments (Zimbabwe) Ltd., Effold Properties Ltd., Rothesay Trust Ltd., Carya Pecans Inc., Rowton Hotels pic

  Mr. S. Jenkins

  Directorships—Faber and Faber Publishers, Municipal Journal Ltd.

  Mr. Kenneth Joyner

  Managing Director, Worldwide Estates Ltd. and other private property companies

  Mrs. Helen Robinson

  Group Style Director, Debenhams

  Miss Patricia Steel

  Secretary of the Institution of Highways and Transportation; Director and Company Secretary, Seaway Court (Torquay) Ltd.

  Sir Neil Shields

  Chairman of the Commission for New Towns

  Mr. Oscar Roith

  Retired

  Mr. Roy Thomas

  Finance Director, Fisons plc

  Mr. David Thompson

  Chairman, Rank Xerox (UK)

  Sir Alan Bailey

  Retired

  Mr. Keith Davies

  Retired

  Mr. Robert Dorey

  Retired

  Mrs. Rosemary Day

  Operations Director, Allied Dunbar

  Mr. Michael Lawrence

  Chief Executive, the London Stock Exchange

  Ms Sally O'Sullivan

  Editor-in-Chief, 'Good Housekeeping'

  Mr. Brian Appleton

  Retired

  Mr. Robert Chase

  Group Managing Director, the Automobile Association

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) of 30 April,Official Report, column 444 on revenue spending under the private finance initiative, if he will reconcile the figures in that answer with those for spending on design, build, finance and operate road schemes in his Department's transport report 1996, Cm. 3206; and if he will provide a breakdown of these figures for each year for 1995–96 to 1997–98. [29220]

  Mr. Watts
  The figures given in my answer of 30 April to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) were current estimates of the revenue
  397
  spend by my Department on all private finance initiative projects, not design, build, finance and operate road schemes alone.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the regulations on the award of contracts for local air traffic control in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on the criteria upon which the contracts tendered this year for Glasgow airport and Edinburgh airport will be awarded. [29341]

  Mr. Norris
  Provision of air traffic control services in the UK must be in line with approvals granted by the Civil Aviation Authority under article 77 of the Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995. Before it grants such approvals, the authority must satisfy itself that the applicant is competent to provide a safe service, having regard to organisation, staffing, equipment, maintenance and other matters. Any air traffic controllers employed by the applicant must also obtain a licence from the authority under the terms of article 81 of the order.

  The criteria for awarding the ATC supply contracts for Glasgow and Edinburgh airports are a matter for BAA plc, the owner of both airports.

  Railways (Disabled Access)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on which rail lines wheelchair users are required to travel in the guard's van; and if he will make a statement. [23187]

  Mr. Watts
  The necessity for wheelchair users to travel in the guard's van is becoming increasingly rare. The extent to which train operating companies operate accessible trains in which wheelchair users are carried in the passenger saloon is as follows:Anglia Railway Train Services Ltd. All trains used are accessible.
  Cardiff Railway Co. Ltd. The company hires one inaccessible loco-hauled train from a private company. It is used to make one journey and back from the valleys to Cardiff on Mondays to Fridays at peak times. Otherwise the company operates an entirely accessible fleet of diesel Sprinters and Pacers.
  Central Trains Ltd. Central Trains mostly operates accessible modern electric trains and Sprinters. They have a few inaccessible electric multiple unit trains used on CENTRO, West Midland Passenger Transport Executive, services in and around Birmingham and on a few services between Birmingham and Liverpool.

  Chiltern Railway Co. Ltd. All trains used are accessible.

  CrossCounty Trains Ltd. All trains used are accessible.

  Gatwick Express Ltd. All trains used are accessible.

  Great Eastern Railway Ltd. Operates almost exclusively accessible modern EMUs but has a few older inaccessible EMUs that mostly operate only in the Monday to Friday morning and evening peak periods between Liverpool Street and Clacton.

  Great Western Trains Co. Ltd. All trains used are accessible.

  InterCity East Coast Ltd. All trains used are accessible.

  InterCity West Coast Ltd. All trains used are accessible.

  Island Line Ltd. All trains used are accessible.

  LTS Rail Ltd. Currently operates a fleet comprised of inaccessible older EMUs.

  Merseyrail Electrics Ltd. All trains used are accessible.

  Midland Main Line Ltd. All trains used are accessible.

  Network SouthCentral Ltd. Use modern accessible EMUs on their suburban routes but have traditional inaccessible "Southern Region" EMUs on their routes to Brighton, Eastbourne, East Grinstead etc.

  398
  North London Railways Ltd. All main services are operated with modern accessible EMUs. There are just seven inaccessible diesel multiple unit trains used on branch line services between BletchleyBedford, Gospel Oak-Barking and Willesden Junction-Clapham Junction.
  North West Regional Railways Ltd. Operates almost entirely with a modern fleet of accessible diesel Sprinters and Pacers. Trains between Crewe and Holyhead are formed of old loco-hauled trains that have been converted so as to be accessible. Some suburban trains in and around Greater Manchester are formed of older inaccessible DMUs and EMUs.
  Regional Railways North East Ltd. Operates almost entirely with a modern fleet of accessible diesel Sprinters and Pacers. Modern accessible EMUs are used on a local service between Doncaster and Leeds. Local trains between Leeds/Bradford and Ilkley/Skipton are operated on behalf of the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive using older inaccessible EMUs.
  ScotRail Railways Ltd. Operates almost entirely with a fleet of accessible diesel Sprinters and accessible EMUs. Some inaccessible older DMUs and EMUs are used on suburban services in and around Edinburgh and Glasgow; in the latter on behalf of Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive. Last summer, ScotRail also hired one inaccessible loco-hauled train from a private company that was used for one round trip each day between Inverness and Edinburgh.
  South Wales and West Railway Ltd. Operate almost entirely with a fleet of accessible modern Sprinters. Hire one older inaccessible loco-hauled train from a private company which is mostly used in summer for one round trip between Bristol and Weymouth on a route that is otherwise served by accessible trains.
  South West Trains Ltd. Use modern accessible EMUs on their suburban routes. Also have modern accessible trains on many services to Portsmouth, Bournemouth, Weymouth and Exeter, However still also run some inaccessible older "Southern Region" style EMUs on these routes.

  Thameslink All trains used are accessible.

  Thames Trains Ltd. All trains used are accessible.

  The South Eastern Train Co. Ltd. Uses modern accessible EMUs on its suburban routes but has traditional inaccessible "Southern Region" EMUs on its routes to Hastings and Kent coast.
  West Anglia Great Northern Railway Ltd. All trains used are accessible.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance he has given to the franchise director in respect of train operating companies guaranteeing disabled access to train. [25503]

  Mr. Watts
  [pursuant to his answer, 23 April 1996, c. 76]: None. The Rail Regulator is responsible for protecting the interests of disabled rail passengers. All train and station operators are required to submit for the regulator's approval, a disabled people's protection policy, as a condition of being granted a licence to operate. Details of the accessibility of rolling stock were set out in my answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) today.

  "Rail Travel for Disabled Passengers"
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects that a new edition of the pamphlet, "Rail Travel for Disabled Passengers", covering the period after 1 June 1996 will be published. [29061]

  Mr. Watts
  The new edition of "Rail Travel for Disabled Passengers", covering the period from 2 June to 31 December 1996, will be published shortly and made available by 2 June.
  399

DEFENCE

  GEC Defence Projects
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the out-turn prices and (b) the estimated prices at the time of Ministry of Defence approval, (c) the actual time and (d) the estimated time of completion in respect of each defence project valued at over £50 million undertaken for the Ministry of Defence since 1979 by GEC, where (i) GEC was the prime contractor and (ii) GEC was a member of a consortium with joint and several liability. [28639]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Number of enrolled air cadets

  34,606

  35,296

  35,551

  35,488

  134,861

  ATC budget (cash costs) £ million

  16.2

  18.4

  19.0

  19.8

  21.0

  1 Averaged over three quarters.

  The average cadet flying sortie in the last five years was some 29 minutes. Not all air cadets fly on an annual basis, while others take more than one flight. Under current planned provision for flying instruction, each air cadet will continue to have the opportunity to fly once a year.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many confirmed breaches of low flying regulations occurred at Caerlaverock in Dumfries and Galloway, in each of the last three years; how many of such breaches led to formal disciplinary proceedings; and what is being done to reduce the number of breaches in that area. [28714]

  Mr. Soames
  The numbers of breaches of the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area at Caerlaverock confirmed by RAF police investigations in each of the last.
  400

  Cadet Forces
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer of 7 May,Official Report, columns 10–11, what were, in each of the last five years, the number of air training corps cadets, the resources made available for ATC cadet training and the flying time per cadet; and if he will make a statement as to the current planned provision of flying instruction. [28904]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of enrolled air training corps cadets and the resources made available for ATC training in the last five years is as follows:

  three years are as follows. One alleged breach in 1995 is still under investigation.

  1993: 12

  1994: 22

  1995: 15.

  In four of the incidents in 1994, the aircraft concerned were also found to have breached regulations by flying in low flying area 16 of the United Kingdom low flying system without proper authorisation.

  Formal disciplinary action under the service discipline Acts has not, to date, been taken as a result of any of the breaches listed.

  Measures have been taken to reduce the number of breaches of the avoidance area. The site has been granted permanent avoidance status, thereby ensuring that it is marked on navigation charts and aircraft moving map displays, and instructions have also been issued at senior level reminding air crew of the need to ensure observance of all avoidance areas, including Caerlaverock, and the possible consequences of not doing so.
  401

  Tornado and Hercules Contracts
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a statement about the final cost to his Department of the contracts awarded to Airwork for the Tornado F3 and Hercules. [29225]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In respect of the work performed on Tornado F3 aircraft, my Department is continuing to pursue the claim which it has lodged against Bricom Group Ltd., the then owners of Airwork, to recover the costs of repairing damaged aircraft and the Departments' other consequential costs. It is not yet possible to say when a settlement will be reached.

  The damage which occurred to Hercules aircraft during work undertaken by Airwork was rectified by Shorts—the new owners of Airwork—at their own expense. All the affected aircraft have been returned to RAF service.

  Table 10: Collaborative projects involving the United Kingdom at 1 April 1996

  Projects in production or in-service

  Australia

  Belgium

  Canada

  Denmark

  France

  Germany

  Greece

  Iceland

  Naval Equipment

  Sea Gnat Decoy System

  *

  NATO Ships Inertial

  Navigation System

  *

  Barra Sonobuoy

  *

  Land Equipment

  FH70 Howitzer

  *

  M483A1 Artillery Shell

  Combat Vehicle

  Reconnaissance (Tracked)

  Multiple Launch Rocket

  System Phase I

  *

  *

  Multiple Launch Rocket

  System Phase II

  M3 Amphibious Bridging

  System

  *

  Missiles

  Sidewinder Air-to-Air

  *

  Milan Anti-Tank (including improvements)

  *

  *

  Air Systems

  Jaguar

  *

  Lynx

  *

  Puma

  *

  Gazelle

  *

  Tornado

  *

  Harrier AV8B GR3 7

  *

  EH101 Merlin Helicopter

  RTM322-Helicopter Engine

  *

  Joint Tactical Information

  Distribution System

  Other Equipment

  Navstar Global Positioning

  System (GPS)

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Projects in Production or In-Service

  Italy

  Netherlands

  Norway

  Portugal

  Spain

  Turkey

  USA

  Naval equipment

  Sea Gnat Decoy System

  *

  NATO Ships Inertial Navigation System

  *

  *

  Barra Sonobuoy

  Land equipment

  FH70 Howitzer

  *

  M483A1 Artillery Shell

  *

  *

  *

  402

  Manufacturing Projects
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the military defence manufacturing projects now taking place between member states of the Western European Union, indicating the value to the United Kingdom of each project. [28973]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to table 10 on page 66 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1996", which includes details of collaborative projects between the United Kingdom and other member states of the Western European Union. Apart from the projects that are in development and production, manufacturing work is still continuing to produce spares for equipment that is currently in service; the value to the United Kingdom of these projects could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the total costs of many of these projects are included in the "Major Projects Report 1994," a copy of which is in the Library of the House.
  403

  Projects in Production or In-Service

  Italy

  Netherlands

  Norway

  Portugal

  Spain

  Turkey

  USA

  Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked)

  Multiple Launch Rocket System Phase I

  *

  *

  Multiple Launch Rocket System Phase II

  M3 Amphibious Bridging System

  Missiles

  Sidewinder Air-to-Air

  *

  *

  Milan Anti-Tank (including improvements)

  Air System

  Jaguar

  Lynx

  Puma

  Gazelle

  Tornado

  *

  Harrier AV8B GR5/7

  *

  EH101 Merlin Helicopter

  *

  RTM322 Helicopter Engine

  Joint Tactical Information Distribution System

  *

  Other equipment

  Navstar Global Positioning System (GPS)

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Projects in the development phase

  Australia

  Belgium

  Canada

  Denmark

  France

  Germany

  Greece

  Iceland

  Naval equipment

  Intercooled Recuperated

  (ICR) Gas Turbine Engine

  Land equipment

  COBRA (Counter Battery Radar)

  *

  *

  Aimed Control Effect

  Anti-Tank Mine

  *

  *

  Missiles

  Long range TRIGAT(Third

  Generation Anti-Tank

  Guided Weapon)

  *

  *

  Medium range

  TRIGAT(Third Generation Anti-Tank Guided Weapon)

  *

  *

  *

  Air systems

  Eurofighter

  *

  Other equipment

  ADA Computer Language

  ProjectSupport Environment

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Universal Modem for

  Satellite Communications

  Allied Data Systems

  Interoperability Agency—

  NATO Procedural

  Interoperability Standards

  *

  *

  Projects in the development phase

  Italy

  Netherlands

  Norway

  Portugal

  Spain

  Turkey

  USA

  Naval equipment

  Intercooled Recuperated (ICR) Gas Turbine Engine

  *

  Land equipment

  COBRA (Counter Battery Radar)

  Aimed Control Effect Anti-Tank Mine

  Missiles

  Long range TRIGAT

  Medium range TRIGAT(Third Generation Anti-Tank Guided Weapon)

  *

  404

  405

  Projects in the development phase

  Italy

  Netherlands

  Norway

  Portugal

  Spain

  Turkey

  USA

  Air systems

  Eurofighter

  *

  *

  Other equipment

  ADA Computer Language ProjectSupport Environment

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Universal Modem for Satellite Communications

  *

  Allied Data Systems Interoperability Agency—

  NATO Procedural Interoperability Standards

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Consultants
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost to date of the employment of consultants for his Department's married housing quarters sell-off. [29342]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Further to my answer of 19 December 1995,Official Report, columns 114–15, the total cost to date of the employment of consultants since we began to develop the proposal to transfer the married quarters estate to the private sector announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 30 November 1995, Official Report, columns 810–11, amounts to some £3.5 million, exclusive of VAT, on the basis of invoices received by the end of April.

  Chemical and Defence Establishment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work has been carried out at the chemical and defence establishment, Porton Down, to assess whether and how LSD could be used in interrogations; what were the conclusions of this work; and if he will make a statement. [29344]

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

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. David Clarke, dated 14 May 1996:

  I have been asked to reply to your question about the possible use of LSD in interrogations at the Chemical and Biological Establishment (CBDE) as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which now includes the former CBDE in one of its divisions.

  The Chemical and Biological Defence Sector (CBD) of what is now known as the Protection and Life Sciences Division (PLSD) at Porton Down has no record of any work being carried out to assess whether and how LSD could be used in interrogations. The work which was undertaken at Porton Down was aimed at ascertaining the effects of LSD on service personnel in operational circumstances.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Army Training (Video)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the release of video footage of Army training by the Northern Ireland training advisory team. [29343]

  Mr. Soames
  Video tapes used to debrief soldiers during pre-Northern Ireland training were passed by the BBC to the Ministry of Defence on 8 May; they had apparently been bought by a third party in Coventry. Urgent steps are being taken to prevent any recurrence of 406
  this incidence, and a full assessment of any implications for current military operations in Northern Ireland is being made.

  As a police investigation is now in hand it would be inappropriate to comment further.

  The continued safety of our troops in Northern Ireland is of paramount importance.

  Baltic Peacekeeping Battalion
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance the United Kingdom will continue to give to support the development of the Baltic peacekeeping battalion. [29528]

  Mr. Soames
  The UK, together with other NATO allies—Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the USA—and Sweden and Finland, has been involved in the training and development of the Baltic peacekeeping battalion since 1994. This programme, which includes English language training and training by the Royal Marines in basic infantry skills, will continue until late 1997. In addition to training provision, the UK—as part of an international equipment package—has provided 38 Carl Gusav anti-tank weapons to the peacekeeping battalion. These weapons are surplus to UK requirements and are non-offensive weapons suited for defensive purposes in a peacekeeping environment. These will be delivered today.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fish Quotas
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Government will table proposals in Brussels(a) to stop quota hopping and (b) to increase British quotas for the United Kingdom fishing industry. [28915]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister in the House on 5 March Official Report, column 130. The Government intend to table proposals to address the problem of quota hopping at an appropriate stage in the intergovernmental conference.

  Feedstuff Ingredients
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the categories of(a)foodstuffs and (b) additives permitted for

  407
  sale for feeding to (i) cattle, (ii) sheep, (iii) pigs and (iv) poultry, indicating the regulations applying to each category; [28712]

  (2) if he will list the categories of (a) foodstuffs and (b) additives permitted for sale for feeding to fish for human consumption, indicating which regulations apply to each category. [29067]

  Mrs Browning
  There is no list of permitted food ingredients for animals, including fish. However, the Feeding Stuffs Regulations 1995, S.I. 1412, contain detailed provisions on the composition and labelling of feedingstuffs and a list of permitted feed additives. A copy of the regulations is in the Library of the House.

  Specified Bovine Materials (Handling)
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the results of the state veterinary service's visits to abattoirs to monitor the handling of specified bovine materials in the period January to April 1996; and if he will make a statement. [29687]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The State Veterinary Service is continuing its programme of unannounced visits to all plants handling specified bovine material. In the first four months of 1996, 1,196 visits to abattoirs have been recorded. Of these, 1,148 or 96 per cent. found the handling of SBM to be fully satisfactory. Of the four per cent. of cases where deficiencies were reported, not all—for instance, poor record keeping—presented a risk to public or animal health. There were only four incidents recorded where pieces of spinal cord had not been completely removed from the spinal canal. No such incidents have been reported since 20 March, some seven weeks ago.

  I will ensure that a note is placed in the Library of the House regularly to update these figures.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Skills Audit
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what dates he has received written representations from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment about the skills audit. [28954]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The Secretary of State and I have worked together closely on the audit since it was announced in the last competitiveness White Paper.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 7 May,Official Report, column 113, which department is responsible for conducting the skills audit; with which countries the United Kingdom's skills level and performance will be compared; if it will include consideration of the performance of the Untied Kingdom schools system; and if he will make a statement. [28943]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The skills audit has been conducted by an ad hoc interdepartmental group under the chairmanship of the Cabinet Office, with the support of a Department for Education and Employment chaired working group. The remit of the audit was to examine the 408
  UK's performance at the level of basic qualifications for employment and to compare it with those of our leading competitors. It will be published in the summer in parallel with the third competitiveness White Paper.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Colliery Tips
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the value of the colliery tips still held by British Coal; and what receipts to public funds he estimates will accrue from their disposal in(a) the current and (b) the next financial year. [28857]

  Mr. Page
  The valuation of British Coal's property, including colliery tips, and the likely proceeds from their disposal is a commercial matter for the corporation.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if British Coal is subject to the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in the disposal of its surplus colliery tips. [28855]

  Mr. Page
  The Comptroller and Auditor-General is not the external auditor of British Coal and has no statutory right of access to its records. He can, of course, look at the Department's activities in relation to its sponsorship of British Coal.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what mechanisms exists to ensure that British Coal obtains value for money in its disposal of colliery tips; [28853]

  (2) what guidelines he issues to British Coal in respect of obtaining the best price for disposals of colliery tips. [28854]

  Mr. Page
  The disposal of its non-operational property, including colliery tips, is a matter for British Coal. However, British Coal must comply with its statutory duties under section 11 of the Coal Industry Act 1994.

  Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what liability for (i) the management of spent fuel following AGR station closure, and for reprocessing of the final core, (ii) stage 1 AGR decommissioning payments, (iii) the decommissioning of British Nuclear Fuels plc, AGR-related facilities and (iv) the management and disposal of intermediate and high level AGR wastes will fall upon(a) the British Energy segregated fund and (b) other bodies; and if in each case he will list those bodies. [29229]

  Mr. Eggar
  British Energy will be responsible for all the fuel cycle and decommissioning liabilities associated with its nuclear power stations. The segregated fund will cover all the longer term post-closure costs of decommissioning British Energy's nuclear power stations and their sites, in accordance with decommissioning strategies agreed between the company and the regulator, the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate. It will, therefore, include the post-closure costs related to the care and maintenance and ultimate
  409
  decommissioning of any on-site long-term spent fuel storage facilities if they become part of a future agreed strategy.

  General Utilities and Mid Kent Holdings plc
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what waiver he has given to General Utilities in respect of its undertaking of 21 March 1991 in respect of Mid Kent Holdings plc; and if he will make a statement. [28975]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No waiver has been given to General Utilities. The company remains bound by the undertakings given on 21 March 1991.

  Company Auditors
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received the fourth annual reports on the recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors under part II of the Companies Act 1989; and if he will make a statement. [29631]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have received the fourth annual reports of all the recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors, and have placed copies in the Library of the House. My Department will be discussing the contents of the reports with the bodies as necessary.

  Company Directors
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number of individuals disqualified from acting as company directors in each of the last 10 years. [29015]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  As this is a day-to-day matter dealt with by Companies House executive agency, I have asked the chief executive to reply to the hon. Gentleman in person.

  Letter from John S. Holden to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 14 May 1996:

  You recently asked the President of the Board of Trade for information about disqualified directors. As Companies House Executive Agency has the responsibility for maintaining these statistics, I have been asked to reply to you.

  The figures for disqualification orders notified to Companies House between 1986 and 31 March 1995 are given below. These have been taken from our Annual Report for 1994/95. The current number of directors on the disqualification register is 2,574 However, you will need to be aware that not all orders are notified by the courts to Companies House.

  Period

  Total

  1986

  124

  1986–87

  112

  1987–88

  197

  1988–89

  332

  1989–90

  318

  1990–91

  289

  1991–92

  289

  1992–93

  497

  1993–94

  374

  1994–95

  493

  If you need further information please do not hesitate to contact me.
  410

  Company Collapses
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will investigate the circumstances leading to Homepower Retail Ltd. and Power Store Trading Ltd. reducing a £7 million trade surplus and going into administration. [29260]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  If the hon. Member or any other person has any information which suggests that there has been any fraud or misconduct in connection with the affairs of the companies, he should send it to my investigations and enforcement directorate at room 707, 10 Victoria street, London SW1H ONN.

  The Secretary of State will await the report on the conduct of the directors which is due to be made under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 within six months of the appointment of the administrators.

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he intends to take to assist Homepower retail customers who have paid for goods which they have not received. [29259]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The administrators have identified a number of customers who have paid all or part of the cost of goods which have yet to be supplied. I am advised that on 1 May 1996 Mr. Duggins, one of the joint administrators, wrote to each of these customers advising them of the various actions they could take and asking them to complete a claim form. Prior to the appointment of administrators, the directors set up trust accounts with a view to protecting customers against loss of payments made for undelivered goods. The administrators are investigating the position and there is a possibility that customers may eventually recover some or all of their money from this source.

  If any such customers have not yet heard from the administrators it is suggested that they contact Mr. Duggins at Arthur Andersen, 1 Victoria square, Birmingham B1 1BD, telephone 0121 233 2101.

  Business Grants
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the grants and loans provided by his Department to businesses together with the criteria they have to fulfil. [28183]

  Mr. Richard Page
  [holding answer 7 May 1996]: Grants are available directly to eligible businesses under the following schemes and programmes.

  British National Space Centre: Applications Technology Support Programme

  British National Space Centre: Earth Observation Programme

  British National Space Centre: Space Telecommunications Programme

  Carrier Technology Programme

  Civil Aircraft Research and Demonstration Programme

  Clean Coal Technology Programme

  Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme

  EUREKA (Collaborative Technology Projects)

  Export Marketing Research Scheme

  Information Society Initiative

  Innovative Manufacturing Initiative

  Launch Aid

  411

  LEXAS (Languages in Export Advisory Scheme)

  LINK

  North America Now: Strategic Alliance Service

  OSSCAR (Offshore Supplies and Service Company Assistance for Research)

  Outward Missions Scheme

  Overseas Project Fund

  Overseas Science and Technology Expert Mission Scheme (OSTEMS)

  Overseas Trade Services: Hands on Training Scheme (HOTS)

  Regional Selective Assistance

  Renewable Energy Programmes

  Shipbuilding Intervention Fund

  SMART (Small Firms Merit Award for Research and Technology)

  SPUR and SPUR+ (Support for Products Under Research)

  Trade Fairs Support Scheme

  My Department does not normally give loans, although it guarantees loans under the small firms loan guarantee scheme and the home shipbuilding credit guarantee scheme. My Department also gives financial assistance to businesses in forms other than grants or loan guarantees under various schemes and programmes.

  Details of eligibility criteria for the schemes or programmes listed can be obtained by applicants direct from my Department.

  British Telecom
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding engaged call charging by British Telecom; and if he will make a statement. [28452]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 9 May 1996]: I and the Director General of Telecommunications have received a number of representations regarding engaged call charging by British Telecom. The director general has given this matter careful consideration, and concluded that claims that BT is charging for engaged calls are unfounded.

  Post Codes
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what guidance his Department offers to the Post Office regarding the need to avoid disadvantaging businesses when making changes to postal codes; [28739]

  (2) what guidance his Department offers to the Post Office regarding the need for consultation of businesses when planning changes to postal codes; [28740]

  (3) what action he has taken to ensure that changes to postal codes do not disadvantage small firms. [28741]

  (4) what plans he has to ensure that changes to postal codes do not disadvantage small firms. [28742]

  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim
  [holding answers 13 May 1996]: Changes to postcodes are an operational matter for the Post Office, which follows consultation procedures agreed with the Post Office Users National Council. Royal Mail is committed to a policy of no change to post codes unless it becomes operationally necessary to do so. To
  412
  minimise disruption to all customers, Royal Mail has a code of practice which must be followed whenever a post code is to be changed.

  Hong Kong Businesses
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce measures to assist businesses and their owners presently operating in Hong Kong. [28945]

  Mr. Phillip Oppenheim
  [holding answer 13 May 1996]: The Hong Kong Government have full responsibility for the management and regulation of the economy and business environment in Hong Kong. The future Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government will assume this responsibility when Hong Kong reverts to China in 1997. However, the British Government provide support for British businesses in Hong Kong through the office of the British Trade Commission. After 30 June 1997, this role will be per formed by the British Consulate-General in Hong Kong.

  Wind Farms
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the current total output of wind farms in the United Kingdom; [29174]

  (2) if he will list the wind farms in each part of the United Kingdom. [29173]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answers 13 May 1996]: As at 31 March 1996, 31 wind, farms consisting of three or more wind turbines, were operating in the United Kingdom. These wind farms are listed as follows:

  England and Wales

  Deli, Nr. Delabole, Cornwall

  Goonhilly Downs, Cury, Cornwall

  Carland Cross Wind Farm, Mitchell, Cornwall

  St Breock, St Breock Downs, Cornwall

  Four Burrows, Blackwater, Cornwall

  Cold Northcott Windfarm, Launceston, Cornwall

  Kirkby Moor, Nr Ulverston, Cumbria

  Orton Airport, Wiggonby, Cumbria

  Haverigg Airfield, Millom, Cumbria

  Caton Moor, Lancaster, Lancs

  Blood Hill, Winterton-on-Sea, Norfolk

  Blyth Harbour, Blyth, Northumberland

  Royd Moor Farm, Thurlstone, S. Yorks

  Chelker, Skipton Road, W. Yorks

  Thornton (Ovendon Moor), Oxenhope, W. Yorks

  Coal Clough Farm, Cornholme, W. Yorks

  Rhyd-y-Groes 1 and 2, Rhosgoch, Anglesey

  Llangwyryfon Windfarm, Llangwyryfon, Dyfed

  Dyffryn-Brodyn, Blaenwaun, Dyfed

  Taff-Ely Wind Farm, Gilfach Goch, Mid-Glamorgan

  Mydydd Cemmaes, Cwith-Lliniad, Powys

  Penrhyddlan Windfarm, Llandinam, Powys

  Llidiartywaun Windfarm, Llandinam, Powys

  Marcheini Wind Farm (Bryntitli), Rhayader, Powys

  Northern Ireland

  Corkey Wind Farm, Co. Antrim

  Elliot's Hill, Co. Antrim

  413

  Slieve Rushen Phase 1, Co. Fermanagh

  Rigged Hill, Co. Londonderry

  Bessey Bell, Co. Tyrone

  Scotland

  Hagshaw Hill S10, Lanarkshire

  Hagshaw Hill S15, Lanarkshire.

  I estimate the total output from these windfarms to date to be approximately 1000 GWh, with approximately 40 per cent. of this having been generated during the last 12 months.

HEALTH

  GP Fundholders (Doncaster)
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the amount of underspend in the budget of GP fundholders in Doncaster for 1995–96. [27993]

  Mr. Malone
  The information will not be available until the accounts have been audited.

  Nationally, general practitioner fundholders have consistently achieved efficiency savings of between 3 and 4 per cent. of budgets set.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing the time patients have to wait for hospital and out-patient treatment. [27994]

  Mr. Horam
  Excellent progress has been made in reducing waiting times for all aspects of national health service treatment. At 31 March 1996 fewer than 4,400 patients had been waiting more than a year for inpatient or day case treatment. This is a significant improvement on the position only a year ago when there were more than 32,000 12-month waiters. Also for the first time no 18-month in-patient waits have been reported. For out-patients the latest available figures show that 97 per cent. of patients were seen within 26 weeks of referral and 83 per cent. seen within 13 weeks.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current normal waiting time for a specialist consultation for a non-urgent illness. [28007]

  Mr. Horam
  Waiting times for out-patient appointments vary between trusts and between specialties.

  The patients charter requires that all patients should be seen for their first out-patient appointment with a consultant within 26 weeks of a written referral from a general practitioner, with nine out of 10 seen within 13 weeks.

  Of the 1,904,000 patients seen during the quarter ended 31 December 1995, 83 per cent. waited under 13 weeks and 97 per cent. under 26 weeks.
  414

  South Essex Health Authority
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what percentage the funds provided to the Southend health authority have increased this year; and what is the relative national increase. [27995]

  Mr. Horam
  In 1996–97 South Essex health authority, which includes Southend has received a cash increase of 7.1 per cent. for hospital and community health services, which compares very favourably with the national increase of 3.9 per cent.

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the supply of community psychiatric nurses. [27996]

  Mr. Horam
  Work force planning and decisions about the demand and supply of qualified nursing staff are most effectively taken by local employers.

  The whole-time equivalent number of nurses working In this area rose from 1,880 in 1984 to 4,760 in 1994.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to reform the care in the community programme. [27997]

  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published the Government's proposals for helping people to make better provision for their long-term care needs on 7 May.

  NHS Trusts (Board Members)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he collates on the outside interests of board members of NHS trusts. [27998]

  Mr. Malone
  None. It is the responsibility of the board of each national health service trust to ensure that information on any relevant private interests of members is collected and maintained in a register of interests, which is available for inspection by the public.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend GP fundholding. [27999]

  Mr. Malone
  Fundholding continues to grow every year. This year has seen a record number of general practitioners entering fundholding, and more are applying to join from next April.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of general practitioners are fundholders. [28009]

  Mr. Malone
  This year has seen a record number of general practitioners entering fundholding. Since 1 April approximately 51 per cent. of GPs are fundholders, serving 52 per cent. of the population.
  415

  London Initiative Zone Scheme
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many projects have been funded through the London initiative zone scheme; and if he will make a statement. [28000]

  Mr. Malone
  The London initiative zone scheme is a five-year programme which is not yet complete. At its start in 1993–94, nearly 1,000 projects were included in LIZ health authorities' plans to develop primary care services in the capital.

  East Lancashire Health Authority
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that NHS patients within the East Lancashire health authority area who are registered with doctors in an adjacent health area are not transferred to another doctor against their wishes. [28001]

  Mr. Malone
  None. General practitioners have the right, subject to certain safeguards, to remove patients from their lists without giving a reason. Similarly, patients have the right to withdraw from a doctor's list without giving reasons. In order to ensure that no patient is unable to register with a doctor, GPs are required to agree with their health authority the geographical area within which they are willing to accept patients. It is sometimes necessary, for example due to a sudden influx of patients onto their list, for GPs to re-define their practice area. Any patient who is registered with a GP but lives outside the GP's geographical area, and who is then removed from that GP's list, can expect the local health authority to find them another GP within two working days. The national health service now achieves this standard fully.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of NHS dental provision; and what new initiatives he is taking to provide such facilities in areas at present without such a service. [28002]

  Mr. Malone
  We regularly monitor the provision of national health service dental services across England. Our record bears out the Government's commitment to NHS dentistry:

  At 31 December 1995 there were 15,942 NHS dentists on the lists of health authorities in England, the highest December figure ever. This is 516 more dentists than at 30 June 1992 and 3,796 more dentists than at 30 September 1979.

  At 29 February there were 26.4 million patients registered in England. This is broadly in line with the position at 30 June 1992, given operational and seasonal factors.

  In 1994–95 gross expenditure on general dental services in England was £1,279 million, an increase in real terms of nearly 60 per cent. since 1978–79.

  In 1994–95 there were 3.7 million more adult dental examinations in England compared with 1979.

  Health authorities can advise patients about where to obtain NHS dental services and are able to use various measures, such as employing salaried dentists to ensure adequate availability of NHS dental services. We keep such measures under review so that they remain appropriate to current circumstances. We are also discussing with the dental profession a range of issues
  416
  aimed to reform dental services. In the longer term we aim to put in place a purchaser/provider system which will be sensitive to local needs.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been raised for the NHS through the private finance initiative. [28003]

  Mr. Horam
  An estimated £50 million of capital funding was made available by the private sector in 1995–96 for private finance initiative schemes in the national health service.

  District General Hospital, Dartford
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will report progress on the proposed district general hospital in Dartford. [28004]

  Mr. Horam
  Dartford and Gravesham NHS trust has now shortlisted two consortia, and expects by August to be in a position to seek formal approval to award the contract for the proposed hospital.

  Inadequate Housing (Effect on Health)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to address the health needs of people living in inadequate housing. [28005]

  Mr. Horam
  Health may be affected by a number of factors, and it is difficult to quantify the effects of any one of them. It is for clinicians to treat patients to the best of their ability, whatever the cause of their illness.

  Cheviot and Wansbeck NHS Trust
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with the Cheviot and Wansbeck NHS trust regarding the funding of its phase II development; and if he will make a statement. [28006]

  Mr. Horam
  The outline business case of the phase II development at Cheviot and Wansbeck NHS trust was approved by the National Health Service Executive in January 1996, following appraisal and meetings with the trust. The scheme is now being tested under the private finance initiative.

  NHS Building Projects
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will report progress on the number of major NHS building projects(a) presently under construction and (b) planned to start imminently. [28008]

  Mr. Horam
  There are currently 71 major national health service building projects under construction. Information about schemes planned to start imminently is not collected centrally.

  Paediatric Intensive Care Beds
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he had made of the current availability of paediatric intensive care beds. [28010]
  417
  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the chief executive of the National Health Service Executive to report to him on the development of paediatric intensive care. This report will be published shortly.

  Operating Theatres (Dress)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring in regulations to require non-medically qualified persons viewing surgical operations(a) to conform with standard requirements concerning appropriate dress and (b) to be free of (i) jewellery (ii) make-up and (iii) other accessories. [28468]

  Mr. Horam
  It is for each national health service trust to ensure that it has effective local protocols, based on appropriate professional advice, for determining and maintaining safe and appropriate levels of cleanliness in operating theatres.

  Asbestos (Cancer of the Larynx)
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been commissioned by his Department into links between the use of asbestos and cancer of the larynx. [28859]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Suicide
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the relationship between individual anti-depressant drugs and suicide deaths; and if he will make a statement. [28692]

  Mr. Bowis
  We commissioned and evaluated an effectiveness bulletin, "The Treatment of Depression in Primary Care", which includes reference to 1990 data on death rates by poisoning from anti-depressant drugs. Copies of the bulletin are available in the Library.

  Brain Search Facilities
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) centres and (b) hospitals which provide minute brain search facilities; and if he will make a statement. [28633]

  Mr. Horam
  In England, national health service trusts with acute hospital facilities have access to neurological and neurosurgical services, which would include facilities for undertaking investigations of the brain.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of CJD have been identified in the United Kingdom in each of the past five years analysed by the age group of the sufferer; and if he will indicate in each case his Department's assessment of whether a genetic component contributed to the condition. [28591]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on 1 April at column 46. The national Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease surveillance unit carries out genetic investigations
  418
  on cases of CJD referred to it. Approximately 10 per cent. of cases occur in clusters in families with an inherited genetic disposition.

  Doctors
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Sectary of State for Health how many(a) junior doctors, (b) middle range doctors and (c) consultants were employed in each health authority or family health service authority at 30 December for each of the last 20 years. [29203]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the number of doctors by grade is contained in standard tables on hospital medical staff for England and Wales which are available in the Library. These provide a breakdown by regional health authority for the years 1982–94 inclusive. Information by district and for years prior to 1982 is not available.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 9 January,Official Report, column 75, if he will update the figures on vacant doctor posts. [29469]

  Mr. Malone
  More recent information is not yet available.

  Osteosarcoma
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of osteosarcoma have been diagnosed in each of the district health authorities in the Northern and Yorkshire region since 1985. [29140]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of exempting from contributions to long-term care the value of an individual's home; [29152]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost of exempting from contributions to long-term care the value of an individual's home up to a limit of £300,000. [29151]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Macgregor) on 4 March at columns 82–83.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the total public cost of introducing a partnership scheme for long-term care in which the average value insurance claimable is £30,000, under(a) the option set out in paragraph 9.6 of the consultation document, "A New Partnership for Care in Old Age", and (b) the option set out in paragraph 9.7, where the number of policies purchased is (i) 10,000, (ii) 100,000 and (iii) 1,000,000; and in each case over what period of time he forecasts that the expenditure would fall. [29265]

  Mr. Bowis
  The cost of the scheme would depend on a number of factors, including the level of protection from means testing earned by indemnity insurance and immediate needs annuities, the number of people with partnership products who need residential care and their asset holdings.
  419

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for consultants in each NHS trust. [29468]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on consultant vacancies in each national health service trust is not available.

  Medical Locums
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 28 November 1995,Official Report, column 614, if he will provide the figures for medical locums for 1995. [29472]

  Mr. Malone
  Figures from the medical and dental work force census relating to 30 September 1995 are not yet available.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will itemise for each trust, by region, the level of retained surplus or deficit in 1994–95 and 1995–96. [29397]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 5 December 1995 at column 193. Information for 1995–96 will be available in December, following the publication of the national health service trust annual accounts.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what have been the costs associated with the establishment of trusts in each region in each year since 1990–91, including conveyancing costs. [29398]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 5 May 1995 at column 323.

  NHS Performance
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the spending on the NHS in May 1979; how many patients were treated in the year to May 1979; and what were the equivalent figures for the last available periods. [28290]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not available in the form requested. National health service total gross expenditure in England in the financial year 1979–80 was £7,755 million, compared with £31,983 million in 1994–95.

  On a comparative basis that is, after converting the 1979 discharge and deaths figure to finished consultant episodes—there were 6.6 million FCEs in all hospital specialties in England in the calendar year 1979 compared with 10.5 million FCEs in 1994–95.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) incidents and (b) fatal incidents of hypothermia have occurred over the last five years in (i) London, (ii) Manchester, (iii) Cardiff, (iv) Newcastle, (v) Leicester, (vi) Derby, (vii) Nottingham, (viii) Norwich, (ix) Birmingham, (x) Plymouth, (xi) Edinburgh, (xii) Aberdeen and (xiii) Brighton.[28422]
  420
  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not available in the form requested. Incidents of hypothermia in Wales and Scotland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland. The available information is shown in the tables.

  The number of finished consultant episodes in England where the main diagnosis is hypothermia, ICD code 991.6, ordinary and day case admissions to hospital

  Borough of residence

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  London inner and outer

  127

  107

  97

  133

  Manchester

  47

  36

  36

  35

  Newcastle

  6

  6

  10

  13

  Leicester

  6

  4

  3

  3

  Derby

  3

  1

  3

  2

  Nottingham

  9

  7

  8

  3

  Birmingham

  31

  50

  27

  27

  Plymouth

  10

  7

  3

  0

  Brighton

  7

  10

  5

  7

  Source:

  "Hospital Episodes Statistics".

  Deaths from hypothermia in various towns and cities in England, Wales and Scotland (1CD codes E991.6for England and Wales and E901, 778.3 (underlying cause of death), and E901, 778.3, 780.8, 780.9 (secondary cause) for Scotland

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  London

  60

  87

  58

  97

  81

  Manchester

  0

  2

  3

  3

  2

  Cardiff

  0

  2

  0

  2

  1

  Newcastle

  1

  0

  1

  5

  6

  Leicester

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Derby

  2

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Nottingham

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Norwich

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Birmingham

  5

  12

  5

  8

  5

  Plymouth

  3

  1

  2

  1

  0

  Brighton

  0

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Edinburgh

  21

  15

  14

  13

  19

  Aberdeen

  3

  2

  4

  3

  5

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Diet and Behaviour (Children)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to investigate possible links between diet and disruptive behaviour and learning difficulties in children. [28933]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department's advisory committee—the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—will be reviewing the issue of adverse reactions to food and food additives this year. The review will include assessing whether there is any firm evidence that food may affect behaviour in children.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Beef Ban (Job Losses)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated loss of jobs following the ban on Northern Ireland beef by the European Union. [28457]
  421
  Mr. Ancram
  The Department of Economic Development has received notifications of 142 proposed redundancies, of which 48 have taken place. All notifications relate to the red meat sector. It is estimated that some 1,500 people have been laid off due to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis.

  Figures for job losses directly attributable to the export ban are not available, and a number of those affected are self-employed.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the locations of the inward investment projects promoted by the Industrial Development Board between 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996 indicating the financial amounts in respect of each project. [29016]

  Mr. Ancram
  The new inward investment projects negotiated during 1995–96 by the Industrial Development Board were as follows:

  Company name

  Location

  Assistance offered £ million

  Fruit of the Loom Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

  Londonderry

  2.72

  BCO Technologies (NI) Ltd.

  Belfast

  7.3

  Montupet (UK) Ltd.

  Lisburn

  57

  Stream International (NI) Ltd.

  Londonderry

  5.3

  Plastofilm Ltd.

  Enniskillen

  0.948

  Bumside Engineering

  Enniskillen

  1.033

  Aldiscon (NI) Ltd.

  Belfast

  0.678

  Duromould Ltd.

  Londonderry

  0.223

  Europa Tool Co. Ltd.

  Belfast

  3.2

  Seagate Technology (Ireland)

  Londonderry

  10.4

  Scansoft (NI) Ltd.

  Moira

  Non-selective financial assistance

WALES

  Cormorants and Saw-billed Ducks
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications for a licence to shoot cormorants and saw-billed ducks were received by his Department in the year 1995–96; how many of these were refused; how many birds were licensed to be shot; and how many have been reported as having been shot. [28294]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Between 1 April 1995 and 31 March 1996, 15 applications for licences to shoot cormorants and goosanders were received. Two were refused. The 13 licenses issued permitted a maximum number of 37 cormorants and 38 goosanders to be shot as an aid to scaring. Reports on the number of birds shot are still to be fully completed.

  Beef Producers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to assist the producers of mature beef; and if he will make a statement. [28405]
  422
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in his statement on 16 April,Official Report, columns 513–29, that arrangements were needed to allow back on the market meat from those breeds which often do not mature until after 30 months. Comments have now been invited from interested organisations on proposals to establish a voluntary mature beef assurance scheme. Under these proposals, those specialist beef herds where no cases of BSE have occurred would be able to sell cattle over 30 months for human consumption purposes. It is intended that they would exempt from the restriction in the Beef (Emergency Control) Order 1996.

  Part-time Employment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes have taken place since 1980 as a percentage of the working population in(a) males and (b) females who have part-time jobs; and if he will make a statement. [28407]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Data on the total number of part-time jobs in Wales in 1980 is not available. Information for 1981 and 1995 is shown in the following table:

  Employees in employment, part-time: Wales

  September 1981

  September 1995

  Change

  Change as percentage of 1981 working population1

  Males

  26,100

  52,200

  +26,100

  3

  Females

  158,400

  230,500

  +72,100

  16

  1 Working population comprises of employees in employment, claimant unemployed, self-employed, armed forces and participants on work-related schemes.

  Source:

  ONS.

  Housing (Elderly People)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many houses were built specifically for the elderly by local authorities and housing associations in Wales in(a) 1987, (b) 1991, (c) 1993 and (d) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [28641]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of dwellings

  1987

  1991

  1993

  1995

  Local authority

  438

  131

  72

  41

  Housing association1

  2509

  21,149

  655

  148

  1 These figures are estimates provided by Housing for Wales, which may differ from the estimates returned by local authorities on housing associations, published elsewhere.

  2 Data relates to financial years ending 31 March after year shown: information not available for calender years.

  Source:

  Local authority returns Housing for Wales.

  M4 (Accidents)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) deaths, (b) injuries and (c) accidents have occurred on the M4 in Wales since 1985; and if he will make a statement. [28706]
  423
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is given in the following table. The data refer to personal injury road accidents reported to the police and forwarded to the Welsh Office.

  Death, injuries and accidents on the M4 in Wales

  Year

  Deaths

  Injuries

  Personal injury accidents

  1985

  6

  199

  117

  1986

  6

  204

  121

  1987

  2

  176

  122

  1988

  4

  221

  156

  1989

  3

  245

  162

  1990

  7

  341

  214

  1991

  4

  272

  171

  1992

  3

  259

  158

  1993

  2

  224

  147

  1994

  6

  263

  177

  1995

  4

  319

  209

  Total

  47

  2,723

  1,754

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice has been issued to his Department by the Commissioner for Public Appointments on the need to identify political activity by persons(a) appointed and (b) re-appointed to executive non-departmental public bodies; and what guidelines his Department currently follows in this area. [28597]

  Mr. Hague
  Guidance on new procedures is being prepared which will take full account of the First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Cm 28501, and the principles and guidance published in April 1996 by the Commissioner for Public Appointments on appointments to executive non-departmental public bodies and NHS bodies. It will take effect by the target date of 1 July 1996.

  Council of Agriculture Ministers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the participation of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), at the Council of Agricultural Ministers on 29 to 30 April; and what formal representations were made to the council on behalf of Welsh farmers. [28617]

  Mr. Hague
  As a member of the UK ministerial delegation at Luxembourg, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State participated fully in developing the UK's negotiating position as events unfolded.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which towns in Wales currently have closed circuit television to assist with crime prevention; and if he will make a statement. [28652]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government have funded closed circuit television schemes in the following towns in Wales: Aberdare, Barry, Bridgend, Cardiff, Caerphilly, Colwyn Bay, Cwmbran, Haverfordwest, Holyhead,424
  Maesteg, Merthyr Tydfil, Mountain Ash, Neath, Newport, Pontypool, Porthcawl, Rhyl, Swansea, Wrexham and Ystrad Rhondda.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's policy regarding the further expansion of closed circuit television schemes in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [28698]

  Mr. Jones
  The Government are convinced that closed circuit television has a crucial part to play in the fight against crime, and will continue to encourage its expansion in Wales.

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by education authority area, the independent schools which have not yet received full recognition, indicating the reasons for this and the action being taken to deal with each school affected. [29288]

  Mr. Richards
  Independent schools are placed on the provisional register of independent schools in Wales when they are providing full-time education to five or more pupils of statutory school age and when they have provided specified information about the school, such as details about staff, to the Welsh Office. Full registration is considered by the Welsh Office in the light of advice provided by the Office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools who visit all provisionally registered schools at least annually. Of the 62 independent schools in Wales, eight are provisionally registered. These are as follows:

  School

  Local education authority

  Bethany Christian School

  Neath Port Talbot

  Emmanuel Christian School

  Caerphilly

  Frontline Christian School

  Bridgend

  Mayflower Christian School

  Torfaen

  Hendre House

  Pembrokeshire

  Prospects Centre for Young People

  Wrexham

  Thaibah Muslim School

  Cardiff

  Welsh Centre for Conductive Education

  Cardiff

  The reasons why full registration has not yet been granted varies between the schools but can include concern about the breadth and balance of the curriculum, school structures and organisation or that the school has recently started and needs time to become established. In all cases, where the inspectors have identified shortcomings, the Welsh Office has written to the school concerned asking for these matters to be addressed.

  If my right hon. Friend is satisfied that an independent school, whether provisionally or fully registered, is objectionable on certain grounds, including the suitability of the accommodation or instruction, the fitness of staff or the proprietor or concern about the welfare of children, he may issue a notice of complaint seeking remedies to the concerns.

SCOTLAND

  Damp Housing
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of houses in
  425
  Scotland suffering from (a) dampness and (b) condensation, in (i) the publicly rented, (ii) the privately rented and (iii) the owner-occupied sectors. [27557]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The available information is set out in the table. It is taken from the 1991 Scottish house condition survey. It should be noted that where a dwelling suffers from both dampness and condensation it is counted in both tables. More up-to-date information will become available when the results of the 1996 Scottish house condition survey are published in the autumn of next year.

  Estimated number of dwellings in Scotland with dampness or condensation (by tenure, 1991)

  Tenure

  Number (thousands)

  (a)Dwellings with rising or penetrating damp

  Local authority, New Town, other public sector

  122

  Scottish Homes

  6

  Privately rented

  35

  Owner-occupied

  100

  Housing associations

  4

  All tenures

  267

  (b) Dwellings with condensation

  Local authority, New Town, other public sector

  202

  Scottish Homes

  15

  Privately rented

  33

  Owner-occupied

  138

  Housing associations

  4

  All tenures

  392

  Approximately 110 thousand dwellings included in both the above tables had both damp and condensation.

  Source:

  1991 Scottish House Condition Survey.

  Cockenzie Power Station
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has made an assessment of the consequences for the Scottish economy of the closure of Cockenzie power station; and if he will make a statement. [27843]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The future of Cockenzie power station is a matter for its owner, Scottish Power. I understand that the company currently plans to operate the power station until its working life expires in 2010.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current level of electricity prices to industrial and commercial customers in Scotland; what it was in 1990; and if he will make a statement. [27842]

  Mr. Forsyth
  Since privatisation, electricity prices charged to industrial and commercial consumers with an annual consumption of over 100 KW have been a commercial matter for the electricity supply companies and their customers. Smaller industrial and commercial customers who use less than 100 KW are normally charged under published maxium demand tariffs. Such charges have fallen by about 10 per cent. in real terms since 1989–90.
  426

  Health Service (Acute Bed Strategy)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the review of the acute bed strategy; and if he will make a statement. [28173]

  Mr.Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has received the report prepared by the review group. He will make an announcement in due course.

  Crofting
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to review the level of grant and loan available under the crofter building grant and loan scheme; and if he will make it his policy that no major changes to the structure of the scheme will be introduced without full and lengthy public consultation. [28274]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  My noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and the Environment, had a number of discussions with crofting interests earlier in the year about a possible shift to a grant-only scheme with increased levels of grant. The views expressed were considered carefully and are reflected in the statement made by my right hon. Friend at the Scottish Grand Committee meeting on Monday 13 May.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is taking to provide support to crofters for(a) controlling and maintaining bracken, hedges and dykes and (b) the provision or improvement of water supplies. [28195]

  Mr. Robertson
  Assistance for crofters is currently available through a number of schemes. The crofting counties agricultural grants scheme provides grants to crofters towards the costs of controlling and maintaining bracken, hedges and dykes, and the provision or improvement of water supplies. The agricultural business improvement scheme offers grants towards the eradication of bracken to encourage heather regeneration; the provision of dykes to exclude livestock in association with conservation management; and the provision, replacement or improvement of water supplies. The Argyll and Shetland islands environment sensitive area schemes include support for provision of dykes: the Argyll islands scheme also includes support for control of bracken in certain situations.

  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the budget allocation is planned to be for the crofter building grants and loans scheme in each of the next three years. [28198]

  Mr. Robertson
  The supply estimate provision for 1996–97 is £5.002 million. Ministers will take decisions on the level of provision for future years in the context of the forthcoming public expenditure survey.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total payments made under the crofting agricultural grants scheme 1995–96; and if he will publish the representations he has received regarding the proposed ending of the scheme. [28275]

  Mr. Robertson
  The provisional outturn for payments made in 1995–96 under the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme is £3.181 million. Unless specifically requested otherwise by the consultee, responses to the
  427
  consultation on proposals for a Scottish countryside premium scheme are available for public view in the Library in St. Andrew's house, Edinburgh.

  Skye Bridge (Explosives)
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement into circumstances surrounding the discovery and subsequent controlled detonation of explosive material in the vicinity of the Skye bridge on 30 April; and what steps he has taken to require a full search of the bridge and its environs to ensure the removal of any other similar items. [28176]

  Mr.Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office has recently taken receipt of a report on the incident by the Miller Group safety department following its request for an inquiry. Details of the circumstances of the incident are described in the report. I have therefore arranged to have a copy lodged in the Library.

  The report concludes that the condition of the explosive material was such that its potential for causing harm was remote. It further concludes that the blasting sub-contractor had not encountered this problem before. As a consequence, the sub-contractor intends to amend his procedures to eliminate the possibility of such an incident recurring. The report will now be forwarded to the Health and Safety Executive for its attention. Both the sub-contractor and main contractor have carried out a thorough search of the area and have given their assurance that no similar items are present.

  Corncrake Initiative
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Scottish countryside premium scheme will take the value of the corncrake initiative into account; and if he will make a statement. [28197]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The content of the proposed countryside premium scheme has yet to be finalised following the consultation period which ended on 30 April. Our proposals include specific measures to encourage the protection of ground nesting birds, including corncrakes.

  Funding for the countryside premium scheme is separate from any support given by Scottish Natural Heritage and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds to their corncrake initiative.

  Eaglesham Bypass
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from East Renfrewshire council concerning the Eaglesham bypass; and what response he has given. [27844]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  To date no representations have been received from East Renfrewshire council on this matter.

  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the east Renfrewshire council concerning an Eaglesham bypass; and if he will make a statement. [28328]
  428
  Mr. Forsyth
  No representations have been received from east Renfrewshire council on this matter. Guidance has now been issued to councils about a transport challenge fund which will operate from 1997–98. It is open to the council to submit a bid for challenge funding for the Eaglesham bypass if it wishes to do so.

  Mearnskirk Hospital Site
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the future of the Mearnskirk hospital site in Newton Mearns; and if he will make a statement. [28336]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Following full public consultation, Greater Glasgow health board will invest an estimated £4 million in a 60-bed elderly continuing care facility on the Mearnskirk hospital site. Surplus land on the site will be used for housing.

  The board's plans will match local services to local needs.

  Brain Search Facilities
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) centres and (b) hospitals which provide minute brain search facilities; and if he will make a statement. [28635]

  Mr.Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The majority of acute hospitals in Scotland are able to access neurological services. Neurosurgical services are provided at Aberdeen royal infirmary, Western general hospital in Edinburgh, Dundee royal infirmary and the Southern general hospital in Glasgow.

  Traffic Flows (A78)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what traffic flow surveys his Department has carried out on the Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston stretch of the A78; and if he will publish the results. [28609]

  Mr.Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Traffic flow counts have been carried out at several locations on the A78 between Ardrossan and Saltcoats over 10 and 12-hour periods on the dates shown as follows:

  Date

  Location

  Recorded traffic flows

  26 May 1994

  200 metres west of Dalry Road, Saltcoats

  7260 Eastbound (12 hours)

  26 May 1994

  As above

  7480 Westbound (12 hours)

  21 April 1995

  Eglinton Road (At Seafield Drive), Ardrossan

  4832 Southbound (12 hours)

  21 April 1995

  As above

  4347 Northbound (12 hours)

  16 November 1995

  Loanhead Road, Ardrossan

  5049 Westbound (10 hours)

  16 November 1995

  As above

  5507 Eastbound (10 hours)

  25 January 1996

  As above

  5277 Westbound (10 hours)

  25 January 1996

  As above

  5030 Eastbound (10 hours)

  29 February 1996

  Parkhouse Road (High Tide Bar), Ardrossan

  5205 Northbound (10 hours)

  29 February 1996

  As above

  5413 Southbound (10 hours)

  429
  There is also a census point on the route within Saltcoats which was last counted on 26 May 1994. The total two-way traffic flow recorded was 17,150 vehicle movements over a 24-hour period of which 7 per cent. were heavy goods vehicles.

  In addition to this, my consulting engineers employed to plan the proposed Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston bypass have undertaken a number of traffic surveys during 1992 and 1993. This information will be contained in the environmental assessment stage 3 report which will be available for inspection by interested parties upon publication of the order.

  Peter William Hurtt
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the convictions of Peter William Hurtt; on what date such representations were received; and when he expects to reach a decision. [28905]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Representations on Mr. Hurtt's behalf were sent to my right hon. Friend on 22 May 1989, on 1 September 1992, on 4 May 1993 and on 29 August 1994. The three earlier representations have already been dealt with. The most recent representations allege that new scientific evidence has come to light which casts doubt on the safety of Mr. Hurtt's conviction. My right hon. Friend hopes to reach a decision on the latest petition as soon as may be possible.

  Traffic Flows (A737)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what traffic flow surveys his Department has carried out on the volume of traffic flowing along the A737 at its junction with the A738; and if he will publish the results. [28610]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No traffic surveys have been carried out at this location by the Scottish Office. However, a traffic survey was carried out about 1 mile south-east of this location on 13 June 1994 by the former Strathclyde regional council. The traffic survey produced an annual average daily flow of 10,522, of which 8 per cent. were heavy goods vehicles.

  NHS Management
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 581, if he will list those chief executives who were employed by one NHS employer in Scotland and who resigned to take up employment with another NHS employer in Scotland since 1 September 1994; and if he will name in each case the NHS employing organisations they (a) left and (b) took up employment with. [28604]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Mr. G. Buchanan, who resigned employment with Caithness and Sutherland NHS trust and took up employment with Moray Health 430
  Services NHS trust, is the only chief executive to resign employment from one NHS employer in Scotland and become employed by another since 1 September 1994.

  Head and Deputy Head Teachers
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) staff and (b) female staff were employed at (i) head teacher, (ii) assistant head teacher and (iii) deputy head teacher levels for (1) secondary and (2) primary schools for each education authority within Scotland in September 1994. [28613]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Number (full-time equivalent) of headteachers, assistant headteachers and deputy head-teachers in education authority primary and secondary schools in Scotland at September 1994

  Head teacher

  Deputy head teacher

  Assistant head teacher

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Total

  Female

  Secondary schools

  Scotland

  394

  18

  395

  47

  1,031

  250

  Borders

  9

  0

  9

  1

  27

  5

  Central

  17

  1

  20

  1

  49

  5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  16

  0

  16

  0

  32

  4

  Fife

  19

  0

  18

  4

  69

  18

  Grampian

  38

  1

  37

  5

  98

  24

  Highland

  26

  0

  26

  1

  42

  6

  Lothian

  44

  3

  44

  6

  123

  30

  Strathclyde

  167

  11

  174

  22

  490

  126

  Tayside

  30

  1

  30

  4

  86

  28

  Orkney

  6

  0

  2

  0

  5

  1

  Shetland

  8

  1

  8

  1

  3

  1

  Western Isles

  14

  0

  12

  2

  7

  2

  Strathclyde Divisions

  Argyll and Bute

  10

  0

  10

  1

  22

  2

  Ayr

  29

  2

  27

  3

  80

  12

  Dunbarton

  23

  1

  27

  4

  77

  30

  Glasgow

  40

  3

  44

  5

  120

  36

  Lanark

  37

  3

  36

  2

  111

  26

  Renfrew

  28

  2

  30

  7

  81

  20

  Scotland

  2,256

  1,658

  708

  629

  775

  706

  Borders

  73

  48

  14

  14

  6

  5

  Central

  113

  86

  51

  46

  39

  36

  Dumfries and Galloway

  109

  70

  24

  22

  12

  8

  Fife

  144

  103

  57

  55

  43

  40

  Grampian

  265

  181

  80

  70

  59

  52

  Highland

  193

  138

  29

  27

  14

  11

  Lothian

  231

  154

  131

  114

  85

  77

  Strathclyde

  864

  696

  257

  226

  445

  415

  Tayside

  183

  119

  62

  53

  51

  43

  Orkney

  19

  15

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Shetland

  27

  19

  2

  1

  8

  7

  Western Isles

  34

  29

  1

  1

  11

  10

  Strathclyde Divisions

  Argyll and Bute

  71

  52

  8

  7

  6

  6

  Ayr

  146

  106

  45

  37

  73

  67

  Dunbarton

  114

  96

  44

  40

  66

  62

  Glasgow

  222

  186

  63

  60

  109

  103

  Lanark

  205

  170

  45

  38

  106

  97

  Renfrew

  106

  86

  52

  44

  86

  81

  Hospital and Health Services Contracts
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the contracts for hospital and health services awarded under the competitive tendering process
  431
  to date by (a) Argyll and Clyde, (b) Ayrshire and Arran, (c) Borders, (d) Dumfries and Galloway, (e) Fife, (f) Forth Valley, (g) Grampian, (h) Greater Glasgow, (i) Highland, (j) Lanarkshire, (k) Lothian, (l) Orkney, (m) Shetland, (n) Tayside and (o) Western Isles health boards; and if he will indicate the successful tenderers and the value of the contracts. [28618]

  Contracts Awarded

  Service type

  Contractor

  Commence date

  Previous cost £000

  Tender value £000

  By Health Board

  Highland

  Internal audit

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1 October 1995

  38

  38

  Orkney

  Internal audit

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1 October 1995

  18

  18

  Shetland

  Internal audit

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1 October 1995

  18

  18

  Western Isles

  Domestic

  In-house

  1 January 1996

  433

  410

  Catering

  In-house

  1 January 1996

  456

  433

  Internal audit

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1 October 1995

  30

  30

  Laundry

  In-house

  1 January 1996

  119

  119

  Laundry

  In-house

  1 January 1996

  74

  55

  By NHS Trust

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals

  Internal audit

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1 October 1995

  78

  78

  Occupational health

  RGIT Health Ltd.

  1 April 1995

  95

  1160

  Caithness and Sutherland

  Internal audit

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1 October 1995

  28

  28

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals

  Catering

  In-house

  1 August 1995

  1,337

  1,324

  Fife Healthcare

  Supplies

  In-house

  1 April 1996

  223

  221

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  Hotel services

  Initial

  28 January 1996

  774

  713

  Grampian Healthcare

  Internal audit

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1 October 1995

  70

  70

  Highland Communities

  Internal audit

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1 October 1995

  50

  50

  Moray Health Services

  Internal audit

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1 October 1995

  44

  44

  Raigmore Hospital

  Internal audit

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1 October 1995

  43

  43

  1 Higher specification of services being provided with the new contract.

  Bursaries
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the amount of money(a) allocated in the current financial year to each further education college in Scotland for bursaries and (b) spent on bursaries for each college by the previous regional councils in 1995–96. [28648]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information is set out in the table.

  College

  1996–97 bursary allocation

  1995–96 local authority expenditure

  Aberdeen

  3,416,389

  3,362,732

  Angus

  1,254,211

  1,234,513

  Anniesland

  517,128

  509,007

  Ayr

  1,022,273

  1,006,217

  Banff and Buchan

  1,032,714

  1,016,494

  Barony

  150,002

  147,826

  Bell

  —

  —

  Borders

  1,162,435

  1,144,178

  Cambuslang

  509,326

  501,326

  Cardonald

  1,674,300

  1,648,003

  Central

  522,465

  514,259

  Clackmannan

  630,934

  621,025

  Clydebank

  1,295,143

  1,274,802

  Coatbridge

  862,214

  848,672

  Cumbernauld

  561,627

  552,806

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,381,549

  1,359,851

  Dundee

  2,335,871

  2,299,184

  Elmwood

  481,628

  474,064

  Falkirk

  1,624,131

  1,598,623

  Fife

  924,418

  909,899

  GCBP

  683,312

  672,580

  432
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Newcastle Upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 29 March 1995, column 581, which stated that the information requested had been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Since that date, information subsequently received on contracts awarded is set out as follows.

  College

  1996–97 bursary allocation

  1995–96 local authority expenditure

  GCFT

  659,434

  649,077

  GCNS

  570,988

  562,020

  Glenrothes

  880,220

  866,395

  Inverness

  1,545,448

  1,521,176

  James Watt

  1,605,220

  1,580,009

  JEVC

  995,670

  980,032

  John Wheatley

  368,111

  362,329

  Kilmarnock

  1,578,468

  1,553,677

  Langside

  970,046

  954,811

  Lauder

  1,020,161

  1,004,138

  Lews Castle

  388,848

  382,741

  Moray

  1,423,876

  1,401,513

  Motherwell

  1,833,883

  1,805,081

  North Glasgow

  831,965

  818,898

  Oatridge

  252,429

  248,465

  Perth

  1,305,562

  1,285,057

  Reid Kerr

  1,436,578

  1,414,015

  Stevenson

  1,375,391

  1,353,789

  Stow

  792,189

  779,747

  Telford

  1,974,867

  1,943,850

  Thurso

  449,325

  442,268

  West Lothian

  753,819

  741,980

  Total

  45,054,568

  44,347,129

  Ambulance Base, Kyleakin
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he received in favour of the proposal to site an ambulance base at Kyleakin, Isle of Skye; and if he will make a statement. [29238]
  433
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. However, the Scottish Ambulance Service NHS trust aims to make the most efficient and effective use of the resources at its disposal to improve the quality of service to its patients. In view of the changes brought about by the opening of the Skye bridge, the Scottish Ambulance Service has conducted a review and has concluded that the additional costs of establishing an ambulance station in Kyleakin will be justified by improved activation and response times. Highland health board, which is responsible for purchasing appropriate levels of emergency ambulance provision in the area, has supported these proposals.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the decision to site an ambulance base at Kyleakin, Isle of Skye, with specific reference to the prohibition upon serving personnel to discuss the issue with others; and if he will make a statement. [29239]

  Mr.Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. The deployment of its staff and vehicles and the siting of ambulance stations are operational matters for the Scottish Ambulance Service NHS trust to decide in agreement with the purchasing health board. The staff are fully aware of the proposals and have the opportunity to make any observations on these to senior officers of the service.

  Caledonian MacBrayne
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the subsidy to be paid to Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. for the financial year commencing 1 April 1996; what it was for the year ended 31 March; how much of the difference in the figures is attributable to the withdrawal of the Kyle of Lochalsh-Kyleakin service; and if he will make a statement. [29240]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Subject to approval of the estimates, the Government propose to make available to Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. in 1996–97 revenue deficit grant amounting to £11.7 million. The amount of revenue deficit grant made available to Caledonian MacBrayne in 1995–96 was £8.3 million. The increased requirement for revenue deficit grant in 1996–97 reflects a number of factors, including the loss of the revenue contribution from the Kyle of Lochalsh-Kyleakin service and the cost of compliance with additional safety requirements applying to ro-ro ferries. It is not the Government's practice to disclose information about the profit or loss incurred by Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. in providing ferry services on individual routes.

  NHS Consultants
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of the number of current vacancies for consultants in each NHS trust in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [29496]

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

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many doctors were in higher training for consultancy positions in each year since 1990. [29498]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  434

  Hospital medical senior registrars in Scotland at 30 September

  Senior registrars

  1990

  405

  1991

  403

  1992

  390

  1993

  424

  1994

  467

  1995

  479

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many vacancies for consultants there currently are in the NHS in Scotland; how many of these posts have been vacant for six months or more; how many vacancies for consultants there have been in each month since 30 September 1995; and if he will make a statement. [29495]

  Mr.Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest information available centrally shows that at 30 September 1995 there were 201 consultant vacancies in the NHS in Scotland; 72 of these had been vacant for six months or more.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown, by specialist field, of the current vacancies for consultants in the NHS in Scotland. [29497]

  Mr.Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest information available centrally is shown in the table.

  Consultant vacancies in the NHS in Scotland at 30 September 1995

  Accident and Emergency

  12

  Anaesthetics

  29

  Laboratory and support specialists

  9

  Blood transfusion

  1

  Clinical chemistry

  1

  Haematology

  2

  Microbiology

  4

  Pathology

  1

  Medical specialists

  46

  Dermatology

  1

  General medicine (group)

  21

  Cardiology

  4

  Communicable diseases

  1

  Gastroenterology

  4

  General medicine

  10

  Nephrology

  1

  Respiratory medicine

  1

  Geriatric medicine

  3

  Medical paediatrics

  14

  Neurology

  2

  Palliative medicine

  2

  Radiotherapy

  1

  Rehabilitation medicine

  2

  Obstetrics and gynaecology

  5

  Occupational health

  1

  Psychiatric specialists

  46

  Child and Adolescent psychiatry

  5

  Forensic psychiatry

  2

  General psychiatry

  29

  Mental handicap

  4

  Old age psychiatry

  6

  435

  Consultant vacancies in the NHS in Scotland at 30 September 1995

  Radiology

  6

  Diagnostic radiology

  6

  Surgical specialties

  31

  ENT surgery

  6

  General surgery

  5

  Ophthalmology

  5

  Orthopaedic surgery

  6

  Plastic surgery

  2

  Surgical paediatrics

  1

  Urology

  6

  Public health medicine

  8

  Community Specialties

  3

  Community child health

  2

  Family planning

  1

  Dental specialties

  5

  Oral surgery

  1

  Orthodontics

  3

  Restorative dentistry

  1

  Total

  201

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the revenue spending estimated by his Department in connection with the private finance initiative for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26636]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 2 May 1996]: The estimated revenue payments which may be met from my expenditure programmes in respect of private finance initiative projects reported to the Scottish Office are, for the three years respectively (a) £12 million (b) £20 million and (c) £51 million.

  Office Space
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the square footage and cost of office space rented by his Department and its agencies and the number of his Department or agencies' buildings partly, or fully unoccupied together with the square footage of that unoccupied office space and its estimated rental value where available in each of the past five financial years. [27722]

  Mr.Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 May 1996]: Most of the leased office space occupied by the Scottish Office during the past five financial years formed part of the common user estate which was the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service has provided details of rents and vacant space on the common user estate which were held centrally.

  Details of payments made to Property Holdings by the Scottish Office in respect of common user estate accommodation, are shown in table 1. Information regarding offices leased directly by the Scottish Office and its agencies is given in table 2. In both cases, figures
  436
  are readily available only for the last three years and information regarding vacant space during that time could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Table 1: Scottish Office Common User Estate Offices

  Year

  Total number of buildings

  Rental cost (excl. VAT)

  Total leased floor area (ft2)

  1995–96

  28

  4,166,366

  423,769

  1994–95

  33

  3,916,859

  484,652

  1993–94

  34

  4,878,211

  511,578

  Table 2: Scottish Office (and Agencies) Offices

  Year

  Total number of buildings

  Rental cost (excluding VAT)

  Total leased floor area (ft2)

  1995–96

  15

  182,481

  23,697

  1994–95

  15

  173,761

  22,434

  1993–94

  16

  180,656

  70,547

  River Pollution
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the letter of Dr. D. M. Holloway of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency eastern region of 2 April about the River Almond(a) what action he is taking to reduce ammonia concentrations elevated to levels toxic to aquatic organisms, (b) what action is available to him in respect of the deposition of sewage solids on the bed of the river, (c) what help he is giving with the construction of a trunk sewer from the Almond catchment area to Edinburgh and (d) if he will bring responsibility for abandoned minewater drainage within the control of SEPA. [27932]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 13 May 1996]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has identified the River Almond as a sensitive area under the Urban Waste Water Treatment (Scotland) Regulations 1994. This means that discharges of urban waste water from agglomerations with a population equivalent greater than 10,000 must by 31 December 1998 receive further treatment than either secondary or equivalent treatment in order that directive requirements may be fulfilled in respect of the watercourse. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency has responsibility for the regulation of discharges to controlled waters and will monitor discharges to ensure compliance with the regulations.

  The East of Scotland Water Authority, however, intends that discharging into the River Almond should cease and that the proposed River Almond valley trunk sewer should take these discharges direct to Edinburgh sewage treatment works. There should then be a rapid improvement in the biological and chemical quality of the river and, in particular, a reduction in ammonia concentrations and deposition of sewage solids. The authority is at present considering using the private finance initiative to fund this project. The tendering process is likely to commence in June 1996.

  Owners or operators of existing abandoned mines have a statutory defence against prosecution for permitting water from an abandoned mine to enter controlled waters. However, the Coal Authority is working closely with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on developing a programme of projects for the treatment of minewater

  437
  discharges. Discharges from mines abandoned after 31 December 1999 will be subject to regulatory control by the agency.

  Fishing Safety
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total value of grant aid awarded to Scottish fishermen under the Fishing Vessels (Improvement) (Grants) scheme in each year from 1990 to 1995, and the first quarter of 1996. [29175]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 13 May 1996]: Scottish fishing vessels received a total of £4.95 million under the Fishing Vessels (Improvement) (Grants) schemes between 1990–91 and 1995–96. A breakdown of the expenditure per year is given in the table.

  Year

  Amount paid (£)

  1990–91

  611,988

  1991–92

  263,290

  1992–93

  224,951

  1993–94

  935,580

  1994–95

  1,478,303

  1995–96

  1,437,155

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the average length of time taken to process applications for grants awarded in Scotland under the provisions of the Fishing Vessels (Improvement) (Grants) scheme each year from 1990 to 1995. [29154]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 13 May 1996]: The Sea Fish Industry Authority administers the Fishing Vessels (Improvement) (Grants) scheme on behalf of the Government. It does not keep detailed historical records of the time taken to deal with individual applications, but I understand that the average time taken to deal with an application, from receipt to formal approval, is estimated as four weeks.

  Ravenspark Hospital
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions his Department has had during the last six months with officers of Ayrshire and Arran health board and the Ayrshire and Arran community healthcare NHS trust concerning the closure of Ravenspark hospital. [29005]

  Mr.Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 May 1996]: Scottish Office officials meet regularly with Ayrshire and Arran health board and the Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS trust to discuss a wide range of issues. The health board is keeping my Department in touch with developments concerning Ravenspark hospital.

  NHS (Private Contracts)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what contracts NHS trusts and health boards have entered into with private providers during the financial years(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96; and if he
  438
  will list the NHS bodies involved, the values of the contracts in each case, the private providers used and the nature of each of the contracts. [29074]

  Mr.Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 May 1996]: Comprehensive information about the extent to which NHS trusts and health boards contract with the private sector is not available centrally.

ENVIRONMENT

  Listed Structures (Demolition)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many listed buildings and other structures have been demolished since 1992. [28716]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 7 February at column 248, giving figures for the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–5. The corresponding figures for the financial year 1992–93 are:

  Grade I: 0

  Grade II: 0

  Grade II: 68.

  The Department is currently compiling figures for 1995–96. I shall write to the hon. Member once they are available.

  Opencast Mining
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made towards finalising the mineral planning guidance note No. 7; what representations he has received from local authorities regarding the restoration of opencast coal sites; and if he will make a statement. [29276]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A draft of mineral planning guidance note No. 7 was published for public consultation in December 1995, and comments were requested by 14 February 1996. Responses were received from the local authority associations, three local authorities and the Coalfield Communities Campaign regarding the reclamation of opencast coal sites. Their comments are being carefully considered, alongside all other responses. Revised guidance will be published in due course.

  Landlords (Right of Entry)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what circumstances landlords have a right of entry to their own property without a court order. [28928]

  Mr. Clappison
  Landlords have a right of entry to their property where there is specific provision in the tenancy agreement or lease. They also have statutory and common law rights of entry in defined circumstances, for instance when they need to carry out repairs, or to allow them to value their interest in a property which is subject to a statutory claim by leaseholders wishing to enfranchise or acquire a new lease.

  Joint Tenancies
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to issue guidance to local housing authorities on the use of joint tenancies for adults sharing a home on a long-term basis. [29580]

  Mr. Curry
  I have today published DOE circular 7/96, "Local Authority Joint Tenancies". Copies have been sent to all local housing authorities in England. A parallel circular has been issued in Wales. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Biodiversity Steering Group
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to respond to the report 440
  of the biodiversity steering group; and if he will make a statement. [29685]

  Mr. Gummer
  The UK biodiversity steering group was set up to advise the Government on the further development of the UK biodiversity action plan. The Government welcomed the group's report at its launch in December 1995. It will publish its response tomorrow under a foreword from the Prime Minister. The response will be positive and will explain how the Government, in partnership with other sectors will implement the species and habitat action plans and carry forward the other recommendations in the report. In particular it will set out a number of new initiatives it is taking to ensure that the UK maintains its leading role in the implementation of the convention on biological diversity. Copies of the response will be placed in the Library.

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

Gibraltar: Spanish Intervention
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware that the Spanish Government have objected to the participation by Gibraltar in an international conference of Customs officials which Gibraltar has attended for many years and whether they will protest to the Spanish Government over this course of action.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the Spanish Government tried to prevent Gibraltar Customs attendance at an international conference in France last month. We intervened and ensured that Gibraltar Customs attended the meeting.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that satisfactory reply. Will she make it clear to the Spanish Government that these attempts to trouble Gibraltar will not pay the Spanish Government any profit; and that, on the contrary, we shall stand up to them in all these international obligations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his supplementary question. We have maintained our commitment to the people of Gibraltar and we shall go on doing so. The Spanish Government's behaviour in obstructing the border and in other harassment of Gibraltar only strengthens our resolve. We have protested to them about delays at the border. It is an absolute nonsense for them to suggest that they are justified by reference to smuggling. Our commitment will remain. We shall not let the people of Gibraltar pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. The election is on 16th May. We shall work with the new elected government to ensure good governance and an economically sustainable Gibraltar.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, following what the Minister has just said, will she tell the House what plans, if any, the Government have to reopen talks on the long-term future of Gibraltar, and to find a solution which is satisfactory to Spain, Gibraltar and the UK? As elections are to take place on Thursday, would not now be a good time to consider reopening such talks, given that it is some time since the talks last took place and that they then broke down?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, Gibraltar is British. As long as the people of Gibraltar want her to remain British, that is what they will voice in their
386
elections. That does not mean we should not discuss an appropriate modus vivendi with the Spanish Government, and that we do. We talk to the Spanish on all occasions. My honourable friend David Davis is in constant contact with them in order to resolve the difficulties that we have had. I do not believe that there is any reason to change the policy at the moment, and I do not believe that the people of Gibraltar wish it.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, have the Spaniards made any moves to give up their enclaves on the African coast?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in this House I might have been the first to hear of that had they done so, and I have heard no such message.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the Minister mentioned smuggling. Is not the smuggling of drugs a substantial common interest to Her Majesty's Government the Government of Spain and the Government of Gibraltar? What active steps are the Government taking to promote discussions on that matter?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord. We have taken firm action against smuggling in Gibraltar. We are determined that it should end for good. The situation has improved out of all recognition since the measures we took last year. Spain must accept that. Our measures have been further strengthened by action against the fast boats following the crash about which we spoke in this House some weeks ago. We have to have proper, continuous, sound cross-border co-operation. That is what we seek to have with the Spanish through Gibraltar. There have been bad problems, but they have declined. We intend to ensure that they remain as minimal as they can be made.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry to come back, but I was a little surprised by the Minister's answer. Is she not aware that the Gibraltarians themselves are unhappy about their present constitutional position and wish to see talks on these matters?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am aware that some parts of Gibraltar are unhappy. We cannot possibly pre-empt the views of the newly elected Gibraltar Government who will no doubt emerge later this week. When we have their views, we can look at the future. Gibraltar is part of the EU by virtue of our membership. Its citizens are EU citizens. We want to work not just with the Gibraltarians but with the Spanish. I believe that we should continue to await the decision of the people of Gibraltar. We can then review what will happen. No one in your Lordships' House should be in any doubt—our commitment to the people of Gibraltar continues, and the amount of help that we give them is extensive.

Open Spaces in Urban Areas
2.42 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to encourage the revival, development and preservation of open spaces in urban areas.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government are committed to maintaining, enhancing and preserving open spaces in our towns and cities. We provide substantial planning and practice guidance, and 160 successful bids under the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund have included improved or reclaimed open space. In addition to the measures which the Government have taken, the Heritage Lottery Fund has launched an urban park programme.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most encouraging Answer. Is he aware of two reasons why the policy which he has announced must be faithfully pursued? The first is that the drift of people from towns is one of the major threats to the countryside. The second is that recent research shows that many species of birds prefer to live in towns so long as the habitat there is suitable—of course, I refer to real birds.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. I am sure he is aware that peregrine falcons, in particular, find living in towns agreeable to the point where citizens of Cardiff have taken to eliminating them because of the threat to racing pigeons. Towns are places for people to live in, and we must make them pleasant places to live in.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that British Coal Enterprise, which has been privatised, was responsible for open spaces and recreational facilities in the coalfield communities? What assurances can he give that those will be maintained?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, those open spaces will be the responsibility of local councils and local people. I hope that they will continue the good work which British Coal started.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, have the Government given any thought to the future of Spring Common, which is in the Prime Minister's constituency of Huntingdon? Is he aware that the six acres of that haven for people and wildlife was saved from development only because the developer went bankrupt? Can he persuade the local Conservative council to heed the wishes of local people and stop development on that open space?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have to be careful about what I say about any particular site because my right honourable friend is the final "appeal court" on planning applications. I shall look into the particular site, about which I have no immediate knowledge, and write to the noble Baroness.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, can the Government give some encouragement to councils to
388
look after allotment land in a better fashion? Such land is rarely properly guarded, and there is a great temptation for councils to try to reallocate allotment holders in order to sell the land for development purposes.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, while allotments are used well, they are an important part of the local community and should be regarded as such. I believe that they are protected under the planning guidance that we issue. Surely where allotments are no longer used it is right for the local council to try to find a better use.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, it is easy to create a situation in which allotments are deemed to be used improperly or to be under-used. The allotments become vandalised as a result of the provision of insufficient security. Equally, councils do not always publicise the availability of allotments and therefore they say that there is no demand. I believe that—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Earl asked a question, but I shall do so. The Minister spoke about certain steps which the Government have taken. Does he agree that local authorities which do not win what we regard as the lottery of the Single Regeneration Budget are left without any particular means of preserving open spaces in urban areas? Does he further agree that there is a need for legislation in respect of urban commons as opposed to rural commons? I believe that the Government have promised legislation on common land since 1987. Furthermore, can the Minister say what measures the Government have in their power to ensure that the Royal Parks in London are properly maintained?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as regards the first question, the Single Regeneration Budget is for regeneration; but the ordinary maintenance of parks ought to fall within the councils' ordinary budget. The SRB exists for improvements, for regeneration and the creation of new facilities. As regards the noble Lord's other questions, I shall write in answer to him.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, what advice do the Government give to local authorities on the use of pesticides and weed killers on open land to which the public have access? Is he aware that in a recent court case relating to a young child who was sprayed with glyphosate the parents won about £10,000? Is he further aware that a number of children have been badly affected by the improper use of pesticides?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I confess myself entirely at fault; I had not anticipated a supplementary question from the noble Countess. I should have done because usually I am asked a question. I am not aware of any particular regulations relating to spraying in parks which do not apply to the ordinary application of what in many circumstances are dangerous chemicals. However, I shall look into the matter and write to the noble Countess.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that since the Royal Parks became a next steps

389
agency, their maintenance has improved by leaps and bounds. That is particularly so in Regent's Park where, I believe, the eastern edge has been completely reconstituted to make a formal herbaceous border which is looking particularly fine at this moment. I saw it only 10 days ago.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my noble friend has great expertise in those matters. I am sure that he is right. I wish that I had more time to enjoy the beauty of London parks than I do.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I appreciate that the Secretary of State for the Environment is the final court of appeal in planning cases, subject, of course, to judicial review. Will my noble friend take seriously what the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, said so wisely about Spring Common, which is like a nature reserve and about which the people of Huntingdon are feeling very strongly because they do not want it developed.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, will the Minister accept that Vauxhall is a wonderful example of success regarding inner London spaces? However, South London deserves a greater priority. I have just walked through Vauxhall. To whom do we owe the beauty of the spaces of Vauxhall? Is it Lambeth Council in the 1970s or can the Government take some credit for that?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, far be it for me ever to try to take credit away from Lambeth Council.

Discrimination: Monitoring in DSS and Agencies
2.51 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to cut the budget for monitoring discrimination within the Department of Social Security and related agencies; and, if so, a by how much.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, there is no separate budget for equality monitoring. The great majority of equal opportunities monitoring is carried out as an integral part of the wider monitoring of the department's personnel work and this will continue.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. But is the Minister aware that that is at odds with a report in the Guardian which made it very clear that cuts are proposed? In fact, the Minister for disabled people commented on the proposed cuts and their effect. Is the Minister aware that all anti-discrimination policies are merely hot air unless they are monitored effectively? The proposed cuts which have been reported will undoubtedly lead to less effective monitoring on disablement, sex and race by the department. That
390
would be extremely regrettable because the Government should lead by example. Despite the Minister's response, it looks as though they are leading a retreat.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, that equal opportunities monitoring will continue in the department. But of course, we must look critically at our costs across the board in relation to how the department is run.
As regards disability, we are signed up to the fast-track scheme, a development programme for graduates with disabilities, at a cost of £20,000 over two years. We also provide disability awareness training at a cost of £20,000. We have a significant number of registered disabled staff and, in addition, there is an equally significant number of disabled staff who do not register.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that many of the reports coming from the Guardian should be treated with a large pinch of salt because, in many cases, they are misguided and misinform the general public? However, does he not agree that his department should discriminate in particular between fraudulent and genuine claims?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall not comment on whether or not one should believe everything that one reads in the Guardian. That is largely because I do not read it myself and therefore am unable to make a judgment about such matters.
The second part of my noble friend's question is somewhat wider than his initial remark. My noble friend is quite right. The department is always working to make sure that we discriminate between those who genuinely require benefits and those who are making fraudulent claims. Currently, there is a very successful campaign taking place throughout the country to weed out those people who are making fraudulent claims.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the DSS is proposing a 50 per cent. cut in its budget for monitoring discrimination? Will he confirm what his honourable friend, Mr. Alistair Burt, said; namely, that:
"We have decided not to undertake any ethnicity follow-up surveys within the department or its agencies in the next three years"?
He then went on to say:
"This action will not affect our ability to promote equal opportunities and eliminate discrimination in the workplace".
If the Government do not monitor, how will they know?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the position is quite simple. We have undertaken ethnicity monitoring and we have had a very good response to that—something like 86 per cent. When we looked at all the other demands on the taxpayers' money in the department's budget, we decided that we should not undertake any ethnicity monitoring for the next three years following the surveys that we already have. That does not mean that our personnel department will not be actively pursuing equal opportunities for people on grounds of race, sex, or disablement.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if the Government do not monitor, how do they know whether those purposes are being fulfilled?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we shall monitor equal opportunities across the board. The point about the ethnicity study is that that sought to establish how many people of different ethnic groups work in the department and its agencies. The most important point is that we have a good base for those figures. There was an 86 per cent. return. We shall continue to monitor equal opportunities and, as I indicated, I believe that my department has an extremely good record in relation to disability.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the Minister not agree that, first, he gave the House the clear impression that there had been no cuts and now he seems to be indicating that there are cuts? Secondly, there is no question of anyone believing all that they read in the papers, but this is a case of believing a specific report which includes the comments of one of the noble Lord's ministerial colleagues acknowledging the point. Will the Minister please tell the House exactly where the Government stand? At first they said that we did not need anti-discrimination legislation on disability and opposed successive Bills for 13 years. They then said that we do require anti-discrimination legislation and they brought forward a Bill. They are now saying that they will cut the amount of monitoring which takes place. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are coming or going?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government are governing this country extremely sensibly. They are keeping public expenditure under control in a way which the Opposition certainly would not do because they oppose every proposal which I bring before your Lordships' House to contain government spending. But I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is not more generous in his appreciation of the fact that we piloted last year the Disability Discrimination Act. We—and especially my honourable friend Mr. Alistair Burt—are working very hard on implementing that Act.
As I indicated, we have taken steps to control the overall budget of the department. That includes the particular aspect of ethnic monitoring and so on. But I indicated quite clearly in my original Answer to the noble Lord that we spend money and time on ensuring that disabled people in the DSS are able to play a full part, right up to some of the highest levels of the officials in the department.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in his early replies the Minister mentioned sex, race and disability discrimination. He did not mention age discrimination. As the reports are now showing, about 50 per cent. of people aged over 55 are not employed. Therefore, the country is losing a great deal of commitment and ability. Will the department and, indeed, all government departments give a lead to industry by employing a higher proportion of people over the age of 55?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the subject raised by the noble Lord is one about which
392
I become increasingly concerned with every passing year. However, I shall have to look into that particular matter for the noble Lord because the discrimination in the Question only focused on three grounds. However, as the balance of working people in the country to retired people continues to move in an adverse direction, I have little doubt that many employers, including ourselves as government, will realise the importance of employing people right up to the age of retirement.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the fact that there is very clear evidence to show that people are discriminated against on the grounds of ethnicity? Further, can the noble Lord inform the House as to whether the Government's record as employers during the period when they have been monitoring the issue has achieved a result whereby they are totally satisfied that there is total equality of opportunity in the department and that all sections of the community are fully represented? What sort of example are the Government giving to other employers?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I must begin by saying that I utterly refute what the noble Baroness said at the start of her remarks. If the noble Baroness has knowledge of any cases of discrimination in my department then I suggest that she writes to me on the matter. However, if she has not, I very much regret the fact that she chose to imply that she does have knowledge of such cases. We do know where are staff come from, so to speak—especially the disabled members—and we certainly know the sex distribution. Indeed, 67 per cent. of all the staff in the Department of Social Security are women. Moreover, 6 per cent. of all our staff belong to ethnic minorities. When one considers that our offices are scattered throughout the length and breadth of the country, I believe that those figures are very good.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the level of unemployment is unacceptably high among all classes, but that some of the worst figures are seen at the younger end of the social structure? Therefore, is it not sometimes a little dangerous to select one group of people—for example, on the basis of age—and go too far down that road at the expense of other groups? Is not the answer to provide more jobs in the general sense? Will the Government start to do so?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean, that it is important that more jobs are provided. Indeed, this Government have had an extremely successful record, with more jobs in the economy. The rate of unemployment, especially youth unemployment, is coming down and, in comparison with our major European friends, we are in a far better position, largely because we have not signed up to things like the social chapter.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, so far as concerns age discrimination, the efforts of Marks & Spencer and of British Airways in advocating the employment of people of a mature age is to be welcomed?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, my Lords; I agree with my noble friend Lord Clark of Kempston. So far as concerns the economy, as I said in an earlier reply on the question of age, it is particularly important as the ratios between the economically active and the retired move in the wrong direction that employers look towards making more use of people who are still very able to be economically active. Indeed, those people can offer employers a good employee and often one who is very loyal and who can be relied upon.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, as regards the monitoring in the Minister's department, can the Minister tell the House in which grades the 67 per cent. of women that he mentioned are to be found?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Indeed, my Lords; I thought that I might be asked that question. Out of the 67 per cent. of all staff in the DSS who are women, 74 per cent. are in clerical and equivalent grades; 56 per cent. are in junior and middle-management grades; and 24 per cent. of senior management grades are filled by women. Moreover, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows, the DSS is headed by a permanent secretary who is a woman.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House as to whether there is clear evidence that young people, in particular from ethnic minority and black communities, suffer employment disproportionately? Does the noble Lord agree that the ministry has a responsibility to monitor its employment pattern and ensure that it plays its part in helping that particularly vulnerable group?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we play our part in ensuring that, when recruiting people, we do not discriminate against them on any grounds. Indeed, we take people who can do the job regardless of such factors. In fact, of the administrative assistants and equivalent grades in the DSS, 8.6 per cent. represent ethnic minorities. I believe that that figure suggests that, in those areas where there are ethnic minorities in some numbers, we do try to recruit from that group in particular.

Termination of Pregnancy (Restriction) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Abortion Act 1967 to prohibit the termination of a pregnancy on the grounds that the child, if it were born, would suffer from Down's syndrome. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Viscount Brentford.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Armed Forces Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Energy Conservation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Noise Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Railway Heritage Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Treasure Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Non-Domestic Rating (Information) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Security Service Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill which is before the House today is the first part of a comprehensive package of measures for tackling organised crime. The purpose of the Bill is to allow the skills and expertise of the Security Service to be used in support of the police and other law enforcement agencies in the prevention and detection of serious crime.
I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House will share the Government's concern about the threat posed by serious and organised crime. Seldom does a week go by without some story in the media about the suffering and violence that result from drug trafficking, whether it is the tragic death of some young victim or the recent spate of shootings in the Liverpool area linked to conflicts between rival drug gangs. Another important area of concern is economic crime, and in the past couple of weeks, we have read about Russian organised crime syndicates laundering millions of pounds through the London stock market.
The recent report of the Home Affairs Committee in another place on the subject of organised crime described it as,
"a cause for serious concern".

395
The report acknowledged that the level of such crime is lower in this country than some—for which grateful thanks must go to the existing efforts of our various law enforcement agencies—but concluded that,
"the Government and the police will need to take effective pre-emptive measures if an irretrievable expansion of organised crime in this country is to be avoided".
Part of the problem here is the changing nature of serious crime. Gone are the days when St. George could slay the dragon and solve his serious crime problem with a single, well-aimed blow. Serious crime is now a hydra—a monster with many heads—money laundering, trafficking in drugs, people and indeed anything that will generate profits on a sufficient scale. To combat it, the law enforcement response must involve a variety of agencies with a range of weapons in their armoury.
Increasingly, organised crime is being perpetrated by sophisticated organisations. Their activities cross national boundaries and are diversified into a complicated mixture of illegal and legal enterprises. As a result, the skills of intelligence gathering and analysis are becoming more and more valuable as the law enforcement agencies seek to dismantle entire organisations rather than responding to individual activities. The police and Customs are having considerable success and I should like to pay tribute to their efforts, but we must ensure they have all the necessary support at their disposal.
The Intelligence Services Act 1994 enabled both the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ to lend their support to the law enforcement agencies in the prevention and detection of serious crime. This is already proving useful in relation to gathering intelligence about overseas activities. Now the time has come to bring the Security Service's skills—in the collection, analysis and exploitation of intelligence—to bear in this country, not because of any deficiencies in the police service or Customs and Excise but because it makes sense to take full advantage of the Security Service's expertise, honed over many years of protecting the nation's security against a range of threats.
In a recent debate in your Lordships' House, initiated by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, there was a useful discussion of the evolving roles of the security and intelligence agencies. The debate was marked by a number of authoritative contributions reflecting the wealth of knowledge and experience in your Lordships' House. I am confident that our discussion of this Bill will benefit in similar fashion. Two useful messages that emerged from that debate were the importance, on the one hand, of the agencies proving adaptable to the demands of a changing world; and, on the other hand, of not losing sight of existing threats and priorities. I endorse both messages. This Bill represents a sensible evolution of the role of the Security Service, offering us the option of using the service's skills in a new area where those skills will be beneficial. At the same time, I give your Lordships a categorical assurance that the Security Service will continue to pursue its existing responsibilities with the utmost vigour and vigilance.
396
The functions of the Security Service are set down in the Security Service Act 1989. At present these are limited to the protection of national security and safeguarding the economic well-being of the nation against threats from abroad. This Bill will add a new function relating to serious crime. However, countering terrorism will remain its top priority and, sadly, we have had recent reminders of the importance of that task as the Provisional IRA has resumed its shameful bombing campaign. As a result, the initial allocation of resources to the new function will be small.
In the future, the allocation of resources will depend on the demands facing the service across its other functions. Nevertheless we believe that it is an important principle that the Security Service's statutory remit should not prevent it from lending its support to the police in appropriate circumstances. Such a restriction cannot be right and we now have an opportunity to remedy it. This will enable Parliament to send a powerful signal that we intend to crack down on organised crime with all the means at our disposal; a signal which is to be followed by a comprehensive package of further measures.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister first announced details of the organised crime package in October of last year. Some of your Lordships will have followed the evolution of those initial proposals which has taken place since then but, with your indulgence, I should like to recap. The package consists of a series of interlinked measures, designed to improve the capability of our law enforcement agencies to deal firmly and effectively with organised crime, both now and in the future. More specifically, the package aims to develop the co-ordination between law enforcement agencies and to improve our capability to gather and exploit intelligence. The Security Service Bill, which is before us today, will support both of those objectives.
As a next step, we will set up a national crime squad, building on the work of the regional crime squads; we will develop further the role of the National Criminal Intelligence Service; and we will put police intrusive surveillance operations on a statutory footing. There have already been organisational changes in the Home Office designed to improve the focus and effectiveness of support to the agencies fighting organised and international crime. The proposed national crime squad will ensure that the policing response to organised crime has an effective national tier. This reflects the changing nature of organised crime as it becomes an increasingly national and international phenomenon. No longer is this type of crime geographically localised, in the way that the gangland crime of East London used to be, but there are criminal groups capable of carrying out their activities across the country. With developments in travel and communications, crime has become more mobile, both within the United Kingdom and internationally. We have all read about the threat posed by the activities in this country of Chinese Triads and Jamaican "Yardies". The reporting is sometimes lurid and exaggerated; but the wide-ranging threat is very real. We must ensure that the police are equipped to deal effectively with threats that go beyond the local and regional level.

397
The regional crime squads have played an important and successful role in combating crime which crosses force boundaries but the present structure imposes a number of constraints. The squads are based on voluntary collaborative agreements and the national co-ordinator has no executive power. The new body will reinforce and develop the existing structure and bring it up to date. In doing this, it will not neglect close links with local police forces. The primary focus for policing in the United Kingdom will remain a local one. Similarly, the new squad will not disturb the tripartite relationship which underpins our policing. We are not proposing a British FBI. What will change is for the first time we will have an operational policing organisation which is able to offer a national response. Discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers and other interested parties over the detail of the new body are proceeding well. We intend to introduce early legislation to put this into effect.
I should stress at this point that "national" in this context means England and Wales. Scotland already has its Scottish Crime Squad, and of course the Royal Ulster Constabulary is Province-wide. Clearly it will be an important requirement for the new body in England and Wales to develop close contacts with its counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which underlines the importance of co-ordination.
This brings me to the development of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, or NCIS as it is known. NCIS was set up in 1992 to gather and assimilate intelligence on serious crime from law enforcement agencies in this country and from overseas agencies, for whom it acts as a focal point for contact. It has already made a useful contribution since then, establishing itself as one of the key components in the fight against serious crime. But it can be made more effective. We intend to give it a clearer statutory footing, independent from the Home Office, and greater freedom to manage its own affairs and develop its contribution. Again, we are developing detailed proposals in consultation with interested parties and hope to legislate as soon as possible.
The third area in which the Home Secretary has given a commitment to early legislation is intrusive surveillance operations carried out by the police. This is an issue which, your Lordships may have noted, has been the subject of considerable press comment in recent weeks. At present, such operations are authorised by chief officers in accordance with Home Office guidelines. The circumstances in which such authorisations can he given are tightly controlled and there has been no evidence of abuse. However, there has been concern for some time, from the police and others, that such operations should be governed by statute. The issue has been brought into relief by the present Bill because the exercise of equivalent powers by the intelligence agencies is already subject to statutory authority and safeguards.
I shall come on to the relevant provisions of the Bill shortly but let me emphasise now that the Government accept that intrusive activity of this nature should be governed by statute. This will provide the necessary protection for the public and, importantly, for officers
398
carrying out these functions. But we are still considering what form the statutory basis should take. This is an important and complex area and we do not want to legislate rashly or improvidently. We have no wish to undermine the police's use of surveillance technology which plays a key role in the response to serious and organised crime. We will bring forward legislation when we are ready. It is not something that can be addressed in this Bill, which is a discrete measure relating only to the functions of the Security Service.
I hope that your Lordships will permit me to outline briefly how we have arrived at the Bill, as a preface to explaining its provisions in detail. The Government established an inter-departmental/inter-agency working party last year to consider how the Security Service might contribute to work against organised crime. Its report included a set of five principles that should govern the Security Service's work in this field. Those principles represent the basis of the Bill and will, I believe, usefully inform our discussion. I shall list them. First, primacy of responsibility for countering organised crime lies and should remain with the law enforcement agencies. Secondly, the Security Service should be tasked through NCIS and relevant co-ordinating groups and act in support of NCIS, chief officers of police, regional crime squads and Customs and Excise. Thirdly, the Security Service's contribution should be co-ordinated through NCIS and existing structures. The service should not operate independently. Fourthly, the Security Service should be able to draw on its full range of skills, capabilities and expertise. Fifthly, the costs of the Security Service's involvement should be borne by the Security Service.
There was widespread support for these underlying principles in another place, and I hope that your Lordships' will be just as responsive.
Clause 1 of the Bill introduces the Security Service's new function and provides some qualification of how it will work in practice. It amends the Security Service Act 1989 which, as I said earlier, presently restricts the Security Service's functions to the protection of national security and safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats from abroad.
The new function is,
"to act in support of the activities of police forces and other law enforcement agencies in the prevention and detection of serious crime".
This makes it absolutely clear that the Security Service's role is to be a supporting one and reflects fully the principle that the police and other law enforcement agencies will retain the primary responsibility.
The only other point I should like to make on the wording of the new function relates to the use of the term "serious crime", when I have already spoken in some detail about the threat from "organised crime" and the Government's strategy for tackling "organised crime". There are simple and practical reasons for this. Firstly, there is no statutory definition of "organised crime". Nor is there even a widely agreed definition in common use. I am sure that we could spend many hours trying to construct a definition but that would, 1 fear, distract us from our task.

399
Secondly, work of the kind undertaken by the Security Service is frequently exploratory in character. In the early stages of an investigation into the links between pockets of criminal activity it will not be possible to be certain that they are all manifestations of organised crime. We must strive to avoid creating loopholes that could be exploited by unscrupulous defence lawyers to challenge the legality of the Security Service's involvement in a case. It is more appropriate, in legal terms, for the function to be expressed in terms of the gravity of the crime rather than its level of organisation.
Nevertheless, it is the Government's firm intention, which I am happy to restate for your Lordships' benefit, that the Security Service should be deployed against organised crime, as it is commonly understood. It is the drug traffickers, the money launderers and the racketeers who are to become the Security Service's new targets.
The rest of Clause 1 offers a further safeguard on the Security Service's new role. To ensure that the service does not act independently, the Bill creates a new duty for the Director General of the Security Service to agree co-ordination arrangements with a person designated by the Secretary of State. Subsection (3) stipulates that this person must be, or have been, a chief officer of police and the Home Secretary has made it clear in another place that he will be designating the Director General of NCIS for this role. This reflects the pivotal role which NCIS is to play in the co-ordination of the efforts of different agencies and, specifically, the use of intelligence. It also builds on the underlying principles that the tasking and co-ordination of the Security Service's contribution will be through NCIS.
These arrangements should not be administratively burdensome, nor should they hinder operational effectiveness. Our intention is that they should represent an agreement between the principal agencies on how the Security Service's contribution is to be integrated with existing efforts. This will provide a proper focusing of effort and ensure that the Security Service's operations remain visible to NCIS.
Clause 2 of the Bill reflects another of the underlying principles. If the Security Service's support is to be fully effective, we must ensure that the service is able to draw on all of its skills and capabilities. Accordingly, Clause 2 enables the Security Service to apply for warrants authorising entry on, or interference with, property in the United Kingdom in pursuance of its new function.
The capability to conduct intrusive surveillance operations is an essential weapon in the armoury of the Security Service. This power has been available to the service in respect of its existing functions since the passage in 1989 of the Security Service Act. The present Bill merely ensures that the power is available under the new function.
With regard to the Security Service and the other intelligence agencies, the issue of these "property warrants" is surrounded by a series of statutory safeguards. All warrants require the personal authorisation of the Secretary of State. All such warrants are subject to scrutiny from the independent
400
commissioner appointed under the 1989 Act. And any complaints submitted to the Security Service Tribunal which relate to alleged interference with property are referred to the commissioner for investigation.
All these safeguards will continue to apply to warrants issued in respect of the Security Service's new function, and there is a further test. Warrant applications will also have to satisfy a definition of serious crime, which focuses on characteristics such as the involvement of violence or substantial financial gain. The definition is the same as the one which has been used effectively to govern the issue of warrants under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. A definition has been introduced here, when there is not one in Clause 1, because applications for property warrants are only likely to come at a more advanced stage when it is reasonable to expect there to be tangible evidence of serious criminal conduct. I believe that this represents a formidable set of safeguards, and rightly so, given the intrusive nature of the power.
With regard to the police, as I mentioned, we have acknowledged that there ought to be an equivalent statutory basis for the exercise of equivalent powers. In the meantime that is no reason for denying the Security Service the opportunity to use its powers when there are all the accompanying safeguards.
Clause 3 extends the Bill to Northern Ireland. The Security Service operates throughout the United Kingdom in its existing functions and it is only right that the same should be true for its serious crime remit. After all, organised crime is UK-wide.
Of course, there are legislative and organisational differences in Scotland and Northern Ireland. This means that co-operation with the Scottish police and the RUC will be essential for the Security Service to be effective. Although NCIS is to play a central role in relation to tasking and co-ordinating the Security Service's contribution, this will in no way preclude or replace effective bilateral liaison with other agencies, including Customs, the Scottish police and the RUC. As I said at the outset, we must ensure that the differing skills and capabilities of a wide range of agencies are effectively harnessed if we are to tackle organised crime.
I am sure that we will all be united in our condemnation of the drug traffickers and their like who cause so much pain and suffering to the victims of their squalid pursuit of profits. This small but significant Bill reflects the Government's firm resolve to combat the menace of organised crime with all the skills and resources at our disposal.
Allowing the Security Service into the fray in support of the law enforcement agencies will not eliminate organised crime but it is one more piece in the jigsaw of an effective and focused response. The new national crime squad and the development of NCIS will be two more pieces. This Bill promises to bring valuable extra skills to support the sterling efforts of our law enforcement agencies. It does so without compromising the safeguards and systems of accountability which the Government have introduced via the Security Service Act and the Intelligence Services Act. The Bill attracted

401
all-party support in another place and I am confident that your Lordships will approach it in a similarly constructive manner. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about plans for future legislation on the setting up of a national crime squad which was always envisaged when NCIS was set up in 1979. I remember it well because the service took over a whole floor of Scotland Yard and threw out all our plans for relocation of offices. I also welcome the plans for the use of surveillance technology to be put upon a statutory basis; but, as I understand it, those plans are for next year's legislation and not what we are concerned with today. I have reservations about the Bill before us. My qualifications for speaking about it are not only my 34 years in the Police Service, but also that my father was in another branch of the security services for nearly 30 years—MI6, not MI5.
Any additional resources for the Police Service, particularly in relation to organised crime, drug trafficking and money laundering, when it is on an international scale, are clearly welcome. However, I have reservations about the method of providing the Police Service with additional resources. I also have reservations about the definition of "serious crime". The support of the security services as an intelligence-gathering background to police work is clearly welcome. But the drift into operational support concerns me, as does the unclear nature of the definition of "serious crime". Although I accept what the Minister said and her assurances that it is meant to apply to drug traffickers and serious money laundering cases, that is not what the Bill before us says.
We live theoretically in a democratic society, which protects us against the arbitrary use of powers by the state. Part of that protection should be to protect freedom of speech and the inviolacy of our homes. Those are important rights. To some extent, we voluntarily give them up when we are dealing with such matters as the security of the state, terrorism, acts of treason, and so on. But in relation to other rights that we have to speak freely in our own homes, to use telephones freely, not to have bugs planted in our homes and not to be burgled, it is important that the relinquishing of those important freedoms is hedged about with clear accountability and openness, particularly when things go wrong. The Minister dwelt on the application for warrants. My concern is not so much about the systems that apply to applications for warrants but what happens when things go wrong.
MI5 does not have a system of clear accountability. Of necessity, it is a secret organisation; its budget is secret; its numbers and resources are secret. It is accorded special privileges by the courts: for example, its internal paperwork is protected from disclosure; and its members can be given anonymity as witnesses. So its proceedings are not open. It has no public complaints system, and I shall return to that point in more detail in a moment.
402
Any other organisation that apparently had spare capacity—presumably due to the end of the Cold War and the hoped for reduction in IRA activity—would be subjected to market testing and required to justify its expenditure and current staffing. The fact that that does not happen is due partly to the protective pall of secrecy that is thrown over the organisation, but also, I suspect, to the remaining influence of old school ties in the corridors of power.
The Bill will extend the role of the security services to allow them to act
"in the prevention and detection of serious crime".
The definition of "serious crime" is drawn so widely in the Bill that it includes any offence subject to over three years' imprisonment and so could include street robbery and wounding with intent.
The Police Service is subject to an elaborate open complaints system which is already often widely criticised for being insufficiently independent and accountable. The Police Complaints Authority, however, would have no powers to investigate MI5 officers, even when they are involved in a joint operation with police. The Police Complaints Authority publishes its findings and its investigations have often resulted in many police officers going to court and being dismissed from the Police Service. In contrast, the Security Services Tribunal works in secret and has dismissed all complaints made against MI5 officers since it was set up in 1989.
If there is a joint operation between MI5 and the Police Service which goes wrong, if the wrong house is entered, if an innocent person's telephone is bugged, how will the complaint be investigated? Is it equitable that the police officers will be subjected to a higher level of investigation and that their jobs alone will be at risk? How will the interests of the public be protected in this dual secretive and unsatisfactory system?
There are no special skills or techniques in MI5 which are not available to the Police Service. If there are spare resources in the security services, then they should be transferred to the Police Service. To blur the distinction between the separate arms of the state is, I believe, dangerous and threatens the structure of our democracy which is often more frail than it may appear.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, made a significant and important speech. I agree with much of it and at least sympathise with her overall tone. On the third day of the debate on the Address on 20th November last, I said (at col. 148 of Hansard) that I was a little uneasy about the Bill then foreshadowed which is before us today. I went on:
"We are all in favour of more resources for the police and we are all concerned about the growth of organised crime. However, if the Security Service really has spare capacity, surely some contraction and a straight transfer of resources to the police would serve the purpose better. There are dangers in an alliance between two competitive forces with a different culture and accustomed to different tasks".

403
There followed in that debate a notable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Cuckney. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not with us today. He spoke from his great experience of the Security Service. I have knowledge of it, and I respect him for the views he expressed. However, although I listened carefully to him, as I did to the Minister today, I confess that I have a residual anxiety about the Bill. The Minister helpfully circulated notes in advance of today's debate for which I thank her, and she largely spoke to them. I still have a nagging feeling that this is not a good Bill and that in time, if we are not careful, we may come to regret it.
There is an obliging symmetry about the thought that we need new resources to help fight organised crime—we all agree with that, as the Minister rightly said—and that the Security Service has some spare capacity, though perhaps less obviously now than in November when we debated the gracious Speech. However, my instinct tells me to be wary, especially about where we may be going, whatever is said today, and the direction we take, as well as the possibility that by barely detected incremental stages we will find that the Security Service has moved into inappropriate areas of our lives.
In her opening remarks, the noble Baroness referred in passing to recent violent crime in Liverpool which we all deplore. I wonder whether that indicates a move towards the use of the Security Service. If so, it goes beyond what I understood to be its limited role, as described in the gracious Speech and set out by Ministers in another place. Certainly if that were to happen and if we found that by incremental stages the Security Service had a bigger role than that now anticipated for it, there could be unacceptable infringements of civil liberties. The Minister did not refer to a joint opinion, in relation to the Bill, dated 10th May, prepared for Liberty by two distinguished barristers. I shall return to that matter; it certainly gives me pause. Whatever has been said, there may be still dangers to civil liberties under the Bill as drafted despite improvements made in another place.
Apart from the issue of civil liberties, there is the possibility, which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, had in mind, that incompatibility may be revealed between the police force and other law enforcement agencies, whether in style or culture. Those are very important considerations in services with a long tradition. There may even be incompatibility of equipment which, far from strengthening the fight against crime, might undermine the effectiveness of what the police are already doing.
I recognise, as the Minister reminded us, that the Bill enjoyed all-party support in another place. I am sure that the principles she set out as underlying the Bill command the support of all of us. However, I remain an agnostic in relation to the Bill. I do not believe that at this stage the case for it is proven.
Like most agnostics, I should like to believe. It may well be that I shall have faith in the Government's proposals before the Bill leaves this House. I also recognise that it has been substantially improved in another place by the Government proposing their own
404
amendments which were widely accepted. However, I hope the Minister will understand my anxieties, even though she does not share them. I shall do nothing to impede the progress of the Bill. I hope, however, that we shall scrutinise it very carefully in Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred to the complaints procedures. I could see no reference to those in the Minister's briefing notes, and the Minister did not refer to them today. I hope that in her concluding remarks she will comment on any possible problems in relation to the Police Complaints Authority dealing with complaints appropriate to the police, and separate, or in-parallel, complaints having to be made to the Security Service tribunal which, if I am not wrong, would be responsible for dealing with any complaints against that service. A person whose complaint may be entirely legitimate could find himself or herself much confused as to which authority to approach.
Many noble Lords will have seen two very interesting feature articles in The Times last week. On 6th May there was an article headed:
"Spies in quandary over legal niceties".
It said:
"The involvement of M15 in tackling organised crime will lead to legal dilemmas because of the paramount concern of the Security Service to protect its sources and operational methods. Senior M15 officers admit they might have to restrict their inquiries because of the likelihood that intelligence officers will be required to disclose their activities in court as evidence".
I should be grateful if the Minister could comment on that point. It is an important one.
The other side of the coin was described in another article in The Times the following day, 7th May. It said:
"Criminal trials will be at increasing risk of being held in camera or under the cloak of anonymity when the Security Service Bill becomes law".
Again, I should like the Minister to comment. These matters were not adequately examined in another place: they should give us pause in considering the Bill in Committee and on Report.
I shall not seek to set out some of the very important issues raised in the joint opinion to which I referred. I shall not press the Minister to deal in detail today with the content of the opinion. However, I hope that before the Committee stage, she will look at the joint opinion and, if she thinks fit, reply in writing to Members who have shown an interest today.
I quote briefly from the opinion:
"The Bill currently contains no indication, restriction or limitation about how it is proposed that the Security Services should 'act in support of the police forces and other law enforcement agencies in the prevention and detection of … crime'".
The opinion continues with a reference to the very important safeguards that apply to our police forces in criminal investigations. It states:
"These procedural and substantive safeguards will be undermined if the Security Services are empowered to engage in crime prevention and detection without being subject, when engaging on policing support operations, to the same regime as applies to police actions".
Those are important comments; they require a reply.

405
I heard what the Minister said in respect of organised crime. If we find it easy to use those words in the course of this Second Reading debate, it is because they are the words used by the Prime Minister in trailing this legislation. I agree that if the legislation is as important as the Minister states, it ought not to be delayed for definitions. At the same time, in referring earlier to the incremental danger I had in mind the possibility that although the Security Service would start by dealing with organised crime as we understand it, it would, in an intangible way, despite the undertakings given today, begin treading in areas which at the present time are not intended.
There are awkward questions of accountability. The Security Service, in pursuit of serious crime (if that is the way we are to describe it) will be responsible to the Home Secretary through the Director General of the Security Service. The police forces will have a different route. Surely this is a formula for conflict and misunderstanding. Again, if the Minister has a reply to that point, I should be very glad to hear it.
We are all deeply concerned about the growth and impact of serious, especially organised, crime. I agree with a remark made by the Home Secretary—with whose remarks I do not always agree—that it could be a threat to the fabric of society. All of us who have served in government cannot doubt the important and necessary role played by the Security Service. Despite my reservations, I hope that the Bill will succeed in its purpose. However, I am not at present satisfied that all legitimate objections to it have been adequately answered.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, it is almost three months since this Bill received a First Reading. That suggests that it hardly tops the list of the Government's priorities. I note with interest the suggestion that emerged from the Minister's interesting opening remarks that changing circumstances may mean that M15 does not now have all that much spare capacity left over from its normal pursuits.
Be that as it may, perhaps I may begin on a personal note. In my career I have had a rather special opportunity of experiencing what is involved in the issuing of warrants and certain other activities. I have also had a more general opportunity of observing the work both of the police and of M15. I believe that this country can be proud of both services. I also accept that all possible resources should be used against organised crime when problems of drugs, money laundering, racketeering and the use of violence are on such a scale. Therefore, I approach this short Bill with perhaps a rather stronger bias in its favour than seems to have been managed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.
However, there are aspects of the Bill which cause me concern and some puzzlement. Some of them have been explained very clearly already. I need touch on them only quite lightly.
Clause 1, as has been explained, adds to the functions of MI5 under the parent Act. We are given to understand that it is indeed aimed at organised crime. That is what
406
the Minister said in her opening sentence this afternoon. But as others pointed out, the clause does not say so. I suppose that we all know what we mean by organised crime, but it is not a phrase known to the statute book. The Minister explained that it would be difficult to draft a definition and I can well believe that. But I am bound to emphasise the point that "serious crime" is not defined in the clause.
There is indeed a definition of serious crime in another Act of Parliament and that bobs up in Clause 2. But it does not apply to this clause. We are left with the explanation given by Ministers in this Chamber and in another place that serious crime in that context means what they intend it to mean. What did Humpty Dumpty say?
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less".
As to how the legislation is intended to work, an amendment to subsection (2) of the clause which was made in another place makes clear that it will be for MI5 to fit in with the police and not to act on its own initiatives. We are told that in practice the Director General of the NCIS (the National Criminal Intelligence Service) will be in the driving seat. But that part of the police organisation, as the Minister pointed out, has no statutory backing. So the Bill has to resort to the formula of:
"a person designated by the Secretary of State",
who must be a chief officer of police. All that is to be put right by later legislation.
When we reach Clause 2, the matter becomes a little more serious. That is the clause which authorises MI5, when covered by a warrant from the Secretary of State, to enter property—in practice, to search, install cameras and plant bugs. We know full well that the police already do that and that there are safeguards against abuse. But, as the Minister pointed out, the police do it without a warrant from the Secretary of State, who has no power to issue one.
In that rather shadowy area, where one day there may be a ruling from the courts, possibly of a rather uncomfortable nature, the police naturally fear that MI5 may simply take over, as under the clause it alone will be able to point to a statutory authority if things go wrong. Again, we are told that that lack of specific police power will be put right in legislation, although, as the Minister explained, just how to provide for it may not be quite so simple as at first sight it may seem.
Clause 2, unlike Clause 1, does spell out the kind of crime for which a warrant may be issued. It avoids the use of the phrase "serious crime", but borrows verbatim the provision in the Interception of Communications Act 1985, stating the conduct that is to be regarded as serious crime for the purposes of that Act. Paragraphs (a) and (b) toward the end of the clause reproduce precisely the wording of the 1985 Act. It leaps to the eye that those paragraphs go a good deal wider than the commonly accepted view of what constitutes organised crime, which, after all, is what the Bill is supposed to be aimed at. For example, in paragraph (a):
"conduct by a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose,"

407
could cover the protesters against the Newbury bypass. Paragraph (b) could apply to a serious mugger or a burglar.
All that means that property warrants could be lawfully issued under the Bill for purposes falling a good deal short of those at which the Bill is supposed to be aimed. I read with some care the explanation given at Committee stage in another place of how that all comes about, but I am sorry to say that I found it rather beyond me. I feel that the explanation given by the Minister today is a little clearer but I am not sure that I have taken it all in. Certainly, I should like to study it when Hansard is available.
I suppose that MI5's main contribution is likely to be found in analysis, surveillance and infiltration. I note that the Bill does not give it the police powers of arrest. But is there not some likelihood in practice of its getting involved with the rules for gathering evidence for a criminal prosecution, rules which are becoming increasingly complicated and of which it has no direct practical experience? Let me take a point raised earlier. If it comes to giving evidence, is there any reason to suppose that the courts will allow it the same protection of anonymity and secrecy about surveillance methods, which in practice is allowed in cases involving national security? That again was a point taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton.
What happens if, say, during an investigation an accused person alleges that drugs were planted on him? If the complaint lies against a police office, the Police Complaints Authority will, if necessary, bring in officers from another force to conduct an inquiry. But if it turns out that the individual complained of is an MI5 officer, the police inquiry will come to a full stop. Instead, a totally different procedure will apply, which, among other things, is designed to safeguard the anonymity of the individual officer. The complaint has to go to the Security Service Commissioner and his tribunal. It may or may not encourage the complainant to know that the first 187 complaints made over the past five years resulted in a success count of nought. It looks as though there may be some problems in running side-by-side those two separate procedures.
I should like to end with this thought. Those two services have quite different backgrounds and quite different cultures. There will be inherent difficulties in their working together, difficulties which must be overcome. But that is not made any easier by the fact that the MI5 activities, especially the property warrants, will be covered by statute, whereas the police side, particularly the role of the NCIS and the planting of bugs, has to wait for another Bill. The longer the wait, the more awkward it will become. We are told that it is hoped to bring forward a Bill in the autumn. But can we be sure? We have also heard of proposals for a Home Office Bill on national identity cards; for a second Bill on the control of guns; for a third dealing with stalkers, assuming the Bill introduced yesterday does not find its way onto the statute book. There is talk of a fourth, a major Bill on sentencing powers, and legislation filling the gaps in this Bill would make a fifth.
408
I wonder how big a share of the programme in the Queen's Speech for a short Session will be allocated to one department. We know that there are other claimants who speak confidently of having a place in the Queen's Speech. In the past individual Ministers could not do that, but that seems to have gone by the board. Anyway, can we be certain that there will be another Session?
4 p.m.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I speak as the only Member of your Lordships' House on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I took over from my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, who resigned from the committee in March having given it valuable service with all his experience as a Foreign Secretary. As your Lordships know, the committee's remit is to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Security Service, the Intelligence Service and GCHQ. It is of course an all-party committee. I do not speak for the committee; I speak only for myself.
What has struck me in the few weeks that I have been a member is the energy and commitment with which the committee carries out its task. It meets often and already three of its reports have been published, all of them relevant to this Bill. An interim report was published in May 1995 concerning the way in which it was tackling and proposed to tackle its task; a report was published on the Security Service and organised crime, which is directly relevant to this Bill; and then its first annual report was published in March 1996, which also contains much which is relevant to the Bill.
In its first report the committee identified as one of the major issues on which it proposed to focus, in the post-Cold War age, the agencies' work with the police and other enforcement bodies in the UK and their relationship with the civil community. In its report on the Security Service and organised crime, which was submitted before this Bill was published, the committee agreed that the Security Service can bring a distinct package of skills to the problem of organised crime in the form of intelligence acquisition, processing, assessment and exploitation. It observed that the approach of the Security Service would be characterised by long-term investigation and analysis aimed at gaining a strategic advantage over organised crime targets. The committee endorsed the principles which the Government announced as guiding the Security Service contribution.
In the same report the committee made two points about the proposed legislation—that is, this Bill—both related to the importance of the primacy of the police and other law enforcement agencies in the fight against organised crime and to the relationship between those bodies and the Security Service. I am glad to say that both points were reflected in the amendments to the Bill which, as has already been said, were tabled by the Government in another place and now form part of the Bill.
In the other place there was all-party support for the principle of the Bill. I want to mention three subjects which are important as we consider the Bill and which it will be valuable to keep in mind as we watch how the arrangements work in practice once the Bill becomes law.

409
The first is accountability, which was referred to in a number of speeches this afternoon. With that topic I bracket the importance of the Security Service doing nothing to feed such fears as there are that it may pay inadequate attention to the freedoms of the ordinary citizen. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred to that, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.
The openness which now surrounds the Intelligence and Security Services would have seemed astonishing only a few years ago when the very existence of such services was hardly mentioned. It is remarkable how well the services have adapted to the change. The Security Service is of course accountable to the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, and through them to Parliament. It is overseen by a commissioner and a tribunal which can hear complaints. All warrants for entry on or interference with property or with wireless telegraphy require the approval of the Secretary of State. The expenditure, administration and policy of the service will be overseen by the Intelligence and Security Committee and either House of Parliament can debate the subject of the Intelligence and Security Services at any time—as your Lordships chose to do only a few weeks ago. The question of accountability is one of the topics that the committee will want to keep under review.
The second subject that we should watch is the relationship between the Security Service, the police and other enforcement agencies as the work of the Security Service on serious and organised crime develops. Recently there were some newspaper reports which suggested that there is an unsatisfactory rivalry between the Security Service and the police. I do not take those reports as being well founded, but it remains important that the relations between the different services should be those of practical and close co-operation. The matter is too important to allow "turf wars". I believe that the Bill as it stands, with the two amendments to Clause 1 tabled by the Government, should give the best possible framework for co-operation.
Clause 1(1) makes it clear that the Security Service is,
"to act in support of the activities of police forces and other law enforcement agencies".
That is pretty tight wording. The rest of the clause provides arrangements which should make for effective co-ordination. But even the best drafted Acts of Parliament will not necessarily work unless there is a will to make them work. I have no doubt that this is the second subject on which the Intelligence and Security Committee will be keeping a close and continuing watch.
The third subject concerns resources. It has been suggested that the reason for this Bill was that the Security Service had, in a sense, run out of things to do. That suggestion, which was never convincing, looks wholly unconvincing today when we have recent evidence that Russian espionage against this country has increased and when the Irish terrorist ceasefire has come to an end.
In its report on the Security Service's work against organised crime, the committee of which I am a member said that it had been suggested to it that with the continuing commitments to work against terrorism,
410
espionage, proliferation and subversion, the resources available against organised crime will at first be relatively small. My noble friend the Minister repeated that today. The committee said that it was possible that at some point in the future decisions may have to be taken to move resources back to work against the traditional national security targets. All the tasks of the Security Service are so important that it is likely that some difficult decisions will have to be taken about the allocation of resources of the service. I believe that noble Lords will welcome the assurance from my noble friend the Minister today that countering terrorism will remain a top priority. I support the Bill.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend Lord Blaker said, with his valuable recent experience. My experience dates back much further. I do not share the doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, nor those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for whom I have had a great respect for many years—I happened to be serving in the Home Office when he was first there, though in a different capacity from him.
On the question of what the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, feared was a take-over of one public body from another, experience shows that that does not happen. Indeed, we are accustomed in our country to minding our own business to a much greater extent than we normally recognise. So far as public departments and bodies of various kinds are concerned, there is much more a tendency to pass the buck than to take over. I really do not think that in the scheme which the Bill will provide we have to fear anything like a take over.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Blaker referred to accountability. That is to a great extent an answer to the question. It is democratic accountability now. But it is combined with a continued obligation of secrecy where secrecy is necessary. I do not fear any prospect of there being trouble between the police and the Security Service. I think they will rely upon each other for mutual help in a sensible way. However, I feel that the Bill must be regarded to a very great extent as experimental because it is breaking new ground in a way where we do not have previous experience.
There is a strong justification for getting the Security Service to co-operate with our police forces and with Customs and Excise in the way envisaged by the Bill. Serious crime, especially on an international scale, is increasing, but the warlike threat to the world has decreased. I am therefore tempted to quote what the Prime Minister said at the Conservative Party Conference in Blackpool last autumn. He said:
"It is an age when our children are more likely to be killed by a drug dealer than by an enemy missile".
That justifies the kind of change which the Bill envisages.
The Security Service is likely to find its overseas obligations diminished somewhat with the end of the Cold War. It has, however, much experience, especially in tracing terrorists, which could be of great advantage to our police forces. That alone justifies the Bill. But

411
I think there is more to it than that. Although one greatly admires the system built by Scotland Yard over the years, with its fingerprinting, the keeping of massive detailed records of crime and increased co-operation between our local democratically controlled police forces, our police forces do not possess enough international experience to enable them to overcome the increase in international crime. Interpol plays a valuable part, but that is not all and it is not enough. The Security Service could help tremendously with its expertise and its international experience.
Drug trafficking internationally has been mentioned as the worst form of organised serious crime with which we have to contend. I wonder whether I may mention another large-scale international crime in respect of which the Security Service could, I am sure, be of great help. Millions of pounds worth of art treasures and antiquities are stolen all over the world, especially in this country. It is a very profitable traffic. I must say in passing that a non-governmental body, the Art Loss Register, is performing a great service in helping the police and the owners of antiquities and art treasures. I would hope that the Security Service, with its international experience, would do a lot to help to fight that type of crime.
As to the Bill itself, it has the merit of being drafted in a short and simple way. It achieves its purpose without going into too much detail. I find that attractive. But having read again the two quite major pieces of legislation to which it refers—the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994—I think that sooner or later the Government should consider, in view of the ever changing circumstances, the amalgamation of those two pieces of legislation and of the services to which they refer. Then I would eventually hope to see those two previous important Acts of Parliament consolidated with what this Bill will become, the Security Service Act 1996. Having said all that, I congratulate the Government most warmly on putting forward the Bill.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her very clear presentation of the purposes of the Bill. She was good enough to recall in her opening speech that I initiated a debate on 13th March, having been successful in the ballot, on the Intelligence and Security Services. On that occasion speakers did not extend their comments expansively on the Security Service because this Bill had already arrived from the other place and we knew that today's debate was coming.
As we consider the possibility of additional roles for the Security Service, we should not overlook its present functions or think them unimportant. The Cold War has ended, but counter-espionage in the United Kingdom and the detection and prevention of terrorism are still very necessary. I support the principle in the Bill to enable the experience and techniques of the Security Service to be applied in helping to suppress serious crime, especially trafficking in drugs. My concerns are
412
how this should be done and how the Security Service can work effectively with the police and other enforcement agencies.
The police and those agencies are responsible for providing the evidence needed for bringing prosecutions. They have years of experience in doing that. In my view, the Security Service should not, where possible, be expected to give evidence in court, though this can be done with special arrangements to guard anonymity.
The role of the Security Service, as I see it, is to detect and provide intelligence that can enable the police to pursue and, if it is clear that criminals are at work, to obtain the proof that is needed. The police or the other enforcement agencies should then be the people who provide evidence in court. I am glad that the Government moved an amendment in the other place adding words which clarify the role of the Security Service; that it would be the function of the Security Service,
"to act in support of the activities of police forces and other law enforcement agencies".
Another reason for restricting the new role was mentioned in The Times of 6th May and by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, today, that the Security Service's sources of intelligence need to be protected. There has always been a dilemma about privacy where MI5 is concerned. What sort of balance should be accepted between the safety of the British public, the security of our country and the degree of intrusion into the privacy of private citizens? Under this Bill there will be an increase in the scope for intrusion, and I accept that as justifiable in view of the evils which the Bill is designed to reduce and prevent.
I have some questions for my noble friend. She may not be able to reply to them all today, but no doubt she will write. There is no definition in the Bill of "law enforcement agencies". Besides the police, I assume that Customs and Excise, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and regional crime squads would be included. I understand that there are six of those crime squads. Are any of them in Scotland where the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the police and not the Home Secretary? My noble friend appeared to confirm that the functions of the NCIS (the National Criminal Intelligence Service) are confined to England and Wales and do not extend to Scotland.
I recognise the reasons for the absence of a definition. One of them may be that the Government are proposing to introduce another Bill in the next Session of Parliament, giving statutory status to the NCIS and creating a national crime squad. I believe that my noble friend confirmed that in her opening speech. Again I ask: will the national crime squad extend to Scotland? If it does not, I plead that the word "national" be not used because it only causes confusion in titles. Confusion has been caused in other fields; for example the national curriculum and the National Rivers Authority, which have no functions or writ in Scotland at all. The effect is simply to muddle the public and the media.

413
It seems strange that another Bill is needed as soon as has been indicated. According to the press, the next Bill will define circumstances in which eavesdropping or photographic devices can be used by the police, so that in future that use will not be a monopoly of the Security Service. I shall be grateful for some indication without pre-empting the contents of the Queen's Speech in the autumn.
That brings me to the highly relevant subject of telephone tapping and distant eavesdropping known as "bugging". Of the two, telephone tapping would seem the less intrusive and offensive. However, its use by government has been regulated and accepted by Parliament while the legality of bugging remains obscure. There is a paradox here. No one should regard a telephone conversation as confidential, if only because of the risk of crossed lines. However, the planting of a concealed listening device, continually transmitting private conversations to a distant operator or recorder, must be a greater intrusion into privacy.
As regards telephone tapping, I remind your Lordships that that has been authorised for both the Security Service and the police for many years under stringent conditions, the legislation now applying being the 1985 Act. The Home Secretary has to sign warrants personally before action in individual cases. In Scotland for the police, it is the Secretary of State for Scotland. When I was Secretary of State for Scotland from 1970 to 1974, I granted warrants only when I was convinced that they were essential in serious cases. I also asked to be kept informed. In at least one episode dangerous criminals were later convicted and heavily sentenced. The evidence in court was not the product of the telephone tapping. The tapping had assisted the police in getting on to the criminals' tracks enabling them to discover what they were plotting, obtaining incriminating evidence and making arrests.
Eavesdropping by bug has not been similarly regulated. Apart from any use by authorities, it is thought that there is considerable use made of bugging by private citizens to obtain commercial or other information of a confidential nature. I presume at present, however, that it is difficult to prove such bugging, when discovered and traced, to be a civil offence. I hope that I have said enough on this subject to indicate that the whole area of electronic eavesdropping seems at present to be outside the legal framework governing privacy.
While supporting this Bill, I predict that if press forecasts are correct about another Bill at the end of this year, that Bill will require very careful drafting and examination on legalising further invasion of privacy by the police, with bugs.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I speak with some diffidence in this debate because I am a former member of the SIS and, although I am glad to say that I worked closely with the Security Service, both at home and abroad, I do not speak with authority. At this point I should like to say how helpful I found the notes which, like other noble Lords, I received from my noble friend the Minister: they were extremely helpful.
414
There can be no doubt that the country's social fabric is threatened by the powerful increase in serious, organised crime, particularly drug-related crime, which has taken place in the past few years. It is natural and proper that any and every resource of skill and knowledge available to fight it should be brought into play; the more so because of its international nature and the new dangers in terms of the ease of movement for criminals now posed by open frontiers throughout Europe.
However, I share many of the anxieties expressed by the Intelligence and Security Committee. When I began my remarks I did not know that a representative of that committee would be present, so I apologise if I repeat some things. I share the committee's concern about the implications of the Bill for the central tasks of the Security Service; namely, counter-espionage and, now, counter-terrorism. Of course the new task in this Bill is relevant to the service's duty to maintain the economic well-being of the country against threats from abroad. The service has very great skills in the analysis of intelligence; in long-term penetration of subversive organisations; and in the identification of hostile agents. But the Bill represents a dilution of its resources and a dissipation of its professional effort, as well as the dangers inherent in exposing long-term assets, which concerns me very much.
At this stage I do not propose to pursue the committee's anxieties about accountability, clear lines of responsibility, and major differences in experience and procedures between the service and the various agencies—not only the police at different levels, but also Customs and Excise. Some of those seem to have been usefully and successfully addressed through government amendments at Committee stage in the other place, and there will be opportunity to debate them in this House.
What concerns me is that we are proposing to extend yet further the tasks of a very small service. In the other place (Hansard, 10th January 1996; col. 264) we were told that,
"The Security Service's total resources are only £150 million a year and the number of staff employed in the general intelligence group is just 340".
Hitherto, the Security Service, unlike my own former service, has been self-tasking: under this Bill, and rightly, the tasking in this new area will be done by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, itself intended as an intelligence-gathering service, and by relevant co-ordinating groups. I am not clear—no doubt we shall establish it at Committee stage—how far the tasking requires the provision and analysis of intelligence and how far it requires operational support. The NCIS still has no legal entity, and the amendment to the Bill now reads that it will be the function of the service to act in support of the activity of police forces and other law enforcement agencies in the prevention and detection of crime. That, and the provision of property warrants in support of those activities, suggests that we are talking about a degree of operational support as well as analysis. All that will be without any additional provision in terms of money or resources for the Security Service.

415
My concerns are these: the new proposals, to be judged by everything that was said both in another place and to a lesser extent in the ISC's report, rest on the premise that, as one speaker said:
"With the collapse of the eastern bloc and communism, and the prolonged peace in Northern Ireland, many skilled people in the Security Service must either be made redundant or be redeployed".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/96 col. 265.]
I am well aware that the decision to redeploy some of the Security Service's great and valuable skills to fight a major threat to our national well-being was taken for positive reasons and not at all for the reasons suggested. Nevertheless, the events of the past fortnight in Russia, the very real possibility of a communist return to power there, and not least the end of the IRA ceasefire in February this year, after a long period of profitable operational preparation and targeting, must surely give us pause. Neither the KGB, the GRU nor the IRA has gone away—and nor will they do so. If the Security Service is, indeed, to play a part in the fight against serious crime—and in these days of the Russian mafia and the IRA's move into drugs as yet another lucrative source of money to finance its operations it is not impossible that there will be a useful cross-fertilisation—it must have more resources. It must not be required to carry out that new task at the expense of its national responsibility, a central responsibility, of protecting the security of the realm. It could, of course, be argued that it would be better in that case—I believe that this has been suggested today—to give more money to the existing law enforcement agencies which are also seriously undermanned. I have the Customs and Excise in mind because the new measures under the Schengen Agreement have opened doors to criminals right across Europe, but I recognise that the Security Service has very special sophisticated analytical techniques and expertise to offer. Even so, I am concerned at the proliferation of liaison groups, co-ordinating bodies, and international links which seems to be envisaged. It seems a very great pity that in the entirely understandable wish to allow flexibility in approaching a new situation, there seems little prospect of a clear statement on responsibilities, on the hierarchy, who gives the orders and where the buck stops.
The service has always been self-tasking. It is now going to be tasked by several other bodies. That seems to me to be a recipe for confusion, despite the prospect of the appointment of a co-ordinator. I fear that there will be large and high expectations of results which, given the tiny resources that are now likely to be available in the light of a very different and far more serious security situation, are bound to be disappointed. There will be confusion too over oversight, given the number of agencies involved and the different select and other oversight committees, including the Intelligence and Security Committee, and probably confusion over the protection of information from other agencies which could have adverse consequences on liaisons, and not only on those of the Security Service itself.
Not least, as has been said, the service and the police respect each other, but they are very different animals. The elephant is a wise animal; the owl is a wise bird;
416
they are not the same. The report of the Intelligence and Security Committee, issued just before the Second Reading of this Bill in another place, concluded that,
"the reductions in the Agencies' work on the former Soviet Union … have released resources to work on the newer 'functional' targets such as … serious organised crime",
but it also said:
"it is possible that at some point in the future decisions may have to be taken to move resources back on to work against the 'traditional' national security targets".
That time has come—and I contend that there was never any doubt that it would come, both as regards renewed Russian penetration of this country and as regards the IRA, and there is no longer any slack available for other tasks. If the new tasks are to be placed upon the Security Service, it would in my view—I fear that I shall not be popular with my noble friend the Minister in saying this—be absolutely essential to give it additional resources to carry them out. Like good civil servants and like the armed services, members of the service will no doubt be ready to try to do more without commensurate resources. In that case, to use a familiar mantra, the customer will not get value for money. Intelligence officers and agents take a long time to train and develop. We should not put strategic assets at risk for any relatively short-term tactical gain.
I support the Bill in principle, with the reservations I have outlined. I have every hope that it will be possible in Committee and in later legislation to solve at least the procedural problems, but I remain concerned about the central tasks of the Security Service.
4.35 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I welcome this short Bill and hesitate to rise to speak after so many eminent speakers. I have decided to speak, however, as a result of my limited experience with the security forces within Northern Ireland. For all the reasons that we have heard, it should be beneficial to have the ability to use the security services as a back-up to the law enforcement agencies, and I am pleased that the Bill will extend to Northern Ireland.
Turning to the Bill, I am interested in the appointment of a co-ordinator in subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1. There is a requirement in Clause 1(3)—in new subsection (3B)—for the Secretary of State to,
"designate for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) above a person who is or has been a chief officer of police of a police force in England and Wales, the chief officer of a police force in Scotland or the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary".
I notice that the ranks of those from England and Wales who can be appointed as co-ordinator are much wider than the single rank available from Scotland and Northern Ireland. A chief officer of police of a police force in England and Wales includes, I believe, three ranks: a chief constable; an assistant deputy chief constable and an assistant chief constable designate. A co-ordinator from Scotland or Northern Ireland can come from only one rank. In the former, he must be a chief officer of a police force and, in the latter, the chief constable of the RUC. Surely that is an anomaly, especially when senior officers sometimes serve in different parts of the country. An assistant chief

417
constable in Scotland or Northern Ireland, for example, would not be eligible for the post of co-ordinator while serving north of the Border or in Ulster, but if he served for a time in England or Wales, which is possible, he would become eligible. I ask my noble friend the Minister to explain that and to give the reasons for the apparent discrimination.
In addition, it interests me that the eligibility for the post should be so rigidly set in law. The Secretary of State would be breaking the law if he wished to appoint anyone from outside those ranks to the post of co-ordinator—or he would have to amend this legislation if he wanted to do so. Can the Minister explain why that is so? If the reason is the maintenance of police primacy, perhaps I may add one further point. As I understand it, the co-ordinating function is just that; it is not operational control. That will still be the responsibility of the chief constable in whose police force area the activity is taking place.
We have much experience of that in Northern Ireland. On occasions, it was deemed right to appoint someone from outside the police force to such a post—for example, Sir Maurice Oldfield. Your Lordships will be aware of the importance of the role of the chief constable of the RUC and the maintenance of police primacy in the Province. Therefore, it would not be a threat if the Secretary of State wished to appoint somebody from outside the police force. I believe that we in Northern Ireland understand more than most people the importance not only of the ability of such a person but of the personalities in different agencies. The Bill, in totality, is vague. It will rely for its success to a great extent upon the personalities of the individuals who will hold that post and not necessarily the service from which they come. I ask my noble friend the Minister to elaborate on the reasons for that.
For a moment I should like to look at some of the practical problems of using the security forces in those ways. There are two sides to an intelligence-gathering operation by the security services—the passive and the active. On the passive side, I am reasonably happy with the control by warrants for the placing of listening devices, the use of phone taps and so forth.
The active side of such intelligence gathering is the human factor at ground level or, to put it another way, at the coalface, within or close to the criminal organisation. I should like to make a couple of points about that aspect, but I shall be brief. An all-important issue is safety. We are talking about dangerous and ruthless criminal groups. To insert agents or turn criminals is a long-term task, and a dangerous one for those involved.
Who will provide the operational back-up for such a person in trouble, and someone who may have been exposed? That is not a normal policing task, as we have found in Northern Ireland, and is extremely hazardous. We have the police and the Army in the Province, and there are dedicated units for those tasks.
Over here on the mainland, who will supply that resource? Will it be the regional crime squads, later perhaps to become the national crime squad, or chief constables from their own manpower? On some
418
occasions it may have to be available for 24 hours a day. I ask my noble friend whether additional finance will be made available for specialist training and the establishment of such units.
Police primacy is to be maintained, but I am confused as to whether that is the tasking agency primacy on a particular operation—that of the NCIS—or primacy of operational control through a chief constable. On Second Reading in another place, the Secretary of State said:
"The way in which the co-ordination will usually operate is that the Security Service will be tasked in particular areas or operations by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which will in turn liaise closely with local police forces and regional crime squads".
However, in answer to a question he said:
"I do not know that it would necessarily be appropriate for the police to be informed of every operational detail of the work that the Security Service was carrying out".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/96/; cols. 221-224.]
That is a serious aspect of co-ordination. It could be a matter of life and death. Experience in the Province shows that detailed work must be done on that aspect of the matter. The responsibilities must be made clear before any such operation is mounted.
I wish to mention just one other point about agents or turned criminals. In violent criminal organisations there is little or no bureaucracy; therefore an agent or turned criminal will almost certainly be drawn into criminal activity if he or she is to remain in place. How will we protect those people if such a case comes before the courts? A serious example of that in Northern Ireland was the well-known Nelson case. Two things went wrong. Due to a failure of immediate action on information supplied by him, he became involved in terrorist incidents. Also, due to lack of co-ordination, an agent of one branch (him) of our security forces, was arrested by another branch which was unaware of his activities.
There will be problems to be solved, but I have said enough to show that I support the Bill. The requirement for caution, planning and attention to detail is an understatement, and I look forward to success in this new role for our security services.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, at the beginning of her speech the Minister referred to the earlier debate we had on the security services initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and to the authoritative speeches made on that occasion. I am sure that she will be the first to agree that we have had a significant number of authoritative speeches today: the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, with his recent experience; the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth; the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, with a lifetime of experience in the Metropolitan Police; and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, a former Permanent Under-Secretary at the Home Office, with substantial and direct knowledge of the workings of the security services. The Minister will have noted that three of those four speakers expressed significant disquiet about some aspects of the Bill.

419
I share that disquiet. However, it is right for me to say that despite any doubts I may have about the Bill, I welcome the discussions which took place in the other place between the Government and the Opposition, as a result of which some improvements were undoubtedly made to the drafting of the Bill. Those were made in a number of important respects, it has to be said.
I should like to begin, as did my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, by thanking the Minister for making available the Notes on Clauses and an explanatory memorandum on the Bill. I found them extremely helpful. In her covering letter, she said, when referring to the debate in the other place:
"Such debate and disagreement as there was revolved around the detail of the Bill".
That is of course entirely true, but, as I am sure she will agree, it is the detail of the Bill that continues to cause some of us concern. We must be certain that police primacy is retained, and that the most unambiguous language is used and placed in the Bill to avoid any disputes arising in the future.
We do not want to slide into the position that we have witnessed in the USA and elsewhere, where bitter inter-agency disputes have done serious damage to the fight against organised crime. I have been told by a number of leading figures in the law enforcement community in the USA about the fierce rows that have occurred between agencies funded by the federal government such as the FBI, the US Customs and the secret service on the one hand and local police and state police departments on the other. There is always the risk of such disputes between organisations which are locally accountable and those which rely exclusively upon the financial support of the federal government and committees of Congress.
Although our constitutional arrangements are different from those of the USA, there is one obvious similarity; that is, the Security Service, like the FBI, works entirely outside the form of accountability under which the police operate. MI5 is a great deal less politically accountable compared to federal agencies in the USA. One has only, to take one obvious example, to recall the various episodes involved in the drama of Watergate, to realise the direct accountability of the FBI to Congress. More than that, the Security Service has operated in a climate of secrecy—something entirely unknown in the USA.
Until the appointment of Mrs. Rimington no one, except of course foreign espionage organisations, even knew the name of the head of MI5. Despite differences between the roles of MI5 and the federal law enforcement agencies of the USA, there remains one clear similarity. They are all dependent upon the support of the national government for their resources. That of course is one of the reasons why we have the Bill. For although it is said that we require the Security Service to help in the struggle against serious organised crime, the reality is, as we all know, that there is at the moment a small team of MI5 officers working on precisely that agenda. As a result of the passage of the Bill, that team which, according to the Intelligence and Security
420
Committee, consists of nine officers may, I understand, be increased to about 16 to 20. That is my information but no doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong.
If that is the position the questions, "What is there to be worried about?", and, "How can there be any threat to the primacy of the police from such a small group of people?", may well be asked. There are a number of answers to those questions but they can be dealt with only if one asks why the Security Service has struggled so hard to acquire the powers set out in the Bill. The Minister is well aware that it has so struggled and, as we know, struggled successfully.
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain led to immediate consequences for MI5. As the Intelligence and Security Committee pointed out in its latest annual report, the significant reduction in the overall intelligence threat led to a cut of more than half in the operational resources which were required five years ago. Whether, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, said, that that was a wise judgment is a different question. In other words, MI5 faced the loss of substantial numbers of staff unless it acquired new responsibilities.
That triggered the first Whitehall struggle; the battle led by MI5 to become the lead agency in countering republican terrorism on the British mainland. There was fierce opposition from a number of senior police officers, but MI5 won. Then came the Northern Ireland peace process. Once again, it looked as though there could be significant and negative manpower implications for MI5. So we began to read in the press that the Security Service could play a most valuable role in countering serious organised crime.
Facing the likelihood of serious damage to morale among many of the dedicated men and women who work for the Security Service—and of a kind which in recent months has been experienced in many government departments—Mrs. Rimington did what many of us might have done in her position—endeavour to extend the responsibilities of her department. As we know, she has succeeded. As a result, she may have avoided some of the "compulsory redundancies", referred to in paragraph 22 of the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
At first the contribution of the staff of the Security Service is likely to be small but in future it could grow substantially, particularly if, as we all hope, the Northern Ireland peace process leads to a successful outcome. Therefore, what we are discussing today is not the employment of a score or so of MI5 officers working in support of the police but in future years a great many more.
That is why I believe five things are essential. First, we must ensure that police primacy is spelt out in the most direct language. Secondly, we must ensure that the requirement that the responsibility of the Director-General of the Security Service for co-ordinating his service's activity with the head of the National Criminal Intelligence Service is adequately explained and we are given an adequate explanation of why the position of the head of the NCIS is not placed on a statutory footing. That could have been done in this Bill and we would like to know why it has not.

421
Thirdly, what arrangements are to be made about case records? Where are they to be kept? Will MI5 make all its information available to the NCIS? Surely we must insist that where possibly three organisations are working together—that is MI5, the police and Customs and Excise—they do not have two or three separate databases holding information relating to precisely the same investigation. A real risk is involved because some years ago there were problems in that respect between the police and Customs and Excise. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with that specific point in reply.
The fourth factor is of considerable importance. What is the position in relation to informants? The police have very tight guidelines about their recruitment. That became essential because of the unacceptable conduct of a number of officers. But for entirely understandable reasons, MI5 has far more relaxed rules. For instance, it might want to recruit a foreign agent and in those circumstances the relaxation is perfectly understandable. But who decides what will be the regime relating to the recruitment of informants in the areas we are now discussing? Can the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service lay down precise rules and require MI5 to follow them or will the Security Service be allowed to continue as at present? I believe that we deserve a reply to that question too.
Fifthly, there is the issue identified in paragraph 28 of the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee; namely, that when planting listening and other devices during the investigation of serious crime the police and MI5 operate under entirely different rules. The Minister referred to that in her speech. MI5 requires a warrant signed by the Secretary of State; the police operate under non-statutory Home Office guidelines.
I am sure that the Minister and other noble Lords will be aware of the case of Mr. Kahn, a convicted heroin dealer. The case is now before the Appellate Committee of this House. I say only that surveillance techniques to which I have referred are of crucial importance in the investigation of serious crime. I would be seriously concerned were the different procedures involved—namely, those between the police and MI5—to be perpetuated.
I understand from what the Minister said that this may remain the case until at best the autumn of this year when new legislation may be introduced. I am afraid that I do not find that a very persuasive answer. Promising the introduction of legislation in the dying months of a Parliament does not measure up to the seriousness of the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred specifically to this matter. There is not the slightest evidence that legislation of this kind could go through Parliament before the next general election. That is one of the reasons why we remain seriously concerned about that particular issue.
I have set out our anxieties about the Bill and I am sure that many of them will be discussed in Committee. I do not for one moment question either the ability or the degree of dedication of the men and women who make up the Security Service; indeed, quite the reverse. I have always been impressed by their professional
422
abilities and, I take only one example, the quality of their analytical skills about which Sir Paul Condon and others have spoken. However, what we are debating is a measure which could, if mishandled, create severe disharmony in the day-to-day working relationships between the police and the Security Service.
The Minister may tell us that the problem does not exist. However, some of us who are aware of former battles between some local police forces and Customs and Excise take a different view. The Minister must accept that struggles in this House and elsewhere during the passage of what became the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act have hardly led to the creation of a mood of uninhibited trust between Ministers and the police service. Then we did our best to preserve the operational independence of chief officers. We certainly did not wholly succeed in our objective. The noble Baroness will have to take it from us that we shall be determined to do everything possible to ensure that the position of democratically accountable chief officers is not undermined by this Bill.
5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in her clear and helpful introductory speech, the Minister placed considerable emphasis on the cross-party support for the Bill. She was right to do so: first, because, as I can confirm, my colleagues in another place expressed their support for the principle and purpose of the Bill; but secondly—and perhaps for a more long-lasting reason—because it is essential in matters which affect the security of our country there should he cross-party agreement on legislative measures which are presented to Parliament. Unless there is such cross-party agreement, the changes that we make in our security arrangements and plans for policing could suffer very damaging effects as other political changes take place. That would be most undesirable.
Our support for the Bill goes wider than the measure itself, as I shall make clear. It goes so far as to support the package of measures to which the Prime Minister referred in his Blackpool speech, of which the Minister will acknowledge this Bill is only part. The Prime Minister talked about co-ordination among the law enforcement agencies, an issue which is only marginally addressed by this Bill. He talked about the need for a statutory national crime squad and for a statutory basis for the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Again, the Minister will acknowledge that that is not yet covered by the Bill and must be covered by future legislation. He talked also, as the Minister reminded us, about the need for statutory control and a definition in relation to the use of intrusive surveillance. Those are all issues on which cross-party agreement is essential. Cross-party agreement will have to be achieved not only for this Bill but also for a more comprehensive package of measures.
I believe that there is agreement among all of us about the need for change. We all agree on the increasing threat of what is called variously serious crime, organised crime or—I use the Minister's ingenious phrase—serious and organised crime. I do not care very much whether we call it serious crime or organised

423
crime. It is clear that some very serious crime is not organised and any increase in the legitimate powers of the police to pursue serious but not organised crime should not be excluded because we are concerned too much about words. Therefore, we shall not make a great deal of the difference between serious and organised crime in the wording of the Bill.
Secondly, I believe there is agreement on the need for a common statutory framework for our law enforcement agencies and especially for the security and intelligence services. In that context, we welcome the series of Acts of Parliament which have been passed since 1985: in particular, the Interception of Communications Act 1985, the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. I am not saying that we welcome every detail of those measures by any means, but the principle that there should be a statutory basis for all those is something for which there is, I believe, cross-party support.
There is also cross-party support for the changes which were made to the Bill in Committee in another place. There was clarification of the Government's intention, which is now statutory, that the use of the Security Service is to be in support of the activities of the police rather than in support of the prevention and detection of serious crime as such. It is essential that police activities should be the trigger for support from the Security Service; that it should be the police—the noble Lord, Lord Harris, used the words "police primacy"—who ask for help from the Security Service; and it should be the police who determine whether there shall be an intervention from the Security Service. That was a good amendment.
There were other minor amendments which I need not go into which improved the nature of the Bill.
As in all those cases, our support for the principle and purpose of the Bill does not mean that we shall merely sit back and not take any part as a revising Chamber in Committee. There are concerns which have been expressed by virtually all noble Lords who have taken part in this Second Reading debate about the Bill and the whole legislative project of which the measure forms a part, referred to first by the Prime Minister in his Blackpool speech.
The first of those concerns, which was echoed by a number of noble Lords in debate, is the whole issue of internal and operational accountability and the arrangements between the Security Service and the police force. The Government have made it clear that the designated person will be the Director General of NCIS. The Bill is opaque on that matter only because there is, as yet, no statutory basis for NCIS. We do not like Bills to be opaque but we accept reluctantly that that must be the case.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, there is still a risk of there being a formula for conflict and misunderstanding. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, also referred to the potential for misunderstanding which can exist when the ultimate responsibility is not clear. I do not believe that the Bill does make clear who has that ultimate responsibility.
424
Secondly, there is the question of the definition of "serious crime". As I said, I shall not pursue the issue as between serious and organised crime. However, there is no doubt that the definition of "serious crime" in Clause 2 is extremely wide because it refers either to the risk of violence or serious financial loss or to the possible penalty if somebody is convicted of the crime. That is a very wide definition, even though it has statutory origins. Much more seriously, there is no definition of serious crime in Clause 1. The definition in Clause 2 refers only to Clause 2, which is concerned only with warrants.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the problem of the consequences on criminal procedure and criminal investigations. We have had several pieces of legislation on that subject in recent years and noble Lords who have been following those matters will be familiar with them. There are many problems in relation to the quality and admissibility of evidence. There are problems in relation to public hearings of criminal trials and in relation to adherence to PACE rules. All of those matters could become more difficult if the Security Service is to be involved in criminal investigations unless it is made clear that it is involved in such investigations under the existing conditions which apply to the police. If weaker conditions are applied to the Security Service than are applied to the police, there is a risk that prosecutions which are brought with the assistance of evidence from the Security Service will be challenged and could fail. It is essential to see to it that in operational terms the Security Service, in support of the police, adheres to the same rules and is accountable in the same way, and that its evidence can be relied upon in court, although whether given openly by a witness in court is another matter, if prosecutions are to succeed as a result.
A subsidiary issue is perhaps the whole question of the role of the Police Complaints Authority. That authority applies to the police in its criminal investigations and of course in other matters. Will it apply to the Security Service when it is working in support of the police? That is something which will have to be made clear before we can be sure that the role of the Security Service in support of the police will be effective.
Then there is the whole question of Clause 2 and of warrants—that is, property and intelligence warrants. There is another name for them, but I am afraid that I cannot recall it. However, the very fact that one of the two substantive clauses in the Bill is entirely about warrants shows the complexity of the issues that we face when considering the Bill. Frankly, I do not believe that the Government have thought through the issue of warrants which is the only one they choose to submit to the gaze of Parliament at this stage.
Who is responsible for warrants? From the background of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, which is being amended, and from paragraph 4 of the helpful briefing that the Minister supplied to us, we understand that authority for those property warrants will come from the Secretary of State. But that is different from the situation of the police. Their property warrants must have a judicial trigger. We must at least ask whether the

425
rules should be different for the Security Service when its members are acting in support of the police. Should there not be a judicial intervention in warrants? If that is the case, should there not be some statutory basis upon which those warrants are to be justified?
In any case, we must be sure that the Bill is not a back door either for giving the Security Service powers in relation to warrants which are not available to the police in this country—I believe that the phrase used in the Bill is "British Islands"—or that the powers of the police in relation to warrants are not being increased by the back door as a result of the legislation. Nothing appears in the explanation of the Bill's intentions; nor was there any reference to the matter in the Minister's opening speech. However, if we are to be satisfied about warrants—and, indeed, if the European Court of Human Rights is to be satisfied—the Minister will have to confirm that no extension of powers is proposed in that way and that there are no inconsistent powers as between the Security Service and the police. At present, it appears that there could be.
Then there is the whole question of the rest of the legislation—that is, the statutory basis for NCIS, the national crime squad, and so on. We are promised that in the next Session, although I suppose that the words cannot be quite so firm. However, I want to be able to say that the Opposition will give the utmost support to such legislation because we support the whole package. But in order to do so we must be involved in discussions and we must be taken into the confidence of the Government as to precisely what they mean by it.
Looking at the whole package, the problem with the Bill is that there are two elements: one is the extension of powers; and the other is the extension of accountability and scrutiny. What we have in the Bill before us is only the extension of powers, not the extension of accountability and scrutiny both by Parliament and by judicial means. Therefore, we have the most difficult part to play in the process of the Bill. As I said, we want to support the whole package but, in order to do so, we must be consulted on the matter.
That leads me to the next and final point on our concerns about the Bill; namely, the whole question of external accountability of the law enforcement agencies in the broader sense in which we are now talking about them—in other words, the police service, the other law enforcement agencies and the Security Service in support of them. Our concern is that the accountability proposed seems to be only to the Secretary of State only to the Executive branch. We cannot believe that that is right. We cannot believe that there should be no accountability to Parliament, perhaps in the form of accountability to the Intelligence and Security Committee. Indeed, perhaps there would have to be changes in the composition and reporting of the Intelligence and Security Committee and perhaps there would have to be new bodies to which the new designated person—the Director General of NCIS—will have to be responsible.
After all, it is only a very short time since, under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act, we supported the continuation of the tripartite responsibility system for
426
our police forces. We supported the continued involvement of local authorities and magistrates in the control of the police and in the membership of police authorities. Something will have to be done in the form of accountability other than simply to the Secretary of State as regards NCIS and the national crime squad. That does not mean that it should be the same body and that it should be the same organisation because they have different functions. But they should be responsible to the same body in some way.
Therefore, what we have before us is incomplete legislation. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, recognised that fact when he said that he would like to see consolidation of the Bill when it is enacted with previous legislation. I should like to see consolidation not only as suggested by the noble Lord but also with the rest of the programme which the Prime Minister announced in his Blackpool speech. While reserving our right, as I made clear, to seek particular changes to the Bill—the purpose of which we support—we pledge our support for the whole programme. We hope to see a coherent and effective programme which encompasses increased effectiveness for our police and law enforcement agencies with continued democratic accountability.
5.16 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have had a relatively short but useful and constructive introduction to the Bill. As is so often the case in your Lordships' House, the debate has been enhanced by a number of contributions informed by relevant personal experience. I have no doubt whatever that our considerations on the Bill during its remaining stages will also benefit from that expertise.
When anyone says that he accepts a Bill in principle, I have learned the hard way at the Dispatch Box that I am in for a pretty lively, busy and probably lengthy session on the Bill. Another aspect that has characterised today's debate has been the support that has come from all sides of the House for the principles that underlie the legislation. However, as I said, that does not preclude the fact that we will have interesting debates hereafter. There has been widespread agreement that it is sensible to bring the particular skills and expertise that the Security Service possesses into the battle against organised crime in support of the efforts of the law enforcement agencies.
The Government are grateful for that endorsement of the measure. When dealing with an issue as serious as organised crime, it is important that there should be unity among us at least and that the message should go forward strongly from this House and, indeed, from another place that we are united in our efforts to do all that we can to tackle organised crime.
A number of specific points were raised during the course of the debate. Some of them will no doubt be raised again in Committee and, indeed, would be more appropriately dealt with at that stage. However, I should like to refer to some of those points and leave the debate on those that I do not mention today to the next stage of the Bill.

427
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hams of Greenwich, that the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, brought an enormous amount of expertise to our debate. As she informed the House today, it was not only personal expertise but also that inherited from her father, who also had very close involvement with the Security Services. The noble Baroness referred particularly to complaints. I can tell her that there are appropriate mechanisms in place for dealing with complaints against the police and indeed against the Security Service. They take account of the different powers available to police officers and to members of the Security Service.
As I believe the noble Baroness realises, members of the service have no executive powers. Accountability arrangements for the Security Service inevitably need to take account of the organisation's need for secrecy as well as protecting members of the public. If the complaint against a member of the Security Service relates to an alleged criminal offence, then that will be investigated by the police. Members of the Security Service are, of course, subject to the law.
The noble Baroness also referred to the definition of serious crime, which has been referred to by many speakers during the course of the debate. The definition does not cover any offence attracting a penalty of three years. It covers offences for which a person aged 21 or over with no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to receive a prison sentence of three years or more. That is a much tougher test. It is rare for a first-time offender to be given a custodial sentence of three years or more. Indeed, to be given a custodial sentence at all is unusual for offenders with no previous convictions. Therefore a test based on an offence for which a person who has attained the age of 21 and who has no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more is a tough test. It is only that which is likely to bite on the most serious of offenders.
Reference was also made to the threshold of the definition being too low. The definition used to cover the issue of property warrants is the same definition which is being used effectively to govern the issue of warrants under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. All parts of the definition focus on criminal offences which constitute different forms of serious crime. They are differentiated according to the likely sentencing outcome or key features: the use of violence, or substantial financial gain. This is not the only safeguard. In general the requirement for co-ordination arrangements to be agreed with the Director General of NCIS is a means of ensuring that the Security Service's contribution is only directed into appropriate areas. More specifically, applications for property warrants require the authorisation of the Secretary of State and are subject to scrutiny from the commissioner. This will ensure that warrants are not granted in inappropriate circumstances.
Continuing on the theme of accountability, with reference to the safeguard mechanisms, the powers of the Security Service tribunal to examine complaints about alleged activities of the Security Service will extend to investigation of complaints arising from the
428
proposed new function of the service. The Intelligence and Security Committee set up under the Intelligence Services Act 1994 will be able to examine the role of the service in countering organised crime. I recognise the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Blaker to that committee. Under the Security Service Act and the Interception of Communications Act commissioners will be able to review the issue of warrants by the Secretary of State which allow the service to intercept telephones or to carry out operations which involve interference with property.
Continuing with the theme of accountability, I was asked how members of the Security Service would give evidence and whether they would give evidence anonymously. Witnesses can give evidence anonymously or from behind screens only if the trial judge is satisfied that it is in the public interest for them to do so. The Security Service will be no different from the police. Members of other agencies including the police and the Army give evidence behind screens or under pseudonyms or anonymously where the judge rules that it is in the public interest for them to do so. Any application to the court for screening of and anonymity for Security Service witnesses will be made by prosecuting counsel only after full consideration of the issues involved and the closest consultation with the prosecuting authorities, and only where it is absolutely necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, referred to giving evidence in court. I believe I have covered some of his points. I, too, had read the articles in The Times to which he referred. As I have said, the Security Service is aware of the consequences of becoming more involved in serious crime work and of the possibility that it will be called on to give evidence in an increasing number of cases. I have given examples of how that is carried out in practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, also mentioned different access to Ministers as regards the police and the Security Service. It is an important pillar in the accountability arrangements of the Security Service that the director general is answerable to the Home Secretary. Clearly this is different from the accountability arrangements for the police. The different systems reflect the differences between the two organisations and no one wishes to compromise the operational independence of chief officers of police. However, the requirement for the activities of the Security Service in support of the police—that is the important point—to be subject to co-ordination arrangements agreed with the director general will prove an important control in this respect. It was described by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, as the thin end of the wedge.
When I opened this debate I made clear that the resources devoted to the Security Service's new function will be small and that the protection of national security will remain the service's main priority. Indeed it will be a matter for the service itself to determine whether it has the resources to offer assistance to the police. I hope that that will offer some comfort to my noble friend

429
Lady Park as I know that she is worried about pre-empting precious resources of the Security Service which could detract from its main priority.
I also made clear that there are elaborate arrangements to ensure the accountability of the Security Service. They will apply to the service's new function in the same way as they do to the service's existing functions. I was asked why, if there were spare resources, we did not simply hand them over to the police, in which case we would not need this Bill at all. The Security Service needs to retain the flexibility to be able to respond to sudden demands in any of the areas for which it is responsible. That would not be helped by a permanent transfer of resources from the Security Service to the police. As regards the flexibility to which I referred a moment ago, it is for the Security Service to determine whether it wants to help in this area. If it does not, it will need those resources itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, referred, I believe, to the Security Service having no experience of gathering evidence in such a way that it can be used in court. I think that I have partly covered that point. Since 1992 the Security Service has had the lead responsibility for combating Irish terrorism on the mainland and, in carrying out that function, the service has had to gear its activities to securing the conviction of terrorists. There have been a number of notable successes. The service has, and indeed will have to have regard in its new function to those aspects of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act that are applicable.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred to the joint opinion which I believe was secured by the organisation, Liberty. I can give him an absolute assurance that I shall make sure that we give a proper response to that joint opinion. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy referred to the definition of law enforcement agencies and asked for some elaboration on that. The national crime squad will cover England and Wales, as I have said. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there is already in existence a Scottish crime squad. Similarly, the RUC is Province-wide in Northern Ireland and naturally there will be a need to have close operational links between the national crime squad in England and Wales, the Scottish crime squad and the RUC. I cannot comment on whether we shall remove the word "national", but no doubt I shall reflect on what my noble friend has said.
The Security Service will normally act in support of the police and Customs and Excise. However, there are other bodies that the service might assist in the pursuit of serious crime. They could include the Serious Fraud Office, the Immigration Service and the Benefits Agency. In regard to the latter two organisations, it is important to realise that the service would only help to combat large-scale racketeering and fraud rather than dealing with individual cases. My noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth asked about arrangements for the service's involvement in this area. She believed that they were too complicated. The Director General of the Security Service will retain operational control of the service. It is right that there should be arrangements in place to ensure that the service's serious crime work is co-ordinated with that of law enforcement agencies. We
430
do not believe that the arrangements will be over-elaborate or burdensome. However, my noble friend is right in that this is an area that we shall have to watch carefully.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy referred to the regulation of electronic eavesdropping. As I said earlier, the Home Secretary has given a commitment to legislate on intrusive surveillance by the police. We are not planning to go beyond that. The Government gave consideration recently to the wider issues of privacy and decided not to proceed with legislation. Of course, as my noble friend said, the practice of telephone tapping is comprehensively regulated under the Interception of Communications Act 1985.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough raised, I believe, the point about whether chief constables will automatically know if the Security Service is operating in their areas. Normally a chief constable will know. However, there could be circumstances where the service was tailing a suspect along a motorway which passed through several force areas where particular chief constables were not alerted. The important factor is that the activities of the service will be known to and visible to NCIS which will have responsibility for tasking the service on behalf of the police.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to the head of NCIS. Again, as I made clear, we intend to introduce legislation to put NCIS on a statutory footing in the near future. Legislation on the head of NCIS would be outside the scope of the Bill.
The noble Lord also referred to the handling of agents. The police are subject to clear guidelines on the handling of informants. Those guidelines address the issue of joint operations with other agencies such as Customs. The emphasis is on co-operation and discussion both at a strategic level to resolve issues of policy and at operational level to resolve practical issues. This is a useful model for involvement of the Security Service. The service has clear guidelines governing agent-handling procedures. Those guidelines have been formulated in response to the requirements of the service's existing functions. The work involves co-operation with the police. In preparing for the new function, the service is discussing with the police and others how to develop existing co-operation.
That is the right way to proceed. The emphasis throughout the Bill is on developing co-ordination between the contributions of different agencies, not on rigidly standardising those contributions. I look to my noble friend Lord Renton. He welcomed the framework of the Bill. I believe that my noble friend had some confidence that sensible negotiations would be achieved and that arrangements would be arrived at by the varying agencies. But that is no reason for not making the point; it is an important one. I have confidence that arrangements will be secured at the end of the day.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough and my noble friend Lady Park referred to extra finance. The Security Service has made it clear that it believes that it can take on this new function within its existing budget. Like the rest of government, it is striving to be as efficient as possible and to provide as good value for money as

431
possible. However, I repeat the point. It is for the Security Service to determine how it can support things without compromising its primary duty of looking after national security and the economic well-being of the country.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough was rather concerned about the range of chief officers who could be called upon for appointment from English and Welsh forces and not from Northern Ireland. I believe that there is a misunderstanding. My understanding is that it is only chief constables in all situations, whether it is Ireland or England. The only variation to that is that it is a commissioner of police in London rather than a chief constable.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked about the sharing of information and the recording of information between agencies. For co-operation between the agencies to be a success in practice, there will be a requirement for appropriate sharing of operational information. The recent improvement in co-operation between the police and Customs—it was referred to by the noble Lord—acts as a useful model and no doubt will be drawn upon when arrangements are drawn up for this very purpose.
The noble Lord also referred to the democratic accountability of chief constables. We value that local democratic accountability of chief constables and will do nothing in this Bill to undermine it. That is one of the reasons why the Bill makes clear that the Security Service will have a supporting role and will not be able to act independently in this serious crime field.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough asked whether operational primacy will lie with NCIS or with chief constables. All operations by the Security Service will have to be visible to NCIS. NCIS will ensure that chief constables are kept informed although circumstances may well require a greater level of co-operation with the local force. This will vary from case to case.
Many noble Lords have referred to the extension of powers in the Bill. Perhaps I may make it absolutely clear that the powers already exist for the Security Service. The intention is simply to extend existing powers to the new functions described in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked how the effectiveness of the new Security Service role will be assessed. He asked whether there is a role for the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Government keep matters of this nature under review. There are also existing mechanisms for overseeing the work of the Security Service. I have mentioned some. It is the wish of all parties for our response to organised crime to be as effective as possible. It will be open to the Intelligence and Security Committee to look into appropriate aspects of the Security Service's new role in due course. However, its future work programme is a matter for the committee to determine. My noble friend Lord Blaker is listening to the debate and will no doubt take that message to heart.
Organised crime is a menace which should have no place in a civilised society. That is why the Government are bringing forward the package of measures to which
432
I referred in opening the debate to ensure that our response to it is as effective as possible. This Bill represents the first part of the package. The package was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who preferred to talk about the whole package rather than the Bill.
The Bill is a discrete piece of legislation which is part of the package. That is why we have been able to bring it forward in advance of the rest of the package. By enacting it now we will be demonstrating that we are not prepared to delay bringing forward all available resources against those responsible for serious, organised crime. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996
5.37 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move to resolve, That the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996 No. 965) be not proceeded with and that this House invites Her Majesty's Government to lay amended regulations in place of Part 1 when they can show that it will significantly help to alleviate the problem of over-payment of housing benefit and in place of Part 2 when they can show that the supply of shared accommodation is sufficient to carry the burden which would be placed on it.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, before beginning any other argument, I should like to offer my thanks to the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal and to the usual channels for their courtesy and kindness in passing the business Motion to enable this Motion to be taken before the Prayer which follows it.
The regulations to which I draw the House's attention are divided into two parts. The first provides that housing benefit shall be paid in arrears instead of in advance. The second provides that young people under 25 shall receive housing benefit only at the rate appropriate to shared accommodation which is defined, for some reason which I have not fathomed, as accommodation not including use of their own sitting room.
My concerns about the regulations are, first, that they will tend to shut out the unemployed from the housing market, secondly, that they will drive large numbers of landlords either out of business or out of the housing benefit market, and, thirdly, that they will create considerable homelessness among those under 25 years old.
However, those are not the points I am making in my Motion. In my Motion I give the Minister the benefit of the doubt on all those points. We are all wrong sometimes. What I complain of—it is the subject of my Motion—is that the Department of Social Security has not done enough work on the regulations to be able to tell me whether or not I am mistaken. If I am, the

433
department will not know it. Therefore, the point of the Motion is to ask the department to go back and do its homework.
I have said in the past that the Department of Social Security, left to itself, is the most competent in Whitehall. I do not withdraw that phrase; but the operative words are "left to itself". If I should describe the regulations as "a pesky proposal", I should not be returning—greatly though I might like to—to old-fashioned 16th century abuse. I should say it originated from the public spending round. With apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan, we will never get social security right until Exchequer spokesmen,
"do not itch
to interfere in matters which
they do not understand".
I can see the Minister already thinking out his reply and I have a fair idea what it will be.
We all agree with the argument put by Mr. Chris Smith in his excellent lecture on Social Justice in the Modern World that one should aim to get the social security budget lower. That is no excuse for measures which are more likely to have the effect of increasing the social security budget. Also, while we are in dialogue with Exchequer spokesmen, we should remind them that a large part of the social security budget is the result of their errors. It is their responsibility to put it right.
I am also concerned that the Government are showing a considerable degree of discourtesy to the Social Security Advisory Committee, to which we are, as usual, much indebted. The Government say that they welcome the recognition and support for the proposals provided by the committee in its report. However, from the committee's conclusions we see what kind of recognition and support it is. Paragraph 47 states:
"We do not believe that, as presented to us, the potential effects of the proposals for paying Housing Benefit in arrears and for cutting Housing Benefit for people under 25 are sufficiently well understood to make it responsible to proceed with them. There needs to be a more thorough assessment of costs and benefits before any change is implemented".
On the first part, the committee recommends that the department takes more time to consider the implications for claimants and the private rented sector. On the second part, it recommends that the proposal be not implemented in the form presented to the committee. If that is support, one can do without it. To describe it as the Social Security Advisory Committee's "recognition and support" I am tempted to regard as cocking a snook at the committee. I do not believe that it is a courteous response.
In Part I, the Government show considerable concern about tenants taking housing benefit and absconding without paying the rent. I know that that happens. Once in my bachelor days it was done by my next-door neighbour who was known as "Mr. Lawless". But we have no evidence before us on the extent of the problem. The Government admit that the abuse may not be widespread. Noble Lords will note from the "may", that the Government have no figures available to them whatever.
There we have one mischief which may not be widespread, but if the regulations go through they will create other mischiefs which may be more widespread. In the first place, it is an incentive to breach of contract. The almost invariable landlord's contract is for rent in advance. The citizens' advice bureaux comment that they have never heard of a landlord willing to take his rent in arrears. So tenants who do not have the money will be put into a position of breaking their contract. The National Federation of Housing Associations is surely right that that will discourage landlords from renting to people on housing benefit or will encourage those of them who go on doing so to do what one always does in response to late payment: increase one's charges. Of course, the Government will pay for that in housing benefit too.
The delay may be much longer than the two months envisaged. The idea that all local authorities settle housing benefit claims within two weeks is not in the real world, especially since the two weeks only run from when the local authority has all the relevant information. Local authorities are often in no hurry to obtain it. In the London Borough of Brent, from which I come, delays of three months are by no means unusual. Add another couple and the landlord is waiting for a long time.
Delay is often caused by notification of change of circumstances, to which the local authority does not react with the requisite speed. One case which the citizens' advice bureaux have found is of notification in June, reaction on 5th September; overpayment of £172. That is not abuse by the tenant, it is a grave hardship to the tenant. Before the Government use overpayments of housing benefit as a justification for the regulations they need to know a great deal more than they do at present about why there are such overpayments: which are error by the local authority; which are error by the Department of Social Security (and that happens too); which are honest error by the claimant and which are fraud. Until some distinction is made, we can have no reliable proceedings.
The Government admit that they have little evidence concerning hardship to the landlord by an absconding tenant. But there will be a great deal of hardship if the regulations are proceeded with. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux quotes a case in North London, which is not exceptional, where with two months' rent and a deposit the claimant would be forced to provide out of his own resources, while waiting for housing benefit, £1,213. What person, recently unemployed, is in a position to do that? The Government said that people recently unemployed will have several weeks' wages in hand. If I had no other reason for looking forward to the next election, I should look forward to it for the pleasure of hearing Conservative candidates repeating that argument in Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield and Newcastle. I should expect it to confirm the Conservatives' status as the third party in all three of those cities. It is not in the real world.
Apart from that, we must consider the effect on former prisoners. They do not come out of prison with several weeks' wages in hand. All of us, even the Home

435
Secretary, agree that if prisoners are to go straight they must be able legally to be housed and to work. If they cannot do that, the costs will be much greater.
The second part of the regulations is, if anything, even worse. People of 24 are too old to be compulsorily kept at home. They are not children and their parents do not want to treat them as children. They are entitled to live independently. When I got married 25 was the average age of marriage for men and 21 for women. To be kept at home, as the Government wish, up to the age of 25 is an unnecessary indignity. I find it a curious provision that such people are not to be allowed a sitting room. It is the opposite mirror image of what happened in the 1930s when male undergraduates were first allowed to visit St. Hugh's College, Oxford. The college laid down that they could only visit between the safe hours of two and five in the afternoon and that all beds were to be moved out into the corridor before they came. The Government seem to have got that back to front and I do not understand why. It puzzles me. The biggest problem is that I do not see what they know about the supply of shared accommodation. To quote their own argument at paragraph 29 of their note to the advisory committee,
"There is no reason why Housing Benefit, which is intended to meet reasonable housing costs, should meet rents for types of accommodation which tenants would not be able to afford if they had to meet the rent from their own resources".
But that argument does too much. It is an argument against all housing benefit. The essential point of housing benefit is that it meets rent that the tenant could not otherwise have met. If that is the argument on which they rely, I shall be asking, come the general election: could we expect them, if in office, to continue housing benefit at all for another Parliament? It creates a very real doubt.
The supply of shared accommodation is the most surprising element. The Government invoke the housing market for students. I do not think they will find anyone in any university who agrees that that proves a plentiful supply of shared accommodation.
In a Written Answer to me on 29th January, the Minister said that there must be a large supply of shared accommodation because young people move house so frequently. I should have thought that evidence might have proved exactly the opposite. Many people move because their shared accommodation is not satisfactory, in many cases not safe: the fire rate in houses of multiple occupation is considerable.
The only quantifiable information we have is from Gloucestershire. We owe it jointly to Shelter and Gloucester city and Gloucestershire county councils. They found shared accommodation for 949 people. In a Written Answer, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, went better and found 1,223. There is a difference of definition there which I have not found, a shortfall—on Shelter's figures of 900 places, and on the noble Earl's figures of 600; and he knows absolutely nothing about the supply of shared accommodation or the demand for it in Gloucestershire. The Government should have had that information before they brought in these regulations.
That is the sort of evidence that makes me believe that this measure must lead to homelessness. It is my view that the Gloucestershire figures are likely to be typical. If the Government have one bit of evidence to the contrary I shall hear it with very great interest. The Minister will doubtless say that the Government are confident. They are often confident, but that confidence is sometimes misplaced. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996 No. 965) be not proceeded with and that this House invites Her Majesty's Government to lay amended regulations in place of Part 1 when they can show that it will significantly help to alleviate the problem of over-payment of housing benefit and in place of Part 2 when they can show that the supply of shared accommodation is sufficient to carry the burden which would be placed on it.—(Earl Russell.)
5.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, my concern is with the regulation that restricts housing benefit for people under 25. The trouble with youth, as someone said, is that it is wasted on the young. It is easy to pick up a false stereotype of young people as though they were all having a thoroughly wonderful time as purveyed by the colour supplements. But for a good many, life today is not at all easy. We need, particularly in this House, to hear some of their concerns.
I understand that the purpose of the regulation is, above all, to ensure that young people on housing benefit do not take on accommodation that will lock them into dependence on benefits and prevent their taking up modestly priced employment. I imagine what is envisaged is a person in a flat paying more rent than he or she can earn and that money at present being paid through benefit.
The aim of helping people into employment is entirely laudable. But it needs to be set against the background of a number of other considerations. The first is the very high level of unemployment, particularly in some areas and especially among young people. In some areas of the country unemployment is still over 20 per cent. Jobs are simply not there for very great numbers of young people. We need to bear in mind also the increasing homelessness, disillusionment and other problems associated with so many of that age group. This will be one more blow to a good many. It has been calculated that some 144,000 young people could have their benefit reduced by the regulation.
The Social Security Advisory Committee could not accept the principle of making rates of benefit that distinguish those over 25 from those under 25. I have to agree. There seems no good or logical reason for drawing a line on the basis of that particular age.
The relevant regulation restricts the amount of benefit payable to someone under 25 to "single room rent". That means in effect that the young person will have to live in a multi-occupancy house if he or she is to have benefit paid in full. That might be perfectly acceptable to a good number. Those of us who were sent away to boarding school or served in the forces may very well

437
not consider it to be much of a hardship. But some people will be badly hit. For example, there are young people who had work but who have suddenly become unemployed. While in work they managed to afford modest accommodation which included exclusive use of a small kitchen and bathroom and toilet facilities. When unemployed, they will lose all that. The single room rent benefit will not be enough to cover the rent for that kind of accommodation.
As mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, there are those who have been discharged from prison or who have mental health problems. Such people do not always find it easy to obtain accommodation. And there will be people who, for a variety of perfectly understandable and good reasons, might very well need something more self-contained than a single room in a house of multi-occupancy. Few of those will have family resources to fall back on. Some will be estranged from their families. Their problems can only be exacerbated by the regulation.
Life is already difficult enough for many young people today. It is estimated that 100,000 of the homeless in Britain are under 25 years of age. Many people affected by the regulation will come from a broken home or one from which they are excluded. They may have very little in the way of skills and training. The jobs open to them are few and far between. The rents in an area of acceptable accommodation may be way beyond what would be covered by benefit for a single room. I am afraid that this regulation, although well meant, far from helping young people into modestly paid employment as is its aim, will further depress and demoralise a good number.
5.58 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for today's Motion on the Order Paper. When the regulations were foreshadowed in the social security Statement last November, we on these Benches strongly opposed them.
Of course it is true that the housing benefit bill has soared—and we know why. The reason for some of that increase is demographic; the increasing numbers of lone parents and more particularly pensioners. Some is due to the recession and the growth in unemployment and of irregular, temporary, casual work combined with falling wages and low pay. But most of the reasons for the growth in housing benefit is the deliberate decision by the Government to introduce into housing the market and market economics. In the local authority and private rented sector there has been a deliberate switch from subsidies in bricks and mortar to subsidies for individuals, thus, at a stroke, creating dependency, without adding a single extra house to the housing market.
The second way in which government policy added to the growth in housing benefit was the deregulation in 1988 of the private rented sector. The Government hoped—it was not an unreasonable hope—that it might encourage investment in private rented housing. That has not happened. At most, something like three-fifths of the new private rented tenancies are one-off
438
properties let by individuals—individuals like me, for example. I am temporarily a landlord of my parents' former home until the market becomes sufficiently robust to sell it on into owner occupation. There is no evidence, except at the luxury end of the market, that significant portfolios of permanent rented housing have come onto the market.
The Minister at the time, Sir George Young, said that housing benefit would take the strain of government policy decisions. It has done so. Whereas in 1987–88 the housing benefit bill was £3.9 billion, it was £11.1 billion in 1994–95. So it has risen threefold or fourfold. That was because of demography and recession but, above all, because the Government willed it so by way of their policy decisions. Now the Government complain of the cost of their own folly. Did they not think of the consequences before making those policy choices? The Government now seek to cut the very housing benefit bill that they themselves forced upwards. Having made the mistake, they are determined that someone else will pay the price. In this case, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the right reverend Prelate said, the price will be paid by those under 25. I wish now to speak about those people.
Why have the Government targeted the under 25s? It is in the belief that young people under 25 can and should live at home. The Government believe that they do not do so because they are enticed into their own luxury accommodation through the generosity of housing benefit. The argument goes: cut housing benefit, get young people to shop around for cheaper accommodation—or better still, go home—and the DSS bill will at a stroke be cut by £65 million and one will simultaneously strengthen family life.
Every point of that analysis—if such it can he called—is false. It is false that those young people could live at home; that they are living in luxury accommodation and do so because of the generosity of housing benefit. The Government know that analysis to be false because, to my certain knowledge, since 1990 they have commissioned three significant pieces of research which show their arguments to be false.
Can and should those young people live at home? The great majority already do so. Two-thirds of young people under 25 live at home. A further 850,000 are owner occupiers. Only about one young person in eight lives away from home in private rented housing. Especially if they come from a rural area, to move to a place where they may find work may be the only way for them to get a job, however ill paid. Many others have left home because they are highly vulnerable there. Research by the Rowntree Trust showed, for example, that of those leaving authority care, something like 60 per cent. did so because of a background of family conflict and around four in 10 had experienced abuse at home which made it unsafe to return there. But, even if they could return home, they would not be particularly welcome there. If the parents themselves are on housing benefit, the Government, by virtually doubling the non-dependent adult deduction, have made sure that their parents' housing benefit will be cut. Therefore those young people will not be welcome there.

439
Let me move to the second part of the Government's so-called analysis. Do those young people seek up-market accommodation, courtesy of housing benefit? No, they do not. Peter Kemp's research for the DSS itself shows—I quote from Report 26—that housing benefit has "minimal effect" on young people's housing decisions.
Single people under 25 already have a hard time in the housing market. Why is that? First, it is because the private rented sector is a landlord's market and not a tenant's market. The landlords in private renting choose the tenants. It is not the other way round. So, whom do the landlords choose? Research by Peter Kemp for the Government has shown that over half of all landlords will not accept DSS tenants. Among those who do, most of them prefer couples with or without children or the elderly. By far and away the least popular letting that a landlord will make, and then only grudgingly, is to a single person on benefit and not in work. Landlords will not let to those young people if they can let to anyone else. As a result, those young people end up in the grottiest accommodation. It is of the poorest quality, represents the worst value for money and stock that private landlords cannot let to anyone else. Therefore, the Government's notion that those young people can somehow shop around for more modest accommodation is utter nonsense. That argument has been proved false by the research and the Government know it. If they do not, they have not read their own research and should not have commissioned it.
Is housing benefit funding over-expensive accommodation? No, it is not, because housing benefit is already capped. Again, the Government do not seem to be aware that two-fifths of private tenants already find that housing benefit does not cover their rent by, on average, something like £19 a week. Deregulation in 1988 encouraged landlords to raise their rents dramatically. But housing benefit did not follow because local authority rent officers capped the benefit that they would provide. A childless couple in a two-bedroom flat will not receive full housing benefit, however low their income, because they are regarded as being over-housed.
So what happens then? What happens if a young person under or over 25 in a modest flat or a bedsit with kitchen and bathroom finds that housing benefit does not cover the rent? That young person has to top it up out of his income support. However, if one is under 25, income support is £9 a week less than if one is over 25. Perhaps I may give the example of a young person to whom I was talking just four days ago. He is under 25 and lives in a bedsit which he rents for £43 a week. That was the only one he could find that was reasonably salubrious. The rent officer said that the accommodation was worth £27 a week in housing benefit. So from that young person's income support of £36 a week, he has to top slice £16 a week to add to his housing benefit to remain in the very modest bedsit that he currently occupies. He has £20 a week on which to live—£3 a day for food, heating, clothes, a newspaper and bus fares in order to search for a job. It is absolutely impossible.
440
The more reluctant the landlord, the more the young person has to spend; the younger the person, the less income support and the more will go on rent. Those young people are caught in a vicious circle. As a result, because housing benefit does not cover the rent, there is an increased risk of rent arrears and eviction. When such a young person is evicted, he finds it that much harder to find another home, not only because of his record of rent arrears but because in future housing benefit will be paid four weeks in arrears.
Nearly half of all single homeless people are under 25. One of the biggest reasons for their homelessness is the lack of affordable rented accommodation and the reluctance of landlords to take them in. Most of those young people are unable safely to go home. Without a home they cannot get a job; without a job they cannot afford a place to rent; without the money for rent they cannot afford a home; and without a home they cannot obtain a job. And so they go round the treadmill of dependency that the Government, by their policies, have created.
Now, after the battering that those under 25 year-olds have taken, they are told that housing benefit will be depressed even further in order to finance only a room in a shared house. The Social Security Advisory Committee has said that shared accommodation is already in short supply. Such young people are out-bid by students who share or families wanting the entire house. It is precisely that accommodation—a room in a shared house—which will be withdrawn from the rented sector when housing sales pick up. In any case, a high number of those young people, as the right reverend Prelate said, come from homes where they have been abused. There are 20,000 young people who come from local authority care but do not come under the Children Act. There are those with some degree of health or mental problem, wheelchair users, partially sighted people or those dependent on a guide dog. Some of them are HIV positive. For all those young people, it is not clear that shared accommodation is right or right for the people with whom they would share. Yet that is all that they will be able to afford without top-slicing their income support, thus forcing them into deeper poverty. The discretionary moneys available to local authorities do not even begin to touch the problems that will emerge. The standards are extremely low. Finally, to add insult to injury, those under 25 will not have the right to a 50 per cent. top-up between the actual and average rent that those over 25 will enjoy.
These regulations are monstrous. The Government encouraged rents to rise deliberately and said that they would be underpinned by housing benefit. When, as a result of what they did, housing benefit rose, the Government fingered those living in rented accommodation, especially young, single people, for the folly of the consequences of the Government's own decisions. Then the Government have the effrontery to say that young people have an alternative to private rented accommodation. They can live at home, which they cannot; they are living in upmarket accommodation, which they are not; and when they make a legitimate claim, housing benefit is available, which it is not. Already half of all young people are

441
paying part of their income support to contribute to a housing benefit which does not meet their rent. The Government will plunge them further into poverty.
What are the implications? For the young man I spoke of, with a net income of £20 a week, these regulations will mean that he will have a net income of £11 a week—£1.50 a day; not even the cost of a McDonald's meal of a burger and chips. That £1.50 a day must buy his food, clothes, newspaper and travel in his search for a job, his toiletries and so forth.
The Social Security Advisory Committee said that these regulations should not be implemented. It is quite right. Hence we will support the Motion on the Order Paper as hostile, but not fatal. We accept the strict convention of this House that we do not vote against a statutory instrument because to do so would create a situation where, unlike amendments to a Bill, the view of an unelected, largely hereditary House would prevail over that of an elected Chamber. In my view that would be wrong. But we feel so strongly about the inequities of these housing benefit regulations in which the Government created a housing policy which forced up rents and therefore housing benefit, and having done so are then penalising young people for the consequences of their policies, that if the noble Earl chooses to press his Motion, we will be happy to support him in the Lobbies.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the amendments we are debating tonight are designed to serve two purposes: first, to focus housing benefit more effectively in the private rented sector; secondly, to strengthen the Government's fight to tackle the abuse of public funds.
We have just been treated to the noble Baroness explaining how appalling the social security system is; how monstrous it is; how miserable it is; and how inadequate the various levels are. As always, the noble Baroness never ever puts anything into her speech in the way of numbers as to what her party would prefer to do; what they suggest; how much extra government expenditure they will be prepared to put into housing benefit. The logic of the 14 minutes to which I have just listened, as I have listened on a number of occasions, is that there ought to be a considerable increase in taxpayers' spending in this field. Fine. If that is the case, let the noble Baroness say so and let her come to the conclusion, as she must do, that either something else must be cut—perhaps another part of child benefit—or that taxes will have to be increased.
I do not need to challenge the noble Earl in that regard; he is honest enough to say, when we discuss these matters, that as a taxpayer he is happy to pay more taxes in order to increase benefit. I hope that he is not going to disillusion me.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I was merely going to say that I am reluctant to pay more tax in order to implement these regulations, which are not beneficial and are excessive.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Earl is therefore suggesting that any savings we
442
propose to make he would prefer to forego because he feels that the money saved ought to continue to be spent on housing benefit. I believe that I paraphrased him correctly.
I come back to my point, which is simply this. As always, the noble Baroness makes a case that paints a picture of people who need a great deal more money. That is the only logical conclusion of the language she uses. Fine.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. The reason young people need more money for their housing is that government policy has deregulated the rents that they are forced to pay. We would not have been in that situation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness would re-regulate.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I did not say that. I wish the Minister would not attribute words to me that I did not use. I said that we would not be in that position had we been in power. The Government are responsible for the crisis in housing benefit that they created, not us and not young people under 25.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am at a loss. Perhaps it is too late in the day for me to follow the logic. But if the problem is deregulation, then the alternative is regulation. Therefore, when the noble Baroness says that there is a huge problem with deregulation, logic tells me that she is suggesting re-regulation. But there is obviously another course of action which is beyond my mental capacities to work out. I shall be interested to see—it may well be revealed at some time in the next few months—the alternative to spending any more money in this field. We either have to do something about regulating, controlling—whatever word we use—or reviewing the private housing market, or we must spend more money if the points made by the noble Baroness are correct regarding how poor the situation is and how inadequate is the housing benefit that we give to people.
The noble Earl in his amendments seeks to have these regulations declared invalid and replaced by new regulations only when the Government can show that the measures will significantly reduce overpayments of housing benefit and there is sufficient shared accommodation available. I believe that your Lordships can be satisfied on both accounts and that these regulations should proceed as planned.
I begin with periodicity. Local authorities are responsible for administering the housing benefit scheme. They currently pay housing benefit wholly or partly in advance to claimants who rent from private landlords. Payments to local authority tenants are made by way of a rebate and are not affected by these amendments. In practice, that means that private tenants are usually paid every two weeks in advance or every four weeks; that is, two weeks in advance and two weeks in arrears. Payments may be sent to the claimant to enable him to pay his rent or in some circumstances—

443
for example, where there are substantial arrears of rent or where the claimant has requested—the benefit may be paid directly to the landlord.
The noble Earl raised the question of delay in processing claims as a point of concern. Local authority performance in that area has been improving. Currently, over 80 per cent. of claims are determined within 14 days of all the information being made available. These regulations do not affect the authorities' statutory obligations to decide claims quickly and, where there is a delay, to consider making payments on account. The Department of Social Security constantly monitors local authority performance in that regard.
There is a major disadvantage in paying benefit in advance. Quite simply, it presumes a future entitlement to benefit based on what local authorities understand the claimant's circumstances to be at the date of the claim. It also relies to a great extent on the honesty of both claimants and landlords to report changes likely to affect benefit. While the majority of claimants and landlords are completely reliable, your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that claimants do not always tell local authorities promptly when their circumstances change. But even when they do, the current benefit rule of paying in advance often prevents authorities from changing the amount of benefit straightaway. That may result in the claimant being overpaid or underpaid benefit.
On other occasions a landlord who receives payments direct from the local authority may be tempted to delay reporting a change if he thinks he will gain financially from so doing. In some cases, people receive the payment in advance but do not pay it over and then it takes the landlord three or four months to obtain access to his property again.
There were approximately 2 million recorded overpayments of housing benefit in the private rented sector during 1994–95. Recent studies also suggest that fraudulent encashment of housing benefit costs as much as £1 billion a year. Other overpayments cost an estimated £400 million last year, including £165 million in the private rented sector alone. We must curb this loss by whatever means at our disposal. It would be irresponsible of any government to do otherwise.
That is why these amendments to pay housing benefit in arrears from 7th October represent an important step forward. From that date, new claims from private sector tenants, and claims made following a move to private sector accommodation, will be paid wholly in arrears. However, the amount of benefit payable will remain unchanged and payments will continue to be made at the same two or four weekly intervals as before, but in arrears. Payments made direct to landlords in such cases will be made four weekly in arrears.
That will immediately reduce the amount of benefit overpaid or underpaid by local authorities because they will be able to take account of changes in circumstances much earlier than at present. This effect
444
was acknowledged by the Social Security Advisory Committee in its report. We do not, of course, maintain that paying housing benefit in arrears will prevent fraudulent activity, but we expect it to reduce the amount of benefit overpaid in the vast majority of cases.
Another abuse which we discovered when talking to landlords' representatives concerned a practice by some claimants to abscond with the first payment of benefit—which may be a significant sum—without paying their rent. We are determined to stamp that out.
These amendments will enable local authorities to make the first benefit payment payable to a landlord, but to send it to the claimant. This will send a clear message to claimants that it is their responsibility to pay their rent and at the same time offer positive safeguards to landlords. It has been widely welcomed both by the Social Security Advisory Committee and by landlords.
These amendments contain advantages for taxpayers, for claimants, for landlords and for local authorities. I can assure the House that the new rules will have no effect on local authority obligations for determining claims as quickly as possible.
I turn now to the question of young people. The new rules governing the payment of housing benefit to young people were announced in another place, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, during the social security Statement in November 1995. My right honourable friend Peter Lilley saw them as essential in discouraging benefit dependency and encouraging young people to take up employment. The noble Earl wants the Government to demonstrate that the supply of shared accommodation is adequate before this measure is implemented. That cannot be done because the availability of accommodation depends, in part, on the demand for it. Any research in this area can only be of limited use because the change we are seeking to implement is designed to encourage behavioural changes on the part of both landlord and tenant.
There is evidence to show that the private rental market has been able to respond to the demand from students for shared accommodation. We have every confidence that landlords and young people will be able to adapt to this change. We are not withholding housing benefit. We are saying that young people who decide to set up their own households must make sensible accommodation choices where they expect the taxpayer to help meet their housing costs. We are asking them to behave responsibly and to make the same decisions as their counterparts who are in employment or in full-time education. Most young people expect to live in modest accommodation, such as bedsits and rooms in shared flats and houses. There is ample scope for young people to share houses and flats without landlords losing rental income. I do not believe there is any risk of the amount of available rented accommodation declining because of these moves.
Housing benefit should not provide an incentive for young people to leave the parental home nor encourage migration to seaside areas where

445
unscrupulous landlords arrange expensive accommodation for young unemployed people. The initial proposals for this measure provided exemptions for couples and those single people with the care of children, and that is still the case. This was to ensure that all households would be able to occupy accommodation which is suitable to their needs.
The right reverend Prelate asked about those youngsters in need of care, support and supervision. It was decided from the outset that young people who live in accommodation provided by housing associations, charitable or voluntary bodies, where an element of care support or supervision is provided, would be exempt from the proposals. We are confident that this exemption will provide protection for the majority of disabled young people who tend to live in accommodation where care is provided. Other vulnerable young people are often housed in this type of accommodation as well, so they would also be protected.
As the measures apply only to the private rented sector, all local authority tenants will be exempt. We consider that this will also protect a proportion of vulnerable young people from being affected by the changes.
The amendments were submitted to the Social Security Advisory Committee and the local authority associations prior to being made. A number of helpful comments and suggestions were made, for which we are grateful. As a result of the submissions received, two changes have been made to the original proposals.
A number of submissions expressed concern for vulnerable young people who find themselves living independently on leaving local authority care, a group to which the noble Baroness referred. As some of these young people are as young as 16, and often have no family support to rely on, we considered it reasonable to make a further exemption for this group. We have decided to allow all young people who leave local authority care to be exempted from these changes up until their 22nd birthday. We hope that this will enable young care leavers to live in accommodation where some support is available to them—for instance, supported lodgings—until they are able to live independently.
We also decided to exempt from these provisions all those young people who live in self-contained accommodation provided by a registered housing association. Many young people who are housed by registered housing associations have a priority need for social housing. We believe that this exemption, taken with those mentioned already, will provide protection from the changes for most of the vulnerable young people for whom exemptions have been suggested.
The discretionary funding which was available to alleviate cases of exceptional hardship under the January changes to housing benefit will also apply to this measure. The Government will increase their cash contribution to local authorities to enable them to prevent exceptional hardship to those young people
446
who are not within the scope of the agreed exemptions. We are currently consulting the local authority associations on the proposed increase.
We intend to monitor this change to gauge its impact on the rental market as a whole as well as the effectiveness of the change in relation to young people's choices of accommodation.
These amending regulations will safeguard public funds and continue to provide protection to tenants and landlords. They will also encourage young people to make sensible accommodation choices that are within their own and taxpayers' means, just as other young people, either in employment or in education, have to do. I commend the regulations to the House.
6.28 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness for a helpful pair of contributions. I congratulate the Minister, who really is a trouper. His skill in making bricks without straw I admire very much indeed. I told your Lordships he would say that the Government are confident. He did. He gave us no reason for that confidence at all. Above all, he gave us no statistical information on which to base his arguments.
Perhaps I may deal first with fraud. Fraud is a crime. Because it is a crime it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Because it is a crime it must be dealt with by punishing the individual who is found guilty; not by a collective punishment for everyone in any way associated with him. It was suggested that there might be £1 billion of fraud. There is no evidence for that; or at least there is none before us at the moment. If the Government are publishing any tomorrow, I shall look at it with great care.
What do the Government actually say? They say:
"The Government acknowledge that there is little evidence about the number of landlords who are left with substantial debts because new tenants have absconded with their Housing Benefit. However, this proposal illustrates the Government's determination to protect the taxpayers' interest and stamp out abuse".
It sounds like an argument for, "There must be fraud because we stamped here".
The Minister said that he cannot carry out any survey of the amount of shared accommodation available. If he cannot do the one thing, then perhaps he should not do the other. The maxim, "Look before you leap" has a great deal of sense behind it. I am not alone in my belief that there is simply not a sufficient supply of shared accommodation. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux thinks so; the National Federation of Housing Associations thinks so; the Social Security Advisory Committee thinks so; most universities with which I have talked, think so. In fact, everyone thinks so except the Minister. It really cannot be the central item of government policy that we are all out of step, but our Johnny. I commend the Motion to the House.
6.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Borrie, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Meston, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Desai, L.

Northbourne, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Dubs, L.

Palmer, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rea, L.

Fitt, L.

Redesdale, L.

Geraint, L.

Richard, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Glenamara, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Gregson, L.

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sewel, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taverne, L.

Hertford, M.

Taylor of Blackburn, L

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tope, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kintore, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Young of Dartington, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Ailsa, M.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Aldington, L.

Coleraine, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Colwyn, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Courtown, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Balfour, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Barber, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Beloff, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Berners, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Birdwood, L.

Denham, L.

Blaker, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Blatch, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blyth, L

Eden of Winton, L.

Boardman, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bowness, L.

Elton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Goold, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Goschen, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Gray, L.

Brentford, V.

Gray of Conrin, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Greenway, L.

Brookes, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Henley, L.

Cadman, L.

Hesketh, L.

Caithness, E.

Holderness, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Howe, E.

Carnock, L.

Ironside, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

448

Lindsay, E.

Prentice, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Prior, L.

Lucas, L.

Quinton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Lyell, L.

Rawlings, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Rennell, L.

Mancroft, L.

Renton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L

Mersey, V.

Savile, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Milverton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Mountevans, L.

Stockton, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strange, B.

Munster E

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Newall, L.

Sudeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Tebbit, L.

Teynham, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trumpington, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Tugendhat, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ullswater, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Vivian, L.

Pender, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Wilcox, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wise, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Wynford, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
6.39 p.m.
The Parlimentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parlimentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th March be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to remove unnecessary burdens from business and to remove statutory obstacles to contracting out. It follows and builds on the thrust of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and seeks to advance two important government priorities: the deregulation initiative and the competing for quality policy.
The provisions in the order make good sense. This is demonstrated by the small response to the consultation exercise. Comment was invited from over 300 individuals and bodies with a particular interest in the order and only considered necessary.
I shall deal first with deregulation, then address the contracting out issues, and end with an explanation of the enabling powers the order contains.
The clear aim of the Government's deregulation initiative is to produce "fewer, better, simpler" regulations. This initiative is at the heart of the Government's policy to create an environment in which businesses can grow and increase their competitiveness. Over-prescriptive by imposing costs and inflexibilities. Small firms in particular stand to benefit from such moves.
Good progress is being made. Businesses in Northern Ireland are seeing benefits—104 regulations affecting business in Northern Ireland have been repealed or amended.
Let me stress that deregulation does not mean the reduction or removal of necessary protections. The Government's priority is always the proper protection of public interest.
The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 introduced 13 specific deregulatory changes which benefit business in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This order adds a further six specific deregulation provisions of benefit to Northern Ireland businesses.
Three articles will introduce further deregulatory change to Northern Ireland. These will remove statutory constraints on measuring a pint of beer; remove restrictions on Sunday sporting activities; and remove constraints on totalisator operators in relation to deductions from stakes. This provision follows a Great Britain order made under the enabling powers of the 1994 Act.
The remaining three provisions are unique to Northern Ireland. Article 3 removes the requirement to license premises used for horticultural processing; Article 5 removes redundant controls on local auctions; and Article 8 removes the requirement for taxi drivers to sit a separate driving test in order to obtain a taxi driver's licence.
The other side of what is to be enforced is how those measures are to be enforced. Businesses complain that they often incur unnecessary costs in order to meet the demands of over-zealous enforcement officers. They also suggest that they should be able to challenge enforcement officers' decisions at an early stage and, when a formal decision has been made, that their rights of appeal should be clarified and the appeal procedure should be speedy and inexpensive.
The Government recognise those concerns. They believe in ensuring that the manner of enforcement is as fair, transparent and consistent as possible. This is stated in Article 9. Article 10 sets out powers to introduce "model" appeal provisions which will provide a clear procedure to help businesses to appeal enforcement decisions.
Let me now turn to the other provisions in this order. These relate to contracting out and are based on the Competing for Quality White Paper, published in 1991, the aim of which was to improve the quality and responsiveness of our public services, while ensuring that the cost of their provision is one which the nation can afford.
The competing for quality programme exposes public services to the influences of competition. There are some areas of public service where the potential to test whether a function can be undertaken more effectively and efficiently may not be realised because of small but significant legal obstacles.
The order seeks to remove obstacles to market testing and contracting out where they may have been identified, thereby widening the opportunity for central departments, district councils and non-departmental public bodies to consider whether services should be opened to
450
competition. An important point to make here is that the provisions in the order do not prescribe competition; they merely allow it. Final decisions will rest with departments, councils and other bodies.
Measures removing statutory obstacles to contracting out are contained in Parts III and IV of the order. They include a number of specific provisions, enabling functions which are presently the responsibility of statutory office holders, departments and non-departmental public bodies to be exercised by duly authorised contractors.
Articles 11 and 12 enable the Registrar of Companies and Official Receiver to delegate functions to their own staff and to contract out functions.
Articles 13 to 15 are technical provisions relating to the important areas of accountability and contract conditions. They make it clear that the accountability of Ministers is not diminished if a service is contracted out; nor will contracting out affect the responsibilities of office holders or departments in relation to services affected by the order. Although work may be delegated, responsibility may not.
Additional measures in the order remove statutory obstacles to the contracting out of the administration of housing benefit.
The order also contains two measures specific to Northern Ireland which remove obstacles to contracting out in the areas of the agricultural census and dog control services provided by district councils.
A further category of obstacle is where restrictions are imposed by statute or other obligation on the disclosure to others of information held by government. Article 16 and Schedule 4 enable such restricted information to be disclosed to contractors where this is necessary to discharge their contractual responsibilities. In making such information available, it is important to note that contractors will be bound by the same obligations, and be subject to the same penalties for unauthorised release, as would public servants in the same circumstances.
Although most of the provisions follow practice in Great Britain, I need to draw your Lordships' attention to two departures from that practice and to a special measure for social security issues.
The first concerns the Sunday betting provisions in the 1994 Act. As the result of an extensive public consultation exercise a decision has been made not to include those provisions in the order.
Secondly, a general order-making power similar to that in the 1994 Act has not been included in this order. Such a power would have enabled Northern Ireland Orders in Council to be amended by subordinate legislation, where the aim is to effect deregulatory change or to remove an obstacle to contracting out. This would have meant that such orders would not be subject to any form of parliamentary scrutiny. That would have created a situation substantially at odds with that in Great Britain where an effective system of parliamentary checks has been put in place.
A special order-making power for social security legislation has been included in the order. This is a necessary exception to the general rule. The inclusion of

451
this power in Article 17 recognises the need, on the grounds of fairness and established practice, to provide for parity of treatment for social security legislation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The powers in Article 17 will enable any changes made in Great Britain by orders made under the 1994 Act to be introduced into Northern Ireland without delay.
I commend this order as a sensible and reasonable provision. It adds to progress already made across the UK. Its approach is entirely consistent with the Government's initiative to help business to become more competitive by reducing unnecessary burdens. The removal of obstacles to contracting out offers possibilities for flexibility in the delivery of public services. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th March be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction and explanation.
"No advanced society can manage itself outside a regulatory framework. Indeed, it is impossible to contemplate the sophisticated assumptions on which we conduct our everyday lives without the underpinning of regulation".
That is a direct citation from the remarks of the then President of the Board of Trade as recently as February 1994. We agree.
The Minister said that the order does not mean the reduction of protection to the public. I wish I were able to share her confidence since £1 billion of public money is now seriously at risk by virtue of deregulation and the removal of controls from the rendering and animal feed industry.
I wonder whether the Minister can reassure me over one or two articles. Article 3 relates to the repeal of licensing provisions relating to horticultural produce. Can the Minister reassure the House that public standards will be maintained?
Article 5 relates to the local control of auctions. Will the public be protected adequately from the scourge of bogus auctions? In Article 10, of course one welcomes a sensible, efficient, inexpensive appeal procedure. Can the Minister give the assurance that there will be no adverse effect on fair employment, in particular, the fair treatment of female employees?
I welcome the local option being introduced into Northern Ireland in respect of betting on Sundays. We did quite well with local option in a different context—drinking on Sundays—in Wales for many, many years, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris is willing to testify.
Deregulation is not the only answer to these problems. There is of course a strong public service ethos, particularly in Northern Ireland. The note of caution that I should like to sound is that contracting out/deregulation may be superficially attractive as an aspect of political dogma, but it sometimes inflicts upon the public service ethos wounds which are not readily cured.
I shall say one last word if I may. On the previous occasion when we discussed Northern Ireland business I asked the Minister about the position of Patrick Kelly.
452
I was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. I want to thank the Minister publicly for fulfilling the indication she gave that that was very much in the mind of the Northern Ireland Office. I am glad to say that the Northern Ireland Office—she may not agree with my terminology—was able to overbear the traditional stubbornness of the Home Office in seeing to the moving of Patrick Kelly from Northern Ireland to a prison in the Republic where he will be nearer to his family and relatives. I thank the Minister.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her introduction of the order. It is a bit of a rag-bag, is it not? It reminds me of the reported remarks of Winston Churchill when faced with a mess on his plate:
"This pudding has no theme".
We seem to have here an assortment which has been put together for largely ideological reasons.
The Minister is right when she says we must try to reduce barriers to businesses' effectiveness, but the Government should be careful when they claim that they are consistently on the side of reducing regulatory barriers. Butterworth's Company Law had 500 pages in 1979; it now has more than 4,000 pages. As the noble Baroness will know better than most Ministers, the number of necessary forms it recommends businesses to look at has grown from 80 to 265. So under governments of all persuasions—notably the Government who have been in power for the past 17 years—the burden of regulation has tended to grow, and so it is of course right to winnow from time to time—to cull, as it were—the burden of regulation as it grows.
The horrors of BSE, which were due, at least in part, to the removal of appropriate regulations, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, should make us look at each point of removal rather carefully, especially where consumer safety is involved. Like him, I should like to press the Minister on the Horticultural Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. The order removes the need for licences under that Act. The Minister failed to mention the fact that these licences are currently required only by horticulturists who produce more than a tonne of horticultural product a year—we are talking about fairly large enterprises—and that the licence deals exclusively with the simple and basic matter of hygiene. I wonder whether she is satisfied that this is not a safety barrier unnecessarily removed.
There is then, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, also said, the repeal of the Auctions (Local Control) Act (Northern Ireland) 1957. That Act gives local councils the right to license properties in which auctions are to be held, and allows them to refuse to license properties owned by people with convictions for an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how local councils in Northern Ireland will be able to protect themselves against that type of fraudulent provenance of an application once that provision has been repealed.
Then there is, of great interest to all of us who are beer drinkers, the Weights and Measures (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. Interestingly, that is an order which was brought in by this Government in the first place. So, it is—if I dare use the words—a U-turn. The Government have changed their mind about the froth on the top of the beer. I happen to agree with them. It should stop short

453
measures. In that sense, it has my full support, but they might want, in all modesty, to own up to the fact that it was their regulation in the first place.
Finally, contracting out is a sensitive issue in Northern Ireland for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, gave. First, as the Minister knows well, the private sector is not always strong in Northern Ireland. When a service is contracted out, we must be sure that there is proper competition; that there is no fix of the sort that used to disfigure public life in Northern Ireland; and that genuinely competitive options are available in a particular service. At the same time, we should be careful about wantonly destroying the infrastructure of public service that exists in Northern Ireland.
I hope that in the application of their powers to contract out in Northern Ireland the Government will be extremely careful. I do not propose to do anything but sit mute when we come to vote on this order.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Mostyn and Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for their contributions to the debate. First, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that as Minister for Agriculture I am well aware of the effect of BSE on Northern Ireland industry. I assure him that the current difficulties in the beef industry are not the result of deregulation policy but of a combination of factors, the majority of which resulted from economic changes. I hope that we can resolve the problem in the near future.
I share the noble Lords' respect for the high standard of public service in Northern Ireland. There can be no doubt about the commitment of civil servants to the governance of the Province. The contracting out orders represent tools for providing high quality, value-for-money services which everyone has a right to expect. If we save money on administration, we can spend it on the services. That must be to the benefit of the people.
Market testing has shown that the Civil Service has a high degree of competency, as it has won many of the bids. It must be satisfying to prove that one is right. Both noble Lords expressed some concern over horticultural deregulation. I suspect that neither noble Lord has such a horticultural establishment. If they did they would be pleased that they need no longer complete annual licensing applications or pay annual fees. They are not measures which should put the health of the industry, which is so important, at risk.
The fact that we are not removing powers from local authorities regarding auctions is well proven by the fact that in 39 years no local authority has considered it necessary to use the powers. The views of the RUC and the Association of Local Authorities were sought and both were content that the Act should be repealed. As Minister not only for agriculture but also for women issues in the Province, I am aware that contracting out may have a detrimental effect on employment opportunities for women. The Government are looking seriously at the recommendations of the Equal Opportunities Commission and will report soon. We are completely committed to ensuring the delivery of services to the public on a non-discriminatory basis and to securing equality of opportunity and equity of treatment for all
454
people of Northern Ireland in accordance with statutory requirements. Indeed, I was recently told by a member of the Church that Northern Ireland was a matriarchal society. Other noble Lords may have differing views but there can be no doubt about the influence of women and their contribution to the economy.
It gives me no problem to say that if one looks seriously at a difficulty and takes a different view one comes forward with a different view. I am pleased to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that we do not have people standing around in bars measuring the froth on beer, which could not be considered productive to the growth of the Northern Ireland economy which we all wish to see.
The order is straightforward. We recognise that there is no point in having unused legislation on the statute book, and as the noble Lord said, that it is better to cull the duplication of legislation. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Safety (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1996
7.2 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, that the draft order laid before the House on 30th April be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the order would introduce provisions to bring the Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 broadly into line with the provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990 already in force in Great Britain. While this order, in providing regulation-making powers for the Department of Agriculture, may appear to be somewhat at odds with our earlier debate on deregulation and contracting out, I can assure your Lordships that the issues are technical and procedural and necessary to ensure parity between the Province and Great Britain.
I believe that it will be helpful if I comment briefly on the order and then say a few words about the detailed provisions.
The main purpose of the order is to amend the Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 to provide enabling powers for the Department of Agriculture to implement by regulation various European Community directives on structural and hygiene standards and on inspection and associated controls in premises processing meat and meat products, including poultry meat. The order also includes a number of procedural amendments in relation to enforcement responsibilities on milk.
The opportunity is also being taken to make minor amendments to bring the Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 more into line with the Food Safety Act 1990 in Great Britain.
In addition, the draft order draws on the provisions previously discussed of the Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, relating to the effect of contracting out on departments and other

455
persons responsible for the provision of services and the termination of contracting arrangements and ancillary provisions regarding contracting out authorisations.
Perhaps I may stress that this is a necessary technical and procedural order. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th April be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I welcome all forms of regulation which inure to the protection of the public health. On that basis, I have nothing further to say.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness. I support the order, as I support anything which relates to the safety of food products, in particular meat. Perhaps I may shamelessly abuse this opportunity and comment on BSE as it affects the industry in Northern Ireland. It is a subject which we have not had an opportunity to discuss in this House. Agriculture is three times as important to the economy of Northern Ireland as it is to the rest of the United Kingdom. The dairy and beef industry in Northern Ireland has a uniquely high reputation. The beasts are fed and cared for to the highest standard. There is every reason to believe that cattle in Northern Ireland have been relatively immune from some of the excesses produced by the wrong feeding and the whole chapter of accidents with which we have become all too familiar.
I hope that if and when there is an opportunity, within the EU, of obtaining "advance treatment" of beef products in Northern Ireland the Government will not be inhibited by their general negotiating position on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole. I hope that they will be prepared to support the high quality beef of Northern Ireland, given the potentially friendly treatment which, during the past two or three weeks, has appeared possible in Brussels. I hope that for the sake of general negotiations they do not hold back an early relaxation of the ban in the European Union. That would be a great mistake and would not be understood by the people in Northern Ireland who farm to the highest standards.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for raising the issue of BSE. I support what he said. As the Minister is aware, approximately 80 per cent. of beef is exported from Northern Ireland. Therefore, the situation is serious for its economy, which is more rural than any other part of the United Kingdom. There cannot be a shop in Northern Ireland which is more than 15 minutes from a green field and therefore affected by the agricultural spending power.
456
We have the most modern system in the United Kingdom, perhaps one of the best in Europe, for logging the movement of cattle. One wonders why it is not used in this country. The traceability of progeny from BSE-infected cattle should be easier to cope with.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Brookeborough and the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for bringing to our attention the effect of BSE in Northern Ireland. If the noble Lord abuses the opportunity he does so in the interests of Northern Ireland, about which we all care.
It is right that the beef and dairy industry in Northern Ireland represents 4 per cent. of GDP. Nowhere is the effect of an export ban felt more keenly. Fifty per cent. of meat is exported because it is of such high quality and more than 70 per cent. leaves the Province. We must discover how to get the ban lifted. When I ask what is required to have the ban lifted, I receive replies to the effect, "How long is a piece of string?" That is not a scientific answer by any stretch of the imagination. I hope that we shall see a more rigorous and logical examination of the issues in Brussels tomorrow.
Northern Ireland has a tremendously high standard of traceability and inspection. I have absolute confidence that the veterinary service in the Department of Agriculture ensures that all requirements are complied with. Veterinary officers are available at all times at meat plants. There is a much smaller incidence of BSE in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to say that cases are down to nine per month, which is significant progress. In fact, that progress demonstrates that the rules which were imposed have been observed. However, there is an incidence of BSE and we must restore confidence.
I assure noble Lords that no one could be fighting harder for the lifting of the ban. My colleagues recognise that the effect on Northern Ireland is greater than anywhere else; I believe that even the Scots are prepared to acknowledge that. We must work extremely hard to establish what is required to lift the ban. I am certain that all the benefits we have in Northern Ireland will leave us ahead of the field, and we shall make quite certain we stay there.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, is she implying that the standards in the rest of the United Kingdom are lower than those which apply in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am talking about investment in traceability, which is unique to Northern Ireland. As my noble friend said, a similar system is not available in England. In addition, we have more veterinary officers in the industry which enables us to ensure that those who wish perhaps to bend the rules are not in a position to do so. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Henry Johnson, Sons & Co. Ltd.
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past seven o'clock.

  Council of Europe Conventions
  Council of Europe Conventions
  Russian Federation: Council of Europe Membership
  Russian Federation: Council of Europe Membership
  East Timor
  East Timor
  Forensic Explosives Laboratory: Centrifuge Contamination
  Forensic Explosives Laboratory: Centrifuge Contamination
  Asylum Applicants: Country Assessments
  Asylum Applicants: Country Assessments
  Public Bodies: Appointments
  Public Bodies: Appointments
  Overseas Trade Balances
  Overseas Trade Balances
  Multimedia: Regulatory Regime
  Multimedia: Regulatory Regime
  Oftel Director-General: Role
  Oftel Director-General: Role
  Oftel: Complement
  Oftel: Complement
  Polar, Antarctic and Arctic Research
  Polar, Antarctic and Arctic Research
  Fish Landings: Quantities
  Fish Landings: Quantities
  Spongiform Encephalopathy Committee
  Spongiform Encephalopathy Committee
  Animal Feeds: Nutrient Content
  Animal Feeds: Nutrient Content
  BSE: Confirmed Cases
  BSE: Confirmed Cases
  Biodiversity Steering Group's Report: Response
  Biodiversity Steering Group's Report: Response
  Planning Application: Development Plan Consideration
  Planning Application: Development Plan Consideration
  Planning Appeal Statistics
  Planning Appeal Statistics