Sitting of 17 July 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Food Standards Agency
    Ms Shipley: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what preparations his Department is making for the establishment of a food standards agency. [7274]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. Jack Cunningham): My Department, with the Department of Health and other interested Departments, is working towards publication of a White Paper in the autumn, which will set out the Government's proposals for the food standards agency. We have already made changes to the organisation of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to prepare for the agency.
    Ms Shipley: Many of my constituents in Stourbridge have raised the issue of food standards and safety with me, both before and after the general election. Can my right hon. Friend be more specific about publication of the White Paper and tell me what food standards measures his Department is implementing in the interim?
    Dr. Cunningham: We have already conducted preliminary consultations on Professor James's report. My Department is now analysing the responses to that consultation. We shall draft the White Paper and make it available to the House and the public as soon as we possibly can. I am working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on appropriate interim arrangements to ensure that, if necessary, we can expeditiously deal with any food health problems that may arise.
    Mrs. Spelman: Does the Minister agree that a Cabinet Minister should retain ultimate responsibility for food safety in the United Kingdom?
    Dr. Cunningham: The food standards agency will be an independent executive agency. It will report to the Secretary of State for Health.
    Dr. Gibson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that development of the food standards agency will require the support of world-class research into the food sciences?
    508
    If he does, will he consider a visit to the Institute of Food Research, in Norwich, as a part of the essential process of establishing a food standards agency?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes. As a scientist myself, I am absolutely certain that any decisions that we make on the matter should be based on the very best possible scientific analysis and advice. In answer to my hon. Friend's second question, yes, I will try to visit his constituents in Norwich.
    Mr. Baldry: Doubtless the Minister will want the maximum openness and transparency on the issue. Will he, therefore, kindly undertake to place in the Library the responses to Professor James's consultation, so that hon. Members may have some good reading over the long recess? Will he also consider following the excellent example of the Secretary of State for International Development, who, before publication of her White Paper, held a debate in the House in Government time? May we have a debate, in Government time, before publication of the White Paper on the food standards agency?
    Dr. Cunningham: On the first part of the question, I should tell the Gentleman that there have been more than 600 responses to the consultation. In the interests of openness and transparency, I think that I can say—although that has a certain European parliamentary ring about it—that, yes, I will place copies in the Library. On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, debates in Government time are a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Council.

    Genetically Engineered Crops
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that genetically engineered crops are separated from the main crop. [7276]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Under World Trade Organisation rules, it is not possible for Governments to demand segregation of genetically modified crops that have been approved as safe. Manufacturers and retailers, however, are free to pursue segregation on commercial grounds. Many United Kingdom supermarkets are demanding ever greater product traceability from their suppliers. There is no reason why they cannot do the same with genetically modified crops.
    Dr. Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the public's right to have their food labelled with pertinent information is more important than the rights of multinational food companies to make large profits by claiming that they are unable to separate genetically modified crops from the main crop? Will he use his best endeavours to ensure that such labelling occurs?
    Mr. Rooker: The answer to both my hon. Friend's questions is yes.

    Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
    Mr. Collins: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the operation of hill livestock compensatory allowances. [7277]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): In England, 98 per cent. of claims under the 1997 scheme were paid by the target date of 30 April. The 1998 scheme is now open for cattle claims, and the application period for sheep claims will be open as usual in December.
    Mr. Collins: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that much of the beauty of areas such as the Lake district depends on the hard work of hill farmers? Is he aware that, with sheep prices now falling and the continuing and accelerating difficulties in the beef sector, many hill farmers in my constituency and elsewhere are facing genuine problems? Will he therefore look with sympathy on their case for an uprating of HLCAs in the coming year?
    Mr. Morley: HLCAs are indeed an important support package for farmers in the uplands. However, I have to point out that when the Tory party was in government it made no provision for the £60 million that it gave to the beef sector in the uplands this year. That £60 million is not in next year's accounts, which will cause some difficulty in providing support through HLCAs.
    Mr. Curry: Would not the review of the upland payments be easier if the Government acted now to prevent the damage it will inflict on the incomes of hill farmers, and beef suckler herds in particular, and withdrew the ill-founded proposal to put a 560 kg weight limit on the animals eligible for culling? Does he not realise that that alone could cost hill farmers—honest hill farmers, not those out to fiddle the system—up to £150 per beast? With the next green pound revaluation now imminent, why does the Parliamentary Secretary not do what the Ministers of eight other countries have already done and go to Brussels to get the compensation to which he is entitled for his farmers, who will otherwise suffer?
    Mr. Morley: May I first welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his first Question Time in his new role? I repeat: if the previous Government felt that support for the suckler sector was so important, why did they make no provision for the £60 million in the Ministry's budget next year? It is true that there is hardship for the suckler sector because of the changes that have been made, but the Opposition spokesman will be aware that the total cost of bovine spongiform encephalopathy support is £3.5 billion of public money, spending for which the previous Administration bear some responsibility because of their incompetence.
    Mr. Curry: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that, since this Government came to power, there have been two major green pound revaluations, because the Chancellor let go of control of interest rates, and a third is imminent? As farmers are suffering severe income loss as a result, are they not entitled to get compensation from Brussels? Why does the hon. Gentleman not do what eight
    510
    of his colleagues at the Council of Ministers are doing and get that benefit for his farmers—or does he not care enough?
    Mr. Morley: In relation to the revaluation of the green pound, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already met a delegation of farmers from the National Farmers Union and made it clear that we are considering that point.

    Meat Hygiene Service
    Mr. Bayley: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of the Meat Hygiene Service. [7278]
    Dr. Jack Cunningham: The Government are looking carefully at the options for the future of the Meat Hygiene Service following the consultation exercise on Professor James's report into the establishment of an independent food standards agency. The report itself recommends that the new agency should take over responsibility for the Meat Hygiene Service.
    Mr. Bayley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that useful answer. I, too, think that the Meat Hygiene Service should become part of the agency. My right hon. Friend will be aware that York is not just Britain's but Europe's biggest centre for bioscience and has many agencies from his Department other than the Meat Hygiene Service—for example, the Pesticides Safety Directorate and the Central Science Laboratory. Would he like to come to York to see what they contribute to food safety, and will he give me an assurance that, wherever the headquarters of the new food standards agency is based, the Meat Hygiene Service will remain in York?
    Dr. Cunningham: I very much hope that my hon. Friend remains in York, too, as the Member of Parliament. No proposal has been made, by Professor James or anyone else, to relocate the Meat Hygiene Service. I can assure my hon. Friend on that point. In the coming months, I will try hard to visit him and his constituents in York.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister consider that the food standards agency should adopt the role of regulator of the Meat Hygiene Service, which should remain? Does he also believe that it is in the interests of the public that we have the highest possible standards of hygiene and that the consumer deserves nothing less from products coming in from Europe?
    Dr. Cunningham: The food standards agency will subsume the Meat Hygiene Service and its necessary activities. I certainly agree that we must drive up standards of hygiene in food generally and in the meat industries in particular. I hope that my European ministerial colleagues at next week's Council of Ministers vote to implement the same rigorous controls over specified beef risk materials that we have in this country. As I have told the House on more than one occasion, if they do not, I shall table orders in the House to ensure that beef imported to Britain is subject to those rigorous controls.
    Mr. David Heath: Is the Minister aware that some of the abattoirs that have worked most closely with the Meat

    511
    Hygiene Service and offer the best levels of hygiene and welfare facilities have been inexplicably excluded from the over-30-months cull? That is causing enormous difficulties for farmers, agents and hauliers throughout my constituency and, I think, in most of the country. Will he intervene to avoid another agricultural crisis?
    Dr. Cunningham: I am not aware of any impending crisis. The scheme, which, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows, is administered by the Intervention Board, is subject to competitive tendering to ensure that we get the best value for the large amounts of taxpayers' money involved, running to hundreds of millions of pounds.

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for reform of the common fisheries policy. [7280]
    Dr. Jack Cunningham: The Government are pressing for the common fisheries policy to be improved in a number of ways, including strengthening the economic benefits that countries derive from their quotas, improving the effectiveness of enforcement measures and introducing a greater regional dimension into decision making.
    Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give the House two assurances? First, will he assure us that coastal strips predominantly fished by the non-sector industry will for ever remain exclusively for UK boats after 2002, when the current derogation expires? Secondly, will he assure us that the North sea will never be fished by other national fleets except those that already fish there? The pressure on quotas is already destroying this country's inshore fisheries.
    Dr. Cunningham: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks on both counts. I know that fishermen in Brightlingsea, West Mersea and Wivenhoe in his constituency have had particular difficulties caused by over-fishing. We want to press ahead with restructuring our fishing industry to try to deal once and for all with problems such as those that he has rightly drawn to my attention.
    Mr. Andrew George: During the forthcoming UK presidency of the European Union, will the Minister ensure that reform of the common fisheries policy is given clear priority and that Britain sets the agenda for it? Does he believe that our presidency provides an opportunity to bring forward the date of the much needed review of the common fisheries policy?
    Dr. Cunningham: We certainly intend to set the agenda. We must recognise that we cannot totally control it, because it is partly set by the circumstances that we inherit from the previous presidency. We want reform of the common fisheries policy to be on the agenda. I doubt that there is any way in which we can advance the date for the changes that the hon. Gentleman referred to, but we have begun to prepare for our presidency. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of
    512
    Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I had a meeting earlier this week with the leaders of the British fishing industry from all over the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: I applaud the Government's efforts to tackle the problems of the fishing industry, which are in contrast to the empty talk we had from Conservative Members when they were in government. What is being done to improve the enforcement of the measures?
    Dr. Cunningham: I am pleased to say that one of the commitments my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received from the President of the Commission was that we would move towards the uniform enforcement of fishing controls across the European Union—something that should have been done a considerable time ago.
    Mr. Hogg: In seeking to tackle the problem of quota hoppers, in particular by the proposals on landing and crewing, the right hon. Gentleman is likely to be frustrated by the treaty of Rome, as happened in the Factortame case. Does he accept that, in reality, the only way forward is to amend the treaty of Rome, particularly the provisions that deal with the movement of persons and capital? That can be done only at an intergovernmental conference.
    Dr. Cunningham: No, I do not agree. Even if I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was right on that point, we realise clearly that there is no support from other member states of the European Union for such an approach. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Factortame case, over which the United Kingdom was in difficulties. The difference now is that we have a letter of authority from the President of the Commission for what we intend to do. If our proposal was the subject of a legal challenge, the President of the Commission would be on our side, as opposed to being against us, as happened in the past.

    Quarantine
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to improve the welfare of animals held in quarantine. [7281]
    Mr. Morley: We are currently inspecting those quarantine kennels that have signed up to a voluntary code of practice for the welfare of dogs and cats in quarantine premises to ensure they can meet all its requirements. We would like to put the code on a statutory basis when parliamentary time can be found.
    Mr. Flynn: Is my hon. Friend shocked by the list of situations, reported to him by Passports For Pets, in many of the quarantine kennels that are outside the present code? They are no-go areas for animal welfare. There are cases of neglect and sometimes cruelty, leading to great suffering for the animals incarcerated there. Although my hon. Friend is, I am sure, planning for a major reform of our absurd, cruel and unnecessary quarantine system, will he give an assurance that the Animal Health (Amendment) Bill, which was presented to the House yesterday, will have the Government's full support when it is considered by the House again in November?
    Mr. Morley: I was present in the House yesterday when my hon. Friend presented the Bill and I congratulate

    513
    him on his arguments on the serious issue of maintaining very high standards in quarantine kennels. At present, 74 quarantine kennels have signed up to the Ministry's voluntary code of practice; five have not. There are no powers at present to insist that they do sign up. We will look at the matter and we will examine my hon. Friend's Bill carefully when it is published to see whether we can use it as the basis of taking this issue forward.
    Mr. Walter: Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that a significant reduction in the problem of the welfare of animals in quarantine could be brought about by reducing the necessity for animals to go into quarantine? Do the Government have any plans to introduce new rules to allow animals coming in from the European Union and other rabies-free countries with the necessary veterinary certificates not to have to go into quarantine for the period at present required?
    Mr. Morley: The Government's policy is to ensure that this country retains its rabies-free status; that is obviously very important. Having said that, we acknowledge there have been new advances in technology and new procedures. We committed ourselves, when in opposition, to a review of quarantine procedures. We have carried out that review and we propose to produce a consultation paper in the not-too-distant future on the various options that could be considered, ensuring that we maintain the rabies-free status of this country.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Baker: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made towards securing reform of the common agricultural policy. [7282]
    Dr. Jack Cunningham: I am delighted that the European Commission yesterday published proposals for common agricultural policy reform, which in most respects reflect the Government's own ideas and priorities.
    Mr. Baker: Does the Minister agree that, although the announcements from the Commission are broadly welcomed by the agricultural sector and the wider environment, there is concern about the possibility of a cap on the proposed ceiling for direct payments to farmers? Will he undertake to resist any proposals for a cap on our farms, which are generally two or three times larger than those elsewhere in the European Union, as that would be detrimental to farmers in my constituency of Lewes and elsewhere in the country?
    Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is referring to what in Euro-jargon is called modulation. I can assure him, as I have told the House before, that I am opposed to the introduction of modulation in the CAP.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Will my right hon. Friend please outline how he intends to consult communities in peripheral rural areas such as the North York moors and his own constituency in Cumbria before the proposed reforms come into effect?
    Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Secretary and my noble
    514
    Friend in the other place are already involved in regional consultation on a regular basis, as are all right hon. and hon. Members. I can assure my hon. Friend that, having represented such a constituency for 27 years, I shall ensure that the voices of farmers in the hills, the dales and less-favoured areas are heard.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Given that the Government have already stated that the reform of the milk quota system is tied up with reform of the CAP, and as many dairy farmers are advising their sons and daughters not to follow them into the industry, but instead to enter the milk quota brokerage industry—assuming that they have also qualified as lawyers or accountants—will the Minister address the reform of the milk quota system as a matter of urgency so that young people are once again encouraged to join the industry?
    Dr. Cunningham: The answer is yes. I favour the abolition of milk quotas, as that is the only realistic reform that should be on the agenda. I intend that that issue, among others, will be on the agenda during the United Kingdom presidency. In general, I support the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister accept that the CAP has forced up food prices in Britain and elsewhere and represents a substantial transfer of resources from urban areas to rural areas? Why should the urban poor subsidise wealthy farmers? Would we not be much better off if the system were reformed so that prices were reduced substantially?
    Dr. Cunningham: It is true that the rural poor as well as the urban poor have to pay high prices—sometimes even higher prices—for their food, so the CAP has been of disadvantage to British people generally. We all pay more than is necessary for our food. I can think of few, if any, other policies that cost £30 billion a year and infuriate the farmers and the consumers alike.
    Mr. Paice: Although we welcome the reduction in price support contained in the proposals published yesterday—indeed, I welcome the remarks that the Minister has just made about them—does he agree that they would increase the cost of the CAP to the taxpayer by some £3.5 billion, yet at the same time reduce the income to arable farmers by some £330 million, in addition to the fact that cereal prices this year are already some 30 per cent. down on last year? Why should British farmers believe that the Minister will negotiate firmly on their behalf for proper compensation for further price reductions when he still refuses to commit himself to applying for the £350 million in compensation that is already on the table as a result of the revaluation programme.
    Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is right: the proposals—we are still examining them in detail—involve increases in expenditure. The Government have certainly not signed up automatically to that. I also recognise that, if we are to get away from support for production—that is our basic position—there will have to be transitional arrangements for farmers.
    As for compensation to farmers, principally because of the movement in sterling, I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I have an open mind on that subject. I have not made up my mind one way or the other.

    Fishing
    Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he intends to balance (a) fishing capacity reduction and (b) effort limitation in reaching the targets set out in the multi-annual guidance programme. [7283]
    Mr. Morley: My colleagues and I are discussing this with leaders of the fishing industry.
    Mr. Mitchell: I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the combination of effort and capacity targets is a bad idea because it makes it difficult to secure transparency and to know what is going on with regard to limitation of effort by our competitors. I hope that he further agrees that, given that the reductions demanded of us will be so massive, it will be impossible to reach them without substantial decommissioning funds from the Treasury to help the industry and without some kind of set-aside net-aside for tie-ups from Brussels. If we cannot reach such targets, we will have no access to European funding, which all our competitors have had and the British industry needs.
    Mr. Morley: I know that my hon. Friend has been a long-standing campaigner on behalf of his constituents and the British fishing industry. I know that he understands, as we do in government, that part of the problem that the industry is facing is due to the failure of the previous Administration under MAGP III in making progress in effort reduction. The fact remains, however, that there is a serious problem with overcapacity, as my hon. Friend knows. We have to tackle that with the industry. We want to give the industry the widest options concerning effort control. There is of course also a case for decommissioning, for which we have some funds available—£12 million. As he knows, we are talking with the industry about the best way of using those funds and the various options available.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. Tony Colman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he estimates to be the costs to date of BSE enforcement. [7284]
    Mr. Rooker: The approximate cost of enforcement of BSE measures by the Meat Hygiene Service since its establishment in April 1995 until the end of March this year is a little more than £20 million. Obviously, there are no figures available for the current year. Details of any local authority enforcement costs are not held centrally. I should put the figures in context: BSE is costing the public this year £1.4 billion, and over a four-year period, £3.7 billion—not a penny of which has been planned for.
    Mr. Colman: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Perhaps those relatively modest amounts spent on enforcement reflect the failure of the previous Government to deal with the matter and ensure the very highest level of personal and consumer safety.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend on his actions on Tuesday in stopping operations at two meat plants, thus ensuring that the illegal export of beef cannot take place.
    516
    Does that reflect a much more hard-hitting approach under the new Labour Government to ensure that consumer safety is at the top of the list?
    Mr. Rooker: I agree entirely with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. It is clear that the previous Government were slack in the extreme in enforcing BSE measures. That is why so little has been spent. The activities on Tuesday will be detailed in a further answer. We shall publish before the end of the year the hygiene assessment scores for every abattoir and slaughterhouse in the country. Frankly, anyone who continues to buy from any establishment that has a low score needs his head looking at.
    Mr. Greenway: We cannot have it both ways. Earlier, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food joined the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) in paying tribute to the Meat Hygiene Service, which is based in York, and I join him in that. The Minister of State, however, appears to be saying that the standards of enforcement were not good. What is the truth? Should we be concerned not about the standards of enforcement in this country but—if the Minister's plan to ban beef imports from other European countries that do not meet the same hygiene standards is to have any meaning—about enforcement in abattoirs in other European countries?
    Mr. Rooker: Let us get this clear. Staff in my Department have been carrying out the duties requested of them by previous Ministers. Previous Ministers were the ones who were slack. They deliberately sought not to enforce the regulations. Staff were required to follow those orders, which has left us having to close abattoirs at a few hours' notice. If there are any culprits in the matter, they are sitting on the Opposition Front Bench and the Benches behind. As the costs and consequences of the BSE legacy emerge and become apparent to present Ministers, we can see ever more clearly that the previous Government's handling of BSE amounted to nothing less than economic treason.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend used the term "slack in the extreme". Will he make a statement, and place it in the Library, of what he found out about BSE when Labour took over the Government? From all reports, it sounds shocking.
    Mr. Rooker: I assure my hon. Friend that we asked all the questions that would come immediately to mind. We are still awaiting some of the answers.
    Mr. Swinney: In the light of the Minister's statements about the costs of BSE enforcement, it is obvious that there is cross-party enthusiasm to solve the matter as early as possible. Does he recognise the unease of the National Farmers Union for Scotland that the twin-track proposals announced by the Government suggest that one track may move faster than the other? Will he assure us that the twin-track approach will maintain the same pace for each aspect of the certified herds scheme and the date-based scheme?
    Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman's question goes somewhat wider than the original question. We are moving

    517
    as quickly as possible on several fronts to get the ban lifted. It is not just a question of BSE enforcement, because the Florence agreement contains many other impositions and requirements. We hope to make an early announcement on progress on those requirements and we will seek to move forward on a United Kingdom basis wherever possible.

    Organic Farming
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase support for organic farming. [7285]
    Mr. Morley: We have already made it clear that we want to encourage an expansion of organic production and we are considering the best ways of achieving that.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend recognise that many organic farmers have a sense of grievance? They feel that they are discriminated against by the Department and are forced to charge higher prices for their products because their concern for conservation of the soil and the natural environment in which they work is such that they are unable to use the high-growth fertilisers and pesticides that other farmers use. They feel that the pricing system militates against them. Will my hon. Friend ensure that that sense of grievance is dealt with and that they are treated on a par with organic farmers in other parts of the European Union?
    Mr. Morley: Yesterday, the Government responded formally to the Select Committee on Agriculture, which made recommendations on organic farming. This morning, at the Agri-Environment Forum, I had the opportunity to discuss the issue with Patrick Holden of the Soil Association, who made a powerful case for more support. The Government want to see more organic conversion. The present structures have caused problems for farmers wishing to convert and we are reviewing them. Demand for organic produce is so strong that we are importing produce, but we wish to see British farmers meeting the demand with organic produce.

    Beef Exports
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to prevent illegal beef exports. [7287]
    Dr. Jack Cunningham: All allegations are urgently and rigorously investigated. My hon. Friend will be aware that as a result of serious hygiene concerns arising from investigations into such allegations, my Department and I issued notices on 14 July preventing two meat plants in the United Kingdom from trading in beef.
    Mrs. Campbell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that farmers in my area are concerned about any illegal activity, which can only help delay the lifting of the ban on British beef exports? Is he further aware of how welcome his prompt and firm action has been to local farmers?
    Dr. Cunningham: Overwhelmingly, farmers and legitimate and responsible meat traders will be infuriated by the allegations that British meat companies have been
    518
    involved in a European Union-wide fraud, especially as the European Union ban on British beef came into effect in March 1996. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend, her constituents and the House to the fact that by 1 May this year no new legislation had been enacted in the United Kingdom to place the ban on a statutory footing. I intend to introduce new legislation shortly to clarify and strengthen my powers to deal with suspected illegal exports and to enhance the checks that are carried out at ports.
    Mr. Gray: Does the Minister accept that the only way to ensure the same high standards in beef imported from continental abattoirs as we have come to expect from our own abattoirs would be to undertake to send our meat hygiene inspectors or our rigorous MAFF vets to inspect the abattoirs on the continent from which we are to import? Will he raise that idea with his ministerial colleagues next week and undertake to say that we will not import European beef unless it comes from abattoirs as demonstrably fine as our own?
    Dr. Cunningham: That is an absurd proposition. I have no such powers to send my meat inspectors into meat plants in other countries. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the European Union has its own inspectorate for such purposes.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the administration and financing of the over-30-months slaughter scheme.[7289]
    Mr. Chope: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about his decision to reduce compensation payments to beef farmers with effect from 4 August. [7290]
    Dr. Jack Cunningham: I have received a number of representations from farming interests about the decision to reduce the compensation payment for cull cows slaughtered under the scheme and to cap compensation payments by introducing a weight limit of 560 kg. The over-30-months scheme is administered by the Intervention Board executive agency and is co-financed by the European Union.
    Mr. Rendel: When the Minister was replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), he said that he saw no crisis brewing in the scheme. Does he not realise that many farmers, in my constituency and throughout the country, would regard that as remarkably complacent—perhaps even as complacent as the attitude of the previous Administration? Although the halving of the number of abattoirs and the reduction in compensation to farmers may lead to some reduction in costs for the taxpayer, it will certainly mean an increase in costs to farmers and more distress for the animals involved because of the longer distances that they will need to be transported.
    Dr. Cunningham: I made the point earlier, and I make it again to the hon. Gentleman now, that the Intervention Board has introduced competitive tendering precisely so

    519
    that we can improve value for money for British taxpayers. I also repeat that, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, United Kingdom expenditure on all BSE-related measures is forecast to be more than £1.35 billion in 1996–97, and is budgeted at more than £3.5 billion for the entire period 1996 to 2000. We simply cannot go on spending money at that rate. We have to take due account of the horrendous cost of it all to the taxpayer. I invite the hon. Gentleman, and anyone else who supports his argument, to think what we could do in the health service or in our children's schools with that expenditure.
    Mr. Chope: Why is the Minister discriminating against the farmers with the fattest old cows? What message does he have for my constituent Mr. Farwell, who has a herd of fine Friesians and is extremely aggrieved by the 560 kg limit? A fine Friesian that has become barren will probably weigh 700 kg, so my constituent will lose a lot of money as a result of the arbitrary change.
    Dr. Cunningham: I recognise that farmers, too, have difficulties as a result of the mismanagement of the whole crisis by the party of which the hon. Gentleman is a member. Perhaps I should remind him that the scheme is subject to EU legislation and is not completely within the control of Her Majesty's Government. Decisions have to be approved by the Beef Management Committee in Brussels, precisely because of the mess created by the Conservatives.
    Mr. Stevenson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the basic principles of the over-30-months scheme was that the reductions announced in the compensation have been part of the plan all along? Was not one of the guiding principles that farmers and producers would have the time to plan ahead? They knew full well that the time was coming when the compensation would be reduced and measures such as those that my right hon. Friend has announced would have to be adopted.
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I agree with that. I should also point out that there is absolutely no reason, given the time that has elapsed, why any clean cattle should continue to go into the scheme
    Mr. Tipping: Will the Minister look closely at any arguments or suggestions from farmers' organisations or other bodies trying to meet the needs of beef and suckler farmers, provided that any further action is met within existing resources?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes. I met the president of the National Farmers Union and a representative group of farmers from all over the United Kingdom a couple of weeks ago. They said that they would put some counter-proposals to me on how the scheme might be administered. I said that I would consider any such proposals that were put to me. As yet, I have not received them.
    Mr. Thompson: Will the Minister confirm that it was pressure from the Treasury that led the British Government to make this request to the Beef Management Committee and that that request was to reduce the price
    520
    not by 0.1 ecu per kilogram but by 0.3 ecu per kilogram? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that no further such request will be made?
    Dr. Cunningham: The Ministry of Agriculture is not immune to the need to stick within budgeted public expenditure—any more than any other Government Ministry is. A number of proposals were put to the Beef Management Committee in Brussels, and the final decision was made there. That is a consequence of the European Union legislation to deal with the crisis in beef farming caused by the previous Administration.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Serious Fraud Office
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Attorney—General what discussions he has had since 1 May with the director of the Serious Fraud Office concerning the future of the office. [7305]
    The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): The director and I meet regularly to discuss matters of departmental interest. In 1996–97 the Serious Fraud Office had a highly successful year. Eight major cases were concluded, with 12 out of 14 defendants being convicted. The new director will continue to build on that foundation.
    Mr. Jenkin: Do the Government have a strategy to rebuild the reputation of the Serious Fraud Office after it foundered on a series of high-profile cases during the past decade and earlier in this decade? May we have some idea of the kind of reforms that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider?
    The Attorney-General: The figures that I have just given the House speak for themselves. There have been difficulties in the past, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that many of the cases with which the SFO has to deal are difficult and complex and need a great deal of investigation. Once they are prosecuted, of course, the SFO is in the hands of the courts. However, the hon. Gentleman should be reassured by the figures that I have given.

    Amsterdam Treaty
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: To ask the Attorney—General if he will make a statement as to the implications of the Amsterdam treaty for his Department. [7307]
    The Attorney-General: The Amsterdam treaty does not have any specific implications for the work of my Department, but as a member of the Government I welcome the outstanding achievement of my colleagues in securing such a treaty which meets our key objectives.
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that a strong and effective European Court of Justice is essential if this country is to gain the maximum advantage from

    521
    membership of the European Union and essential to the interests of British industry if it is to take advantage of the single market?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A strong European Court of Justice is essential if we are to ensure compliance with the rules of Community law, such as the rules governing the internal market. As my hon. Friend says, the overwhelming majority of those rules benefit us—so I endorse his views.
    Mr. Burnett: Can the provisions of the Amsterdam treaty be used to enable United Kingdom judgments more easily to be enforced in other European Union countries?
    The Attorney-General: As the hon. Gentleman will have heard, I made my Department's responsibilities quite clear in my main answer, and the implications are as I have said. I could tell him what objectives we achieved, but the details of the treaty are matters for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I would respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts the question to him.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. John M. Taylor: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the effect of restrictions on rights of audience on morale in the Crown Prosecution Service. [7308]
    The Attorney-General: The Crown Prosecution Service has no statistical information about this issue, but there is enthusiasm among Crown prosecutors to exercise rights of audience in the Crown court.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that morale in the Crown Prosecution Service is extremely important, and that it is a matter not only of resources but of career prospects, which include the possibility of appearing in the higher courts? Does he further agree that until the service is in good heart there is no point in contemplating a public defender system?
    The Attorney-General: I know of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in these matters, and on the first part of the question I agree entirely: the morale is vital. On the second part, the review that we have set up has been warmly welcomed. Given that welcome, I hope that when the results come out, the review will play a major part in the question of morale that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises. The question of rights of audience and employed solicitors has already been decided, and it was clarified as recently as April this year. The question of employed banisters has not been resolved: it is before the designated judges for consideration, and has been for a little time.
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to introduce measures to reform the Crown Prosecution Service. [7309]
    The Attorney-General: In addition to the restructuring of Crown Prosecution Service areas to correspond with police areas, which 1 announced on 21 May 1997, Sir Iain Glidewell has been appointed to conduct an independent review of the CPS and expects to report to me by the end
    522
    of the year. Further consideration will then be given to whether and what changes are necessary to provide for the more effective and efficient prosecution of crime through local public prosecutors.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that, although it is quite fair for the morale of the Crown Prosecution Service to be referred to by the Tory hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), it is far more important to consider the morale of our constituents, who are sick to the back teeth of having court cases delayed by the old existing service, over which the Tories presided? We want news of when Mr. Justice Glidewell's report will be published. Will the public be able to make representations? The people of this country want my right hon. and learned Friend to take a grip on the service, which is badly letting down the criminal justice system.
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the paramount consideration must be the British public as a whole; I endorse that view. I hope that Sir Iain Glidewell's report will be published by the end of the year. The public will be invited to make their representations. In the years that have gone by, I have been aware of the feelings of many Members of Parliament and many petitioners about the Crown Prosecution Service.
    I hope that hon. Members such as my hon. Friend and others will give their evidence to Sir Iain Glidewell, who will issue a general invitation to staff and to anyone else to come along and give their views on what they regard as the shortfalls. Matters such as downgrading, delays and discontinuances are specifically within Sir Iain's remit.
    Mr. Baker: Is the Attorney-General aware that many of my constituents feel that the barrier set by the CPS before it decides to initiate prosecutions is set absurdly high and that on some occasions it appears that the reason is a backlog in the courts rather than a decision as to whether an action will be successful? Is he also aware that for many minor offences it appears to be almost impossible for the CPS to initiate proceedings and, for matters such as vandalism, only in exceptional circumstances does an action proceed?
    The Attorney-General: Those are some of the matters of concern to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) referred. Those matters will come within the remit of Sir Iain Glidewell. At the end of the day, we want to ensure that those who are guilty of offences are successfully prosecuted. The CPS has to take an independent judgment on the chances of conviction in each case, and that is what it does. If there are any shortfalls, they will be examined by Sir Iain and his inquiry.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: Does the Attorney-General recognise that we welcome Sir Iain Glidewell's review, but is he also aware that those who sow the wind reap the whirlwind? Does he recall that he and, in particular, his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary went up and down the country prior to the election putting out the idea that the CPS was constantly dropping or downgrading cases wrongly? They went on to say that the CPS rather than the police should have the job of informing victims, but the present Government have put no money forward to

    523
    enable that to happen and have therefore found it necessary to set up Sir Iain Glidewell's inquiry. Two of its primary functions are, first, to find out whether what he and the Home Secretary were saying is even accurate and, secondly, to find out whether what they are proposing is even practicable. Will he assure the House that the report—when it comes—will be published in full?
    The Attorney-General: I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the report will be published in full. If he had not shut his eyes over the years to the grave concern expressed by judge after judge, prosecutor after prosecutor and by Members of this House and members of the public, something would have been done years ago. He may recall that when the Bill which became the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 was first introduced I moved an amendment and said that the issue should be reviewed in five years' time lest we might—all of us—have got it wrong. I do not think that we got it right. Hence, I immediately asked for 42 Crown prosecutors to be appointed in each area, to be coterminous with chief constables, so that the public would know where they stand.

    Lenient Sentences
    Mr. Chope: To ask the Attorney-General how many unduly lenient sentences he has referred to the Court of Appeal since 1 May. [7310]
    The Attorney-General: Since 1 May this year, the Solicitor-General and I have considered 27 sentences. I have applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to refer 11 of those sentences.
    Mr. Chope: I thank the Attorney-General for that reply. Is he aware how angry people are at the Government's failure to make up their mind whether to implement mandatory minimum sentences, which are on the statute book just awaiting a Government decision? Is he aware that many persistent burglars on their seventh conviction are not even being sent to prison? Will he ensure that where there is such leniency the cases are referred by him to the Court of Appeal, pending a decision by the Home Secretary as to whether to implement the legislation?
    The Attorney-General: Only a very small proportion of cases have been referred to me or to my predecessor
    524
    compared with the huge number tried. The other matters that the hon. Gentleman raises are for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Attorney-General realise that if he were successful in securing longer sentences for the number of people that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) would like, and still more if he went for mandatory sentences, there would be nowhere to put the prisoners? Does he regret that the Home Secretary engaged in the general hue and cry for mandatory sentences before the general election and now has to face the consequences of no financial provision having been made for the extra prison places required?
    The Attorney-General: The concern of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which I am sure is shared by the right hon. Gentleman, is with the rising rate of crime, which has continued year after year, and the Conservative party's failure to deal with it. That was the basis of his remarks and of his continuing concern. We want to ensure that more of those who are guilty are convicted by the courts.
    Mr. Hogg: May I put it to the Attorney-General that his answer is worrying because the numbers being referred to him and to the Court of Appeal are very small? Those of us who have represented constituencies for a long time, or who have appeared in courts, know that sentences are frequently unduly lenient. It would be more reassuring if he could tell the House that he would endeavour to do a bigger trawl and consider a greater number of cases so as to get a better benchmark for the Court of Appeal.
    The Attorney-General: I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I and the Solicitor-General consider personally each and every case, as under my predecessor. Cases are referred to me by Members of Parliament, the Crown Prosecution Service, or the general public. The pattern seems fairly consistent. In 1997, 32 cases were referred to my predecessor. In the previous year, in England and Wales, there were 68, and in the year before that, there were 77. The cases that in accordance with statute we have to refer are not those that the right hon. and learned Gentleman or I might feel to be lenient but those that are unduly lenient—that is, where a sentence occurs well outside the usual pattern of sentencing. The statute was passed by his party, and we have to operate it.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell the House the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 21 JULY—Second Reading of the Education (Student Loans) Bill.
TUESDAY 22 JULY—Second Reading of the Social Security Bill.
WEDNESDAY 23 JULY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
In the afternoon, there will be a debate on the motion on section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act.
Proceedings on the Ministerial and Other Salaries Bill.
THURSDAY 24 JULY—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Education (Schools) Bill.
Proceedings on the Law Officers Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 25 JULY—Debate on the White Paper on the Welsh referendum on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 28 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill, which will be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 29 July.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 23 July there will be a debate on the preliminary draft budget for 1998 in European Standing Committee B.
As this is the first European Standing Committee meeting of this Parliament, I should like to take the opportunity to remind the House, particularly for the benefit of new Members, that all Members may attend European Standing Committees, and participate in questions to the Minister and the debates that follow.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 23 July—European Standing Committee B. Relevant European Community Document: COM(97)280, Preliminary Draft Budget. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-i (1997–98).]
Mrs. Shephard: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement. She will be aware that the United Kingdom's contribution to the European Union budget is due to rise to more than £8 billion compared with the present level of £6.3 billion—a rise of 27 per cent. She has explained that a debate on that issue will take place in European Standing Committee B, but I should have thought that, in the light of the size of that rise and of the fact that the Government have already spent most of the reserve, it would be better for there to be a full debate on the Floor of the House. I hope, therefore, that she will rethink her plans.
The House will have noticed that the right hon. Lady announced that the debate on the White Paper on devolution for Wales is due to take place next Friday. Given that much of next week's business is
526
uncontroversial, I wonder whether the right hon. Lady would also reconsider that plan. The devolution issue is important enough to take place earlier in the week.
Given yet another evasive performance by the Secretary of State for Wales at the Dispatch Box yesterday during Welsh questions, when he failed three times to answer questions on whether he had threatened the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) with expulsion from the Labour party, will the right hon. Lady ensure that, before the debate on the White Paper, the Secretary of State for Wales is given some basic training on answering questions? Does the right hon. Lady intend to have statements next week on the White Papers on devolution to Scotland and Wales?
It is disappointing to have to remind the right hon. Lady again that her responsibility is to the whole House. Does she agree that it is unacceptable and a discourtesy to the House for the Government, having raised questions and speculation about their pensions policy through briefing and counter-briefing the press, and having arranged for it to be vaunted as the most massive ever statement on pensions policy, then to deny the House the opportunity of hearing the answers to the questions that the Government themselves raised by announcing yet another review in a written answer?
In that connection, in the interest of open government, will the right hon. Lady explain why the Government have delayed their White Paper on open government?
Finally, will the right hon. Lady arrange for a debate on the cost of redecorating the Lord Chancellor's personal accommodation, in order to explain why that former fat cat needs, at taxpayers' expense, so lavishly refurbished a basket?
Mrs. Taylor: May I deal first with the point that the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) raised in respect of next Wednesday's debate on the draft budget? I remind her that we are following the practice adopted by the previous Government in the past two years; the debate has taken place in a European Standing Committee. It has taken some work to ensure that the Committee was set up in time, so the right hon. Lady should be congratulating us, not carping.
On Friday's debate on the Welsh White Paper, I remind the right hon. Lady that Friday is a normal sitting day. Hon. Members who are interested will participate in the debate. No votes are envisaged. Friday is an appropriate day for that debate, not least because we shall publish the White Paper on our proposals for Welsh devolution on Tuesday. Had we had a debate earlier in the week, the Opposition would have complained that we were not leaving sufficient time between publication of the White Paper and the debate. The Welsh White Paper will be published on Tuesday and the Scottish White Paper will be published on Thursday. Both will be accompanied by statements in the House.
The right hon. Lady raised the question of pensions. Having listened to some of the debates during consideration of the Finance Bill in the past couple of days, I am surprised that Opposition Members are still raising the pensions issue, because they certainly made no impact whatsoever in terms of that issue.
The fact that we were going to have a review on pensions has been well known for a very long time. All that has happened today is that the details of the terms of

527
reference have been announced. As for the time scale, hon. Members ought to realise that there will be plenty of time for consultation, because the Government intend to publish an initial framework for change in the first part of 1998 and there will then be a further period of consultation before firm proposals are developed. I think that there is plenty of time to discuss that.
On the issue of freedom of information, we have made it clear that there will be a White Paper and we want it to be comprehensive, so we are doing the extra work to make sure that that is the case.
On the issue of the Lord Chancellor's room in another place, it is, of course, for another place to decide what sums are spent on that part of this Palace. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor cannot himself direct that any work should be carried out, and it is certainly not a matter for this House.
Mr. David Winnick: As this is my first opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House a question regarding the future of radio reporting of the House, can she tell me whether she has seen early-day motion 246?
[That this House deplores any attempt by the British Broadcasting Corporation to alter or remove Yesterday in Parliament from its usual format or slot on Radio 4; and congratulates its producers on the past 50 years of impartial, succinct, judicious, informative and wide-ranging assessment of proceedings in both Houses.]
What representations—I hope that there will be representations from the Government—will be made to the BBC on this matter? Will there be consultation between the Government and the leaders of other political parties represented in the House? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the BBC should be told, clearly and firmly, that what it intends to do is totally inappropriate and that we expect a different standard from a public service organization?
Mrs. Taylor: Madam Speaker, I think at you made it clear that you would be making inquiries and representations on that point.
Madam Speaker: I have already done so.
Mrs. Taylor: You tell us now that you have already done so. I, too, have been in touch with Radio 4 and I do not think that any changes are planned for the absolutely immediate future. I hope that that will allow those hon. Members who share the concern that has been expressed to make their views known to Radio 4. We all have an interest in making sure that there is sufficient serious reporting of parliamentary activities.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Does the Leader of the House remember telling us that she hoped to provide a programme looking a fortnight ahead? May I remind her that she has just tantalised us by giving us the business for Monday and Tuesday in the final week? Could she break her duck and go for the second week now, so as to give us some advance warning? Could she even tell us when she expects us to come back after taking our break? [Interruption.] I am keen to get back.
If the Leader of the House were able to go into that further business, would she agree that we need an urgent debate on our prisons, bearing in mind the report issued
528
this morning by the chief inspector of prisons, which is highly critical of the situation in women's prisons in this country? Does she agree that such a debate would give the Home Secretary an opportunity to explain his U-turn in prison sentencing policy from before the election, when he was in favour of mandatory sentences to be imposed automatically, to the current state of play, where he is seeking for those to be discretionary and short?
Mrs. Taylor: I hope that, once we get past the early days of this Parliament, it will be possible to plan ahead on a slightly more secure basis than at present and that it will become normal practice to announce business two weeks in advance. At the moment, some of our business is still dependent on what is happening in another place and I would not like to give the House any misleading information.
However, I can confirm that I still hope and expect that the House will rise on 31 July. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is keen to return after the summer recess. I hope next week to announce not only the date of return, but the details of business for the first week back. Those are, however, not yet finalized.
Important issues are looming regarding the prison population, which greatly concern the Home Secretary. They are very serious issues on which we should try not to score party political points. We must all try to solve the real problems that we have inherited and those that have resulted from the high incidence of crime in this country.
Mr. Harry Barnes: This Government believe in reviews. The previous Government also believed in reviews, but they were not good at conducting them. For example, their review of probate services resulted in proposals to close many services, including the one in Chesterfield, whose closure would create access problems in the area. May we have a debate about probate services so that Members of Parliament representing Derbyshire constituencies may have an opportunity to argue the case for the probate service in Chesterfield and perhaps save it in the same way that we helped to save the independent tribunal service?
Mrs. Taylor: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his previous victory. The proposals for the probate service to which he refers have been in the pipeline for some time. I cannot offer him the prospect of an early debate, but I shall bring the matter and the concerns of my hon. Friend and his constituents to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor as soon as possible.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Given the importance to the House of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and its work, will the Leader of the House make a statement some time next week about why its proceedings are conducted in secret?
Mrs. Taylor: They are held in secret because that is what the House decided. However, I do not believe that they should be described in that way because we are simply deliberating in private. If we decided to take evidence, we could do so in public.
Mr. Harry Cohen: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate on London government?

529
The Conservative party has apparently done a U-turn and, less than two months after flatly rejecting the proposal, now supports Labour's policy of a directly elected mayor for London. Perhaps the debate would encourage the Opposition to go all the way in endorsing democracy for Londoners by accepting a London-wide elected authority.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right, and we welcome the Conservatives' U-turn. It is good that they have recognised that they were wrong to deny Londoners the right to their own democratic voice. It is somewhat ironic that the party that abolished the GLC 11 years ago should recognise belatedly the value of our policies. However, I am not sure that we can debate the matter next week.
Mr. Edward Leigh: As the Government embark on the 38th review of this short Parliament, will the Leader of the House explain why such detailed reportage about the Government's proposed pension reforms appears in today's newspapers, but the Secretary of State has not seen fit to come to the House and provide any explanation of her plans?
Mrs. Taylor: I have dealt with that matter already. There has been much speculation because we have made it clear for some time that there would be a review. The details and the terms of reference of that review were announced today.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government intend to publish their White Paper on openness in government and freedom of information no later than 31 July? Consideration of the matter has been overdue for many years.
Mrs. Taylor: As I said earlier, the White Paper will be published, but not according to that time scale. It will be published later in the year.
Mrs. Theresa May: Will the Leader of the House make time available before the recess for a debate about the electoral system to be used at the next elections to the European Parliament, given reports that the Government have decided that the elections will take place using proportional representation and party lists? A debate would enable all hon. Members to express their genuine concerns about PR and, particularly, the use of the party list system—which leads to the election of Members who have no connection with constituencies and who, because they owe their election to the party hierarchy, owe their allegiance to the interests of that hierarchy rather than to their constituents.
Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that there is any prospect of a debate in the near future, although, of course, the Government have a manifesto commitment to PR for European elections.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding an urgent debate on the coal industry? Is she aware of the press reports highlighting the unfairness of the subsidies to the continental coal industry—Germany and Poland—which is contrary to the
530
agreement on the single market, and the effect of that on British miners' jobs? Is she further aware that the clean-coal exercise could be a threat to the jobs of British mineworkers, because the previous Government withdrew support for that exercise? Will my right hon. Friend allow us an early debate on the coal industry, as there has not been such a debate for the past four or five years?
Mrs. Taylor: I understand why my hon. Friend, with his background and constituency interests, is particularly worried about the situation. I cannot promise him a debate, but I will bring his representations to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Is the Leader of the House aware of the number of statutory instruments arising out of European legislation that are coming before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and would she favour a review of the number and implementation of those statutory instruments? Does she think that that is a proper matter to be considered by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons?
Mrs. Taylor: The answer is yes on both counts.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate early-day motion 1?
[That this House celebrates with joy and hope the election of what will be a great reforming Labour Government; applauds its manifesto declaration that 'all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation'; asserts that this can be achieved for the present generation of pensioners only by restoring the link between basic pensions and average earning; urges an immediate start to the promised manifesto review of 'all aspects of the basic pension and its value, second pensions including SERPS and community care' and a renewal of the commitment to retain SERPS.]
May we also debate today's welcome announcement on pensions, so that we can congratulate the Government on abandoning the foolish proposal by the previous Government to throw pensioners to the wolves of the private pensions industry? The Labour Government propose to rebuild pensions on one of Labour's great successes, SERPS, and to introduce a form of SERPS that will be funded, independent of the national insurance scheme and run by independent managers. Is not such a scheme, with administration charges of less than 2 per cent., preferable to the private schemes, which have charges of at least 25 per cent.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend's points are well made. I cannot promise him a debate, any more than I could promise a debate to other hon. Members, but I remind him that he can make those points directly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security at Social Security Question Time on 28 July.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Leader of the House reconsider her decision on a debate on pensions? We heard an announcement today not of a review but, according to the newspapers, of far-reaching proposals, one of which is described by The Times as a tacit admission that the state can no longer fund people's pensions. That is a matter of great seriousness to the entire House, and it is not acceptable that the Secretary of State should make the announcement outside, rather than here.

531
Is the Leader of the House further aware that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), my namesake, has apparently, according to the news agency tapes, made an announcement today on new initiatives to curb the sale of alcohol to young people? That is a matter of interest not just to Conservative Members, but to the entire House, and she should regard her position as being one of service to the entire House.
Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman believes that the Government are making so much progress on so many issues. Were we always to make every announcement to the House, we would never do anything other than listen to statements, because we have a very proactive Government. When there is a statement of particular significance to the House, we make sure that it is made in the House.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Following the heart-warming reports in The Mirror this morning that Ryan Giggs, a constituent of mine until he had to travel north to Manchester to make his living, is very much in favour of the Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly, will my right hon. Friend ensure that in next week's debate on the White Paper on the Government's democratic devolution proposals, the Government make it clear that they welcome support from left-wingers, right-wingers, creative midfield controllers and even the occasional striker—as Mr. Giggs is, all rolled into one?
Mrs. Taylor: I look forward to my hon. Friend's contribution to that debate.
Mr. John Bercow: May we have a statement to the House next week from the President of the Board of Trade in which she explains, once and for all, when she first knew that the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe held shares in BP and in other companies, and why—in answer to questions from, and in correspondence with, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—she said that the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe "has placed" the generality of his shareholdings in a blind trust, when it subsequently emerged that he had not, and still has not, done so?
Mrs. Taylor: We cannot find time to debate that matter next week, and I do not think that there is any need to debate it. On 3 July, during business questions, I told the House:
"My noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe is in the process of complying with the rules in 'Questions of Procedure for Ministers'."—[Official Report, 3 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 427.]
That was an accurate statement.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: As an Essex Member who has long been an advocate of devolution—even before it was fashionable in the Labour party and elsewhere—may I ask my right hon. Friend to use her good offices to impress on the House that, although a Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament are a primary concern for our colleagues from Wales and Scotland, devolution is a United Kingdom issue? Assuming that
532
Madam Speaker feels so inclined, all hon. Members should have an opportunity to speak in debates on devolution White Papers, on the legislation and in the Committee stages. I stress that I am raising the matter as someone who is a keen advocate of devolution—both for those nations and for other areas in the United Kingdom. We must all have a slice of the action of the debate on those very important constitutional issues.
Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that many hon. Members from English constituencies will participate in those debates, not least because Conservative Members do not represent Scottish or Welsh constituencies.
Mr. John Greenway: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), the right hon. Lady said that any matter that was of significant interest to the House would be announced in the House. Surely nothing can be of greater interest to the House than the decision to give the responsibility to set interest rates to the Bank of England, and nothing can be more important than such a serious change in electoral arrangements as using proportional representation for elections to the European Parliament. We have read in the newspapers that the latter matter has already been decided. Will she give the House categorical assurances not only that there will be a statement before that policy is likely to be enshrined in United Kingdom law but that the House will have an opportunity to debate what should be a bipartisan matter?
Mrs. Taylor: I said that the most significant statements would be made in the House. Both the specific policies mentioned by the hon. Gentleman were mentioned in the Labour party manifesto, on which the Government were elected.
Mr. John Cryer: May I press my right hon. Friend on the point of proportional representation? Many Labour Members, myself included, are in favour of the first-past-the-post system, and moves towards proportional representation in the European or any other elections would be a matter of some concern. Will she take our concern on board and allow a debate on the matter—perhaps during the first week of August, if we run out of time?
Mrs. Taylor: In due course, there will be debates on those issues, but the Bill has not yet been drafted. I remind my hon. Friend that all Labour Members were elected on a manifesto containing a commitment to proportional representation for European elections.
Mr. Edward Garnier: When do the Government intend to announce their detailed proposals on the introduction of the European convention on human rights? May we have a statement next week, or certainly before we go down at the end of July?
Mrs. Taylor: We are making progress on that matter and still intend to introduce legislation. I hope that announcements will be made before too long. We are, however, not yet in a position to make a statement.
Mr. Peter Luff: In the light of the disappointing replies given by the Minister of

533
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food earlier, could the right hon. Lady arrange for an early debate on the changes to the over-30 months scheme, which are being so arbitrarily implemented, and, in particular, on what consultation the right hon. Gentleman had with the parties that will be affected and what assessment he made of the impact of these unwelcome changes on producers?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that there is either time or need for such a debate. My right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues are dealing with the matter as well as they can. It is a very difficult situation, not least because of what we inherited from the previous Government. My right hon. Friend dealt with the matter at Question Time, and I have nothing to add to what he said.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Perhaps the right hon. Lady will read in Hansard tomorrow the answers that she has given today, because she has set out some interesting new constitutional conventions, not least that if there is a manifesto commitment, there is no need or obligation to make a statement to the House. It used to be a constitutional convention, until 1 May, that if the Government changed their policy, they made it clear to the House either by way of written answer or, if the matter was more significant, by way of a statement.
This afternoon, we have heard a whole series of policy changes, not least that relating to pensions, which the Government have not had the courtesy to explain to the House. This is not modernisation; it is arrogance of power of the most unattractive kind.
Mrs. Taylor: Conservative Members would have been very critical if we had gone back on manifesto commitments, and so would the country as a whole. There has been no change in this Government's policy on some of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The fact that we disagree with the previous Government on a range of issues does not mean that we have to explain why.
Mr. James Clappison: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), the Leader of the House said that she took the trouble on 3 July to tell the House that the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe was in the process of complying with the requirements affecting him as a Minister regarding shareholdings. Has he now done so?
Mrs. Taylor: If the Permanent Secretary and the Cabinet Secretary are satisfied with the arrangements that have been made, I do not think there is any need to take the matter further.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: May we have an urgent statement by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in view of the fact that, during last night's debate on clause 17 of the Finance Bill, she, no doubt unintentionally, misled the House? The effects of clause 17 on some important classes of insurance premium payers, of whom there are certainly tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands, will be dramatic. It was clear that Conservative Members were very worried, but, towards the end of that debate, the Financial Secretary assured us that the answers to our questions would be
534
found in the notes from the Inland Revenue. We have checked those notes, but there is absolutely nothing in them to clarify the issue. May we therefore please have a statement?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not know of any reason why we should have a statement. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned, there are still several stages of the Bill left—the remainder of the Committee stage, and Report—so there will be other opportunities for him to raise the matter with Treasury Ministers.
Mr. Tim Collins: Before the House rises, will the Leader of the House make time for a statement, if not a debate, on the outcome of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' accelerated roads review? She will know that many Members from all parts of the House are very concerned on behalf of their constituents about the outcome of that review. I hope that she will ask her colleagues to make a statement, rather than issue yet another significant policy development as a press release.
Mrs. Taylor: I am afraid that I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when that review will be complete, but we appreciate the need to keep the House informed.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Notwithstanding the answer that the right hon. Lady gave to my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, we did have a debate early in this Parliament on the salary of one of the Law Officers in another place, and great sport it afforded, especially when contrasted with the salary available for the Minister for Women. Will the right hon. Lady reconsider and arrange a debate on the palatial accommodation of the Lord Chancellor? Perhaps we could contrast that with the treatment of our own barber who, although he has no international reputation and does not travel abroad, is an honest, decent, working fellow.
Mrs. Taylor: I think it best just to say that I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave earlier.
Mr. Robert Walter: In the past month, the Prime Minister has negotiated the Amsterdam treaty, the President of the Commission has introduced his Agenda 2000, laying out spending proposals for well into the next century and the Commission has produced its proposals for bringing six new members into the European Union. When are we likely to be able to debate the future structure, financing and shape of the European Union?
Mrs. Taylor: There is clearly no prospect of such a debate in the immediate future. There will have to be debates and legislation following Amsterdam, when there will be opportunities to discuss those issues.
Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you assist me by directing me to the passage in "Erskine May" that states that because a proposal is contained in a party document—a manifesto—it does not have to be shared with the House of Commons? You may answer that you are not responsible for what statements the Government bring to the House. As the pensions review relates to terms of reference and as we cannot

535
question the Government on it, I wonder whether you might elucidate further and better particulars with the Government on our behalf.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is raising a point of order in relation to many questions that have already been put to the Leader of the House. Let me make my position as Speaker quite clear. I expect any Government, when there is a change of policy to be announced, to announce it in the House, preferably from the Dispatch Box, so that that policy can be questioned. That can also be done by means of a written question, which happened on a number of occasions with previous Governments. Only when there is a change of policy must the House be kept informed.
The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day. [Interruption.] I think that that was a big raspberry to many Members.

Orders of the Day

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Council Tax
  4.7 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move,
  That the draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.
  Before referring to the order and the caps proposed for Oxfordshire, Somerset and Warwickshire, I should like to make a few general points about the Government's view of the role of local government.
  We believe that local government has an important part to play in Britain's future. Our policies will be based on our wish to reinvigorate local government, outlined in our manifesto. Those policies encourage increased democracy, with local people having the chance to have more of a say in the affairs of their council; increased autonomy, with more freedom for authorities to take their own decisions; increased accountability, with elected representatives being more visibly accountable for their actions; and increased partnership between central and local government and between local authorities and the people they serve and businesses and groups in their areas.
  Only yesterday, the first meeting of the new central-local partnership took place, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and attended by several Cabinet Ministers and representatives from local government, to consider major local government issues, including the pressures on local government and the policies that we want to take forward with it. We believe that within that framework, local authorities have important roles as commissioners and deliverers of a wide range of local services.
  The announcement in the Budget of an additional £1 billion for education next year is a clear example of our commitment to help local authorities in the all-important area of education. The increase will allow local education authorities to plan ahead over the next 18 months.
  In the longer term, we are committed to abolishing crude capping. We cannot do so, however, until we have put in place other policies on local accountability, such as best value and local performance plans. In the meantime, we must settle the 1997–98 capping round in a way that is consistent with our undertaking to live within existing public expenditure plans.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: There may be a number of Labour Members who are not entirely happy about the rate capping provisions and who are interested in the interpretation of manifesto and policy commitments, with which my hon. Friend has been dealing in connection with the position on rate capping. Once the order goes through, will that be the limit of the rate capping policy? If not, will the Government at least consider a rate capping policy that will be limited, in the way that it operates for Oxfordshire, Somerset and Warwickshire?
  Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right. We have a firm commitment in the manifesto, as I have just said. The Chancellor announced in his Budget, at the same time as providing substantial additional resources for education in the next year, that there would have to be a continuing
  538
  capping regime. We inherited great public finance problems, which we have pledged to bring under control. It is, however, my right hon. Friend's objective and mine to meet the manifesto commitment to abolish capping as soon as possible.
  My hon. Friend will have heard me say that we want to put in place other policies on local accountability. He will hear in the very near future announcements that begin to fulfil some of our manifesto commitments on matters such as best value. No one is more determined than I am to see local government become far more accountable to local people.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I hear what my hon. Friend says about the future of local government finance and her determination to have a different regime. Given that, why is it necessary to cap the expenditure of the three authorities when they have made it clear that they cannot deliver the services that their populations require within the level of the cap? What difference would it make if the capping order was simply not made?
  Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend will hear the reason as I continue my speech. This settlement was made by the previous Government. We made it clear at the time that if the settlement was agreed in Parliament, it would not be fair to authorities throughout the land to change the rules after the election, especially if the election was as late as 1 May, because they had set their budgets. All the councils had problems and during the debate on the settlement, hon. Members explained the problems that their local authorities faced. All authorities face severe problems. It would not be fair to vary the rules for three authorities without just cause. I would then be subjecting the Government and others to accusations of great unfairness.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: Does not the hon. Lady recognise that by that answer she is running herself near to the possibility of judicial review? Under the legislation, she has to consider each local authority individually. By the nature of her answer, she has given the House the impression that she is not prepared to consider lifting the cap on any individual authority because, for electoral reasons, it would be unfair to the collectivity of other authorities. That is not the way in which the legislation is set out.
  Ms Armstrong: If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will see that I have said that capping would not be lifted unless specific circumstances within the criteria allowed for it. Indeed, in one authority there were different circumstances, so the cap is not being placed automatically on all three authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) asked whether, without looking at the circumstances, I would say that the cap would not apply simply because certain authorities had spent over the cap. I was responding to the specific point that he raised.
  Mr. David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister, but I still do not follow her argument and I hope that she will develop it further. She seems to be saying that her main criterion is uniformity, rather than

  539
  the clearly expressed wish of local people to spend locally derived money on local services. What has that to do with central Government?
  Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman is making a different point. We are debating today's order within the rules that were set out for the 1997–98 settlement. The hon. Gentleman is making a point that is outside the previous Government's view of the relationship between central and local government and I shall address it in due course, when we have the legislative ability to do so.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: I am grateful to the Minister, who listened courteously to the delegation from Oxfordshire, as was her duty, because she has to take an objective view of the merits of the case. Will she give a categorical assurance that no assurances were given to Labour local authorities before the election that, if they did not set a budget above the cap, a new Labour Government would make concessions to other local authorities? It is believed that such assurances were given and her decision reflects that belief.
  Ms Armstrong: I continue to marvel at the rumours that go round. There was certainly no such commitment on my part. However, there was a commitment that once the process had been agreed by the House, we would abide by it. We did not think it right to change the rules in the middle of the process. We made that absolutely clear to all local authorities. The Secretary of State for Health made that perfectly clear on national television, and we both made it clear in the House and when we met the Local Government Association.
  Mr. John Austin: I appreciate the real problems that my hon. Friend is experiencing, having inherited an inherently flawed system from the previous Government. I recognise the difficulties that she and her colleagues face, given that most authorities have operated within the rules. However, I hope that she will recognise my difficulties, as a former councillor of some 24 years and the former leader of a local authority that was rate-capped in every year that rate capping operated, although we were a low spender and a high provider of services and were recognised by the district auditor to be an efficient and effective council. Does she recognise, therefore, that there are difficulties for those of us who have an inherent objection in principle to the concept of capping? Is there any intention to review the system this year? What assurances can she give us that we shall see an end to the entire principle of capping in the not too distant future?
  Ms Armstrong: I, too, was a member of an authority and I, too, have spent much of my life wanting to reshape and reform the relationship between local and central Government. However, I remind my hon. Friend that we have had 18 years of movement in one direction. We are now determined to turn the tide and move in a totally different direction, so that local people have the opportunity to hold their authorities far more to account than they are able to do at the moment. As I said, I shall be bringing forward proposals very shortly, on part of that agenda. I hope that, when the House is able to find
  540
  legislative time, we shall be able to move on a much wider part of the agenda. We also have commitments in terms of public finance.
  Sir Robert Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Armstrong: I should like to finish answering one intervention. I shall then press on. I shall take some interventions later, but I am only at the end of the first page of my speech and we are quarter of an hour into the debate.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) that I am determined that we shall move as quickly as we can to a new regime. In order to be fair to authorities, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget two weeks ago the pattern for next year's settlement, so that they are able to plan and begin their budgeting now. We are determined to put public finances on a good footing, so that we can begin to deal much more effectively with the real deficit—which I accept exists in far too many authorities—in the quality of services that authorities are able to deliver because of severe cuts.
  Mr. Tony Benn: What is the bearing on public finances if a local authority raises money in accordance with the wishes of its local electors and spends the money? There is no increase in borrowing. Indeed, under the private finance initiative, it is perfectly all right for companies to raise money by selling shares and then use the money locally. I do not see—and I think that many local authorities do not see—any relationship between local democracy and public finances, although I agree that, at national level, the Government face a serious situation in regard to public finances.
  Ms Armstrong: I have tried to make it clear to all hon. Members that the Government have a clear agenda on changing the relationship between central and local government and, indeed, between local authorities and their populations. That is, of course, an important issue. We are already involved in important and intensive discussions with local government on those very points. We shall be bringing forward consultation papers, which will arise partly from the consultation with local government, and they will be available for wider distribution.
  I am determined that we move in such a way that local government knows that it is involved, so that the process is not simply government by diktat, saying, "This is what you will respond to." The previous Administration have got us into this situation, and I shall not take unfair decisions in order to try to get out of it. Although I understand what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is saying, because of the way in which the previous Administration ordered things, the amount that local government spends is a significant part of public expenditure. That is why the capping regime exists. We shall do what we can as soon as possible.
  The House will recall that the total standard spending for England for 1997–98 is £45.66 billion—an increase of 2.5 per cent. on 1996–97—and that the settlement provided for what the previous Administration intended represented a 3.4 per cent. increase in education standard spending assessments.

  541
  It is of course for each local authority to set its own budget and to decide its spending priorities. The capping principles for 1997–98 allowed almost all authorities to increase their spending by at least the total of increases in their education, social services and fire SSA blocks. That has become known as passporting. The result was that English authorities could on average increase their expenditure by some 2.4 per cent. Shire counties, which are the relevant bodies today, could increase their expenditure by 2.2 per cent. on average.
  I recognise that it has been a tough settlement for all local authorities, and it was not one that we voted for. However, we made it clear to local authorities well before they set their budgets that we had little choice but to stick to the caps already proposed by the previous Administration. By the time we came into power, all authorities had already set their budgets and only three had budgeted over cap. For us to announce a general relaxation of caps at that stage would have been totally unfair to all the authorities that had previously taken tough budget decisions. As a result, when we confirmed the capping principles on 22 May, we proposed cap limits that required Oxfordshire, Somerset and Warwickshire county councils to reduce their budget requirements. All three authorities have challenged their caps—as the legislation allows—and have proposed that they should be allowed to budget at the level that they had originally set.
  I should stress that, in reaching a view on the final capping limit for those authorities, we have to take account of the specific local circumstances of each authority. We have, therefore, considered each county's case carefully and I have met delegations from each authority to hear its case in detail.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: The Minister rightly says that she is obliged to consider the specific case of each authority, but that completely destroys her argument that she is simply implementing the previous Government's policies. Last year, the previous Government agreed to additional resources for Oxfordshire. They were prepared to consider the case and they met it. This year, the Minister—given the same opportunity to consider the local arguments and circumstances—has turned Oxfordshire down.
  Ms Armstrong: Oxfordshire put a specific case this year and I considered it. I shall deal in a moment with the specifics of the case.
  During the debate, I am sure that we shall hear many examples of the efficiency of each authority. I have made it clear before that it is important that authorities pursue efficiency gains, as that will enable them to provide the best services at value for money for local people. I look for that continuing improvement in authorities. Capping, however, is not about whether an authority is efficient: it is about whether the cap proposed for that authority is reasonable, achievable and appropriate. The fact that an authority claims to be efficient is not of itself a justification for it to take a larger slice of the cake of general Government expenditure. The demands of individual authorities have to be examined in the context of the needs of the economy as a whole.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: I accept that the limit set by the Government is within the confines of the
  542
  amount that an authority needs to provide its services. My local authority and I are concerned about the formula that is used to distribute resources and determine their level, because it contains discrepancies in many areas, including the education of children, the provision of social care and other issues. Changes must be made for the sake of fairness and the genuine need to help local government. Will my hon. Friend take those concerns into consideration?
  Ms Armstrong rose—
  Mr. Mike Hancock: Will the Minister give way, on the same point?
  Ms Armstrong: I must deal with one intervention at a time, and I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will ensure that I do.
  I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) that there is a feeling abroad, especially in his local authority and in many nearby, that the formula has not been fair. He will know—if he did not, I hope that he will ensure that his authority immediately takes advantage of the knowledge—that working parties involving the Local Government Association and officials from my Department are already examining the criteria, and the case that authorities such as his have made.
  I hope that we shall be able to come up with a fairer system. We shall not be able to do everything that we would want to do, because that will need action such as revaluations and more research. None the less, we are determined to make things much fairer, and to ensure that local authorities at least know that they are part of determining the system, as well as having it imposed on them.
  Mr. Hancock: The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a short period—less than 10 weeks—to prepare a Budget and present it to Parliament. So does the Minister not believe that her Department had ample time to prepare a change in legislation that could have been agreed, and would have allowed a fair system to operate in local government? Does she think it fair that a Labour Government are ordering local authorities to sack teachers and to deprive the elderly of domiciliary care that they desperately need and deserve?
  Ms Armstrong: I am not certain exactly what legislation the hon. Gentleman would have expected us to put through the House in that time. We are not asking authorities to sack teachers; we are asking them to order their priorities within the organisation so as to deal with the priorities of their own areas.
  Oxfordshire has set a budget of £345.530 million—£6 million above its proposed cap. It argues, as its representatives did when they came to see me, that since 1991–92 it has reduced spending by £60 million, so the scope for further savings is severely limited. It also argues that many of the spending pressures are outside its control, and that it has no significant reserves that it could use to support its revenue spending.
  I do not dispute the fact that Oxfordshire has reduced its spending in recent years. I would point out, however—for it is not always made as clear as it might be—that we

  543
  are talking about reductions against plans and projections, not about cash cuts. In fact, since 1991–92, Oxfordshire's budget has increased, on an adjusted basis, by 17 per cent. in cash terms. Furthermore, all authorities have had to make significant reductions in recent years.
  Oxfordshire challenged its cap last year and as a result was granted a supplementary credit approval for £3.5 million. It was made perfectly clear at the time that that was meant as a one-off measure, to give the authority time to tackle its budgetary problem. As the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the previous Secretary of State, said in last year's debate, the SCA was intended to give Oxfordshire
  "another year to get its budget into line with our assessment of an appropriate level of expenditure."—[Official Report, 22 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 355.]
  There is nothing—and there was nothing either in its presentation to me or in the answers to the questions that I asked—to suggest that Oxfordshire used the time provided by that one-off support to bring its expenditure more into line with its cap this year. On the contrary, the SCA was used solely to support revenue expenditure at a level that clearly would not be sustainable this year.
  Mr. Ken Livingstone rose—
  Ms Armstrong: I think I have already given way enough—
  Mr. Livingstone: The Minister is misleading the House.
  Ms Armstrong: It is now even less likely that I shall give way.
  Mr. Livingstone rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Lady is not misleading the House; neither is she giving way.
  Mr. Livingstone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Most hon. Members have received a briefing that clearly states that Oxfordshire is the lowest-spending English county—whereas the Minister is making it sound as if Derek Hatton runs the damn place.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Briefings that may be circulating have nothing whatever to do with the Chair, who is concerned only with the business before the House.
  Ms Armstrong: I have not put out any briefing, and I am going on to deal with the very point that the hon. Member has just raised. I am not saying that I will not give way at all, but I do think Members should listen to what I have to say about Oxfordshire before I give way again.
  We accept that Oxfordshire has no significant useable reserves, although it is by no means the only authority in that position. Furthermore, that of itself is not sufficient reason to agree to a concession. If it were, it would be a perverse incentive for authorities to be profligate with their reserves so as to get a capping concession. That would hardly be a sensible signal to give local authorities.
  544
  We have carefully considered all the relevant aspects of Oxfordshire's case. We do not consider its position different enough from that of other LEAs to justify a relaxation in its capping limit. Its permitted increase of 2.2 per cent. was the average for the counties and more than the average for other LEAs, such as metropolitan districts, which received 1.8 per cent.—yet all of them managed to set budgets within their provisional cap. It was difficult and painful, but they did it. We therefore propose that the original cap should be enforced. If the draft order is agreed to, that will result in a council tax reduction of almost £28 for a two-adult, band D household in Oxfordshire.
  I understand that Oxfordshire is taking steps to put its financial house in order; it discussed that with me at a meeting. Councillors told me that they are in the process of adopting an action plan, which will involve short-term reviews, medium-term planning, target setting and zero-based reviews. I hope that those measures will bring real benefits to the authority through efficiency gains and improved service delivery.
  To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), we do not think that spending per head is the best measure of need to spend. Making allowance for the differing circumstances of each authority, Oxfordshire spends more than 13 other county councils do, compared with SSA. I did not therefore have sufficient grounds to treat Oxfordshire as a special case and raise its cap.
  Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Lady has said that the £3.5 million supplementary credit approval is sufficient this year to solve Oxfordshire's problems, yet in last year's debate she agreed with other hon. Members that it would be no more than a temporary measure to solve the acute problems at that time. Do not Oxfordshire's problems this year result solely from that temporary measure? Interest has to be repaid on the loan—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is far too long an intervention.
  Ms Armstrong: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. But I did not say it was sufficient; I said it was given for a specific purpose. The authority made the decision not to use it for that purpose, and that is part of the problem that it has this year.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Armstrong: No. I believe that I have given way twice to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Livingstone: She has not given way to me, either.
  Ms Armstrong: Fine. I said that I would give way when I had finished the Oxfordshire case, and I shall do so.
  Mr. Livingstone: The problem is that in the 1980s a Conservative-controlled council kept spending at a bare minimal level. Now that a decent coalition has come together, the council is caught because of its inheritance. It is not fair, because the system depends on whether one has the good or ill fortune of having had a council of a particular complexion in the past.

  545
  The Minister speaks of the need for accountability, but is she not aware that Oxfordshire councillors went to the people on the same day that we in the House were elected, and won an overwhelming mandate for the council's budget? What right has a Cabinet dominated by people from Scotland and the north, who have had the good fortune to have long-standing Labour councils that have built up decent services, to tell people from southern areas that we cannot catch up?
  Ms Armstrong: It is interesting to hear that the hon. Member now wants to represent a shire area. I would welcome him to Durham; we, too, are a shire area. We may be in the north, but my authority suffers many of the same problems as Oxfordshire, but with the lowest income per household of anywhere in the country. I will not take lectures, even from my hon. Friend, about problems in local authorities.
  Somerset has set a budget of £288.145 million, £3.4 million above its provisional cap, and says that all the additional money will go to schools and social services. It argues that it has the lowest permitted increase of all the counties and no significant useable balances. It also stresses how efficient it is.
  It is worth repeating that capping is not fundamentally about efficiency. I hope that I can introduce a regime that is much more about efficiency. If it were, local authorities could simply increase expenditure as they saw fit, provided that they remained efficient. Such an approach, however, takes no account of the need that all Governments have to ensure that local authorities work with them in their public expenditure ambitions.
  Somerset claims that all its additional spending above the cap is for education and social services. If that were to be the case, a budget at cap would involve those services being reduced by £3.4 million. In fact, Somerset has told me that, if it budgets to cap, the £3.4 million of savings will be made this year by cutting capital expenditure.
  Mr. David Rendel: Liberal Democrat Members recently congratulated the Government on signing the charter for local self-government, which was an excellent thing to do. Surely the Minister must realise that that is completely incompatible with what she has just said about the need for Governments to control local government expenditure.
  Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman will see in Hansard tomorrow that that is not what I said.
  As with Oxfordshire, we accept that Somerset has no significant useable reserves but, as I have already explained, that of itself cannot be sufficient reason to agree a capping concession.
  Sir Robert Smith: The Minister is saying that the absence of reserves cannot be accepted of itself as a condition for lifting the cap. She said in the case of Oxfordshire that the reason for not wanting to do that was that it would set a precedent, but she also said that she was planning to change the whole capping regime, so surely it
  546
  would be reasonable to accept this year that with no reserves it would be stupid to impose a cap, which can only do damage to this last year of the current regime.
  Ms Armstrong: I think that I have dealt with that matter already. It is truly remarkable what hon. Members hear: they hear what they want to. I did not say in regard to Oxfordshire that anything was a precedent. Indeed, I talked about Oxfordshire not having useable reserves, and that not being a reason to lift the cap. The hon. Gentleman may disagree with my explanation, but I have none the less given it.
  Having carefully considered all the relevant aspects of Somerset's case, I do not consider its position to be sufficiently different in degree or in kind from that of other local education authorities to justify a relaxation in its capping limit. Its permitted increase of 2 per cent. was the same as that of 10 other counties, and more than the average for metropolitan districts. We therefore propose that its original cap should be enforced. If the draft order is agreed by the House, it will result in a reduction of council tax in Somerset of £20 for a two-adult band D household.
  Warwickshire has set its budget at £294.335 million—£2 million above its proposed cap. Warwickshire's case is unusual in that it turns on a single issue: the interaction between capping and the supplementary credit approvals that it has received for its major schools reorganisation programme. The difficulty for Warwickshire is that, although it gets additional standard spending assessment to cover the costs associated with the SCAs, it cannot increase its expenditure in the same way—the allowance was not passported through. As a consequence, the costs of servicing the SCAs have to be met by making reductions elsewhere in its budget.
  We would not normally make a capping adjustment to reflect the costs of SCAs. However, we are keen to encourage authorities to grasp the nettle of removing surplus places. Warwickshire has made a serious attempt to tackle the problem of surplus places. Its reorganisation programme is by far the largest in the country; it has needed £27 million of SCAs from the Department for Education and Employment and has involved the closure of 24 schools and the merger of 22 more.
  The results have been impressive: surplus places are down from 19 per cent. at the beginning of the 1990s to a projected 9 per cent. by 1999. Warwickshire has demonstrated that the £2 million that it has budgeted above the cap is an accurate reflection of the impact on its revenue budget of the schools reorganisation programme. It has also said that, if the cap is relaxed, all the additional £2 million will go to schools.
  We have taken account of the fact that Warwickshire has been prepared to take tough decisions that will lead to savings in the longer term. We therefore propose that Warwickshire be capped at £294.335 million, £2 million above its original cap. That means that it will not have to reset its budget or incur the costs of rebilling.
  We have considered carefully all the points raised by all the authorities involved in the capping process, to ensure that the caps that we have proposed are reasonable, appropriate and achievable. Where there are special circumstances, we have been prepared to make a concession. If the order is approved, we shall serve a statutory notice on each authority formally setting its cap.

  547
  The authorities will have 21 days to reduce their budget in line with their cap and to set new lower council taxes. The final outcome will be a reduction in this year's council taxes in the affected areas of more than £9 million.
  I commend the order to the House.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: In proposing the order, the Minister attempted to claim that it maintains the previous Government's policy. That is an argument that I have heard with interest and increasing astonishment. It is not an argument that has been much used by the Government, even on those issues on which they have been attempting to maintain our policies. It is also not an argument that rests easily with their constant insistence, on many other issues, that they will stick to their manifesto commitments. Indeed, the inclusion of a commitment in the manifesto apparently removes the need for the Government to ask for parliamentary time to allow a debate to take place before the policies are implemented.
  As regards this order, the argument is completely flawed—and not merely by virtue of the fact that it reverses the stance that the Labour party took when we last debated this matter just over a year ago. Since the previous Government set out the figures for council spending—the standard spending assessments, the provisional capping limits and all the rest of the data—the situation has materially changed in three respects. First, the inflation target has been officially increased from 2 per cent. to 2.75 per cent. both for the current year, 1997–98, and for 1998–99. By loosening the reins on inflation without any compensating increase in the spending limits, the Government have effectively cut the level of service that councils can provide and that council tax payers can reasonably expect to receive.
  Secondly, having handed over control of interest rates to the Bank of England—not, incidentally, a manifesto commitment, but also an issue on which the Government did not feel it necessary to come to the House to announce—the Chancellor introduced an ill-judged Budget that attacked the corporate sector and penalised long-term saving but did nothing to curb consumer spending. As a direct result of that Budget, interest rates have risen, thus adding further to the costs that local authorities must bear.
  Thirdly, the Chancellor's smash-and-grab raid on pension funds, which—[Laughter.] It may be a matter of amusement to Labour Members, but every holder of a personal pension will now have to pay considerably more to maintain the benefits that they thought they had secured until the Chancellor launched his smash-and-grab raid. That may be a matter of amusement to Labour Members, but it is not a matter of amusement to millions of pension fund holders outside the House.
  Mr. Tom King: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not merely a question of the extra that they will have to pay? According to the director in charge of the pension fund for all the employees of a company in my constituency, the employees are already paying the maximum that they are allowed under the Inland Revenue rules. The measure will mean that they will all face a cut in their pension, which is unavoidable.
  Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for pointing that out. It is a very serious matter.
  Mr. Bill OIner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The intervention had nothing to do with the order.
  Mr. Baldry: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall answer the point of order before we hear about anything further to it. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. OIner) has a point. This is a local authority matter. It relates to a number of counties in England. It is not, therefore, as wide as employees' pensions.
  Mr. Baldry: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clearly you were not here for the beginning of the debate when Madam Speaker was in the Chair. She allowed the Minister to range much more widely than the close confines of the order and to introduce the debate, as I am sure your Clerks will advise you, with a general summary of the Government's local government policy. It is staggering that the Treasury team should be afraid to acknowledge that the Budget provisions on pension funds will cost Oxfordshire £2 million, which it estimates will cost 100 teaching jobs.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are dealing with local government finance, not pensions in general.
  Mr. Yeo: I will explain the exact consequences of the Chancellor's smash-and-grab raid for the local authorities mentioned in the order.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: In the context of local authority finance—it is clearly in that context—is my hon. Friend aware that West Sussex county council has written a letter to Sir Jeremy Beecham warning him that the finances of the county council and, therefore, of council tax payers will be grievously affected by the Chancellor's smash-and-grab raid on the pension fund, as will pensioners? Will he explain to the Minister for Local Government and Housing on behalf of Conservative Members that it is not enough for her merely to sit there with a smug smile on her face when pensioners and council tax payers will be grievously undermined, having already been so undermined by a lamentable Liberal Democrat administration—now succeeded by an admirable Tory one? Nevertheless, the measure will cause great harm to West Sussex county council.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the House can do me a service. As a guideline, interventions should not be as long as the hon. Gentleman's.
  Mr. Yeo: Nevertheless, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in that case your tolerance was clearly justified. My hon. Friend has a growing—indeed, a formidable—reputation as a doughty champion of the interests of West Sussex county council, its council tax payers and all current and future pensioners of that council. That is a serious issue, which Labour Members persist in finding extraordinarily funny. It is not funny for pensioners whose pensions are now at risk or for holders of personal pension funds who will

  549
  have to increase contributions to maintain their benefits, and it will not be funny for council tax payers throughout the country.
  Ms Armstrong: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there will be no impact on local government until April 1999 at the earliest? [Interruption.] I am intervening, so I cannot respond to all those sedentary interventions. We have already begun to engage with local government on how the change will affect it and on the necessary steps to ensure that council tax payers will not have to pay anything additional.
  Mr. Yeo: To use a phrase used many years ago in the House, I intend to deal closely and with relish with precisely the point the hon. Lady made, which is wholly unfounded, completely untrue and reflects an arrogance, a disregard and a contempt for the interests of pensioners current and future that I find breathtaking even from a Minister as ignorant of her brief as the hon. Lady.
  The smash-and-grab raid was carried out in defiance of warnings received from Labour Back Benchers. It has placed a massive extra burden on councils.
  Mr. Andy King: When?
  Mr. Yeo: As of two weeks ago. The income of council pension funds throughout the country started to be reduced two weeks ago yesterday. Never mind whether the next valuation is this year, next year or in 1999, the consequences are being felt today and the bill grows daily. The abolition of advance corporation tax relief on dividends has been estimated by the Labour-controlled Local Government Association to cost councils £300 million a year. I will return to that point.
  The three new burdens on councils—the increase in inflation, higher interest rates and pension tax changes—all result directly from—
  Mr. Austin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is the debate about council tax or the council tax limitation order? In which case, is the hon. Gentleman in order to extend the debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) is in order. If he had been out of order, I would have been the first to say so.
  Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The three burdens on councils that I mentioned all result directly from actions of the Labour Government taken since 1 May. As councils all over the country, including the three mentioned in the order, start to feel the pinch, I have no doubt that the Government will repeat that they have merely maintained the limits set by their predecessors and that some of the burdens do not have to be dealt with until 1999. Those claims are rendered false by the deliberate way in which council costs have been substantially increased. Those extra costs arise as of now. It is because that situation has changed so fundamentally that the Opposition will not be voting to support the order this evening.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: My hon. Friend is dealing effectively with the Minister's central argument that she
  550
  is simply implementing the policy of the previous Government. As he explained, that is a highly implausible position. Does he accept that, last year, under the system by which it is possible for counties to set budgets above cap and appeal for their cases to be considered on their merits, Oxfordshire's case was recognised by the Conservative Government and that the Minister then responsible, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), has stated publicly that he would have recommended acceptance of a budget above cap if the Conservatives had been re-elected?
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend has placed on record a most important point. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to keep interrupting but there is too much noise in the Chamber. I must be able to hear what the Opposition spokesperson is saying. The House should be calm.
  Mr. Yeo: The Minister gave an intriguing answer to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who is no longer in his place. He asked about the distribution of resources among local authorities. The Minister replied that she hoped to achieve in due course a fairer distribution. What does that mean? If it means more cash for Normanton, which councils will receive less cash in the name of achieving greater fairness? Which of the criteria that are used to allocate resources among councils are she and her officials considering changing? When the Under-Secretary replies, will he say which criteria he proposes to revise?
  In her 40-minute speech, the Minister, despite starting by saying that she would make some general remarks about the Government's intentions on capping, gave very little clue about their precise intentions. That is a great pity because there is much uncertainty among councils and council tax payers. Indeed, there appears to be a fair amount of uncertainty in the House, even extending to the Government Back Benches and the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who is no longer in his place.
  The Labour party manifesto unequivocally pledged:
  "crude and universal council tax capping should go".
  That pledge was repeated by the Deputy Prime Minister in his Budget day press release, but apparently it is not going to be honoured this year; nor, apparently, will it be honoured next year. When will it be honoured? When will councils enjoy the freedom that the Labour manifesto promised them and which many thought they would be starting to enjoy now? Will the Under-Secretary give the exact timetable?
  Mr. Baldry: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is all the more extraordinary because it is one of the few changes that does not require primary legislation? Deciding on capping is a power, not a duty. There is nothing to inhibit the Government's exercising their power and achieving their manifesto objective, this year or any other, if they wish.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The matter could be dealt with immediately if the Government so chose. If when he replies the Under-Secretary is unable to give the House a firm timetable for

  551
  the implementation of the pledge, the suspicion will grow that it will join the growing list of manifesto promises that Labour has thrown into the waste paper basket.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Far from abolishing the crude system of capping, the Government have made it cruder by not applying it with proper discretion.
  Mr. Yeo: One of the legitimate criticisms of the capping system is that it has a substantial arbitrary element. [Interruption.] I acknowledge that it is not an unflawed system. If the pledge is eventually honoured, what will replace the present capping system? Labour's manifesto also states:
  "we will retain reserve powers to control excessive council tax rises."
  I wonder whether the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) suspects that that is capping under another name. Perhaps the Minister without Portfolio thinks that that is how capping should be described.
  Mr. Livingstone: I suspect that something nasty that I do not agree with may be coming along, but what depresses me is that I have not heard a word of apology from the party that brought in capping, imposed it on councils, and bankrupted the councillors who fought it. To make stupid partisan points when we are discussing the quality of life for children in care and the elderly in the local authorities concerned will be regarded as offensive by residents of those areas who are watching this stupid knockabout. We should focus on the parts of the Minister's statement that many of us are deeply unhappy with. All that this rant from the Opposition will achieve is to force some of us who had no intention of doing so to go into the Government Lobby.
  Mr. Yeo: I expect to receive appreciation from an unexpected quarter. The Government are unable to persuade the hon. Gentleman to vote with them by their arguments but, speaking for the Opposition, I have been able to do so on their behalf. I make no apology whatever for having saved council tax payers in Lambeth, Southwark, Hackney and Islington from outrageous increases in council tax, which were hardly ever by matched by quality of service, by means of the capping system.
  The Minister said that the Government have a clear agenda. If she has a clear agenda, under the system that will replace capping, will councils that set budgets that the Government consider too high be subject to a cap? Will the Government continue to set spending guidelines for each council? If they will not, will they each year set a percentage spending increase applicable to all councils to be regarded as the maximum permitted? Will the increase be equivalent to the rate of inflation, or inflation plus 5 per cent., 10 per cent., 20 per cent., or what?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): That has nothing to do with the debate.
  Mr. Yeo: It has everything to do with the debate because the Minister raised these very important questions in her speech. We wish to know the answers. In an hour or so, the Under-Secretary will have a chance to give them.
  552
  This debate is the ideal opportunity for setting out, even in general terms, the Government's thinking. Significant costs are incurred if a council that is capped has to revise its budget and send out amended council tax demands. If the Government retain a reserve power to cap without clearly stating in advance what specific criteria councils will be judged by, there is a danger of getting the worst of both worlds. Councils that still have spendthrift tendencies may wish to test the Government's resolve by setting sharply higher budgets. The general level of council spending is likely to rise quickly in the short term because councils may fear that they could later experience the re-imposition of capping. The sooner the Government clarify their intentions, the better.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: Will the hon. Gentleman set out the criteria that the Conservative Government set for capping when they instituted it?
  Mr. Yeo: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has not been here long, but his party is now in government. It is the Government who must answer questions. When we come to fight the next general election we will set out our policies on local authority spending. For the time being, it is the Government who must answer questions about their intentions on the control of council spending.
  I shall now return to the crucial subject of the Budget's abolition of tax credits for pension funds. The Chancellor took that extraordinary decision—a smash-and-grab raid—despite a stark warning from the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), who wrote to the Chancellor that it had been estimated that the abolition of ACT would add at least £300 million to local authorities' pension costs and that no such increase could be afforded by local authorities without making further cuts to services to their local residents, given that the alternative—raising council tax—would be difficult under current restrictions.
  The hon. Member's letter was written before the Budget and the figure of £300 million has been confirmed by the Local Government Association since the Budget.
  The Government's reaction, however, remains extraordinary. We have seen this afternoon that many Labour Members consider it a matter of mirth. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and, this morning, the Secretary of State for Social Security claimed that the Budget was good for pensions. Their claims fly in the face of reality. The reaction of the Minister for Local Government and Housing was dismissive and irresponsible. When she replied to the hon. Member for Putney on 3 July, she said that the Government would take all these factors into account in determining the level of local authority provision for 1999–2000 and subsequent years.
  If councils do not increase their pension fund contributions until 1999–2000, the problem will have assumed horrendous proportions. Failure to act for the next two years does not make the problem disappear; it simply makes it much more serious. In some cases, depending on the actuarial position of individual pension funds—possibly those in West Sussex to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) referred earlier—if the change is not responded to immediately by an increase in contributions, it might even jeopardise the possibility of individual pension funds meeting their financial liabilities. Extra contributions into those pension funds can come from

  553
  only one of three sources: cuts in services, increases in council tax, or a higher revenue support grant. The significance of those choices for today's debate is that, as long as capping remains in place, the second option is effectively ruled out.
  All councils, including the three referred to in the order, face the prospect of cutting services. The shortfall in dividend income to pension funds started to accumulate two weeks ago, immediately after the Budget, so the longer the Government postpone a decision on how to meet that shortfall the worse the problem becomes. The £300 million problem faced by the Government this year becomes a £600 million problem next year and a £900 million problem by the time the Minister proposes to get round to considering it.
  Somerset county council faces the prospect of having to curb spending plans by £3.4 million. By 1999–2000, it will have to find £6 million of extra pension fund contributions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) will explain to the House in a moment the consequences of the order for his constituents and those in the rest of the county. Consider how devastating the consequences of the Chancellor's smash-and-grab raid will be for Somerset.
  Warwickshire county council made a persuasive case about the consequences of a £2 million reduction in spending plans—the effect of the cap originally announced by the Secretary of State. By 1999–2000, Warwickshire will have to find almost £4 million for extra pension fund contributions.
  Oxfordshire county council proposes to meet the required cut of £6 million by sacking 50 teachers, closing 15 small libraries, abandoning transport for post-16 pupils, cutting £500,000 from building maintenance and cutting £1 million from the roads maintenance programme. On the subject of Oxfordshire, which my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) will enlarge on in a moment, I ask the Minister for Local Government and Housing whether she agrees with the statement made on 22 May 1996:
  "The Government are acting against the wishes of the people of Oxfordshire … The people want the opportunity to fund their schools and their social services properly, but they know that the Government will manipulate the figures to ensure that they cannot do that. That is not good enough."—[Official Report, 22 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 359.]
  That is what the hon. Lady told the House in a debate last year. If she still believes that that is true, why is she moving this order today? If she does not believe that it is true, what caused her to change her mind?
  Mr. Robert Jackson: My hon Friend has described the costs that will be imposed on pension funds against the background of the lowest-spending county council in the country—Oxfordshire. That county council would need to spend an extra £13 million if it were to spend at the average budget level. The Minister spoke about it as though it were a profligate council; it is a well-run council that will be gravely damaged by the order.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On top of the cuts which Oxfordshire county council faces as a result of capping, it faces an extra £2 million bill for pension fund contributions every year from now on. That
  554
  means that another 17 teachers face the sack, five more small libraries face closure and more buildings and roads will go unmaintained. That is the effect of the smash-and-grab raid the Chancellor has carried out on the pension fund to which Oxfordshire county council contributes.
  Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that the woeful tale of what has been inflicted on Oxfordshire as a result of the Government's decision could also be inflicted on West Sussex? If it has to make up the shortfall brought about by the smash-and-grab raid from its own resources, the same awful cuts will be inflicted on West Sussex county council—with a new administration—which has run its affairs with a good deal of prudence.
  Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the point. His county council and many others will face a crisis when they draw up their budgets next year because of the Minister's refusal to say that she will even consider the problem for two years.
  One local authority which, I am glad to say, avoided capping this year, is the London borough of Hillingdon. Its spending is currently some £190 million a year but it now faces a bill of £2.2 million a year extra for its pension fund contributions. Where do the Government think Hillingdon should find that money? Will Hillingdon's cap be raised next year so that the shortfall—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not dwell on local authorities that are not specifically mentioned in the order.
  Mr. Yeo: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hillingdon had been in my mind because I spent a pleasant morning there today in the company of an excellent local resident and business man, John Randall.
  In dealing with this issue, the Government come face to face with an unpleasant reality. Those early joyful days when the Government Benches were packed with new hon. Members waving their Order Papers at every utterance of the Minister who was speaking are passing. Many Labour Members elected for the first time this year have backgrounds in local government. They know privately what this smash-and-grab raid means for councils throughout the country, which is why they have been told not to speak to the media about it. I hope that, before long, some of them will have the courage and integrity to recognise that they were elected not to echo the Prime Minister's words or to jump at the whim of the Minister without Portfolio, but to serve the interests of their constituents, to exercise their judgment on behalf of the voters and to use the freedom of speech in the House. Hiding from the problem created by the Government will not make it go away; postponing looking for a solution will not make the solution easier to find, cheaper to implement or more palatable to those who pay the bills.
  This debate is timely. The order is a valuable reminder of the difficulties faced by many councils—difficulties created in the past two and a half short months by the new Labour Government. They are difficulties to which the House will return, time and again, in the coming months and they will get infinitely worse as each week goes by without the Government facing up even to the need for a solution. There is time, even during this debate,

  555
  for the Government to show that they understand and are willing to grasp the nettle but, in the absence of any indication that they are doing so, Conservative Members will not vote for the order.
  5.19 pm
  Mr. Andy King: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to use today's debate to make my maiden speech.
  I am extremely honoured and privileged to be here representing the constituency of Rugby and Kenilworth. I turn first to the person whom I have replaced, Mr. James Pawsey. He was a good constituency Member of Parliament and an extremely worthy opponent. I wish him and his family well. A Member of Parliament who preceded James Pawsey was Bill Price, who served the constituency of Rugby between 1966 and 1979. Throughout the campaign, I was constantly reminded of how good a constituency Member of Parliament Bill Price had been by people who spoke of him warmly and affectionately. I have never met Bill Price, but I look forward to meeting him one day soon. I thank him for the service he gave to Rugby.
  In preparing for my speech, I looked at the maiden speeches of both James Pawsey and Bill Price. It is strange how cyclical issues are—they come back to haunt one. James said:
  "I move from the question of reorganisation to that of falling rolls. I believe that falling rolls, particularly in primary schools, represent a magnificent opportunity to improve the teacher-pupil ratio."
  Sadly, during their 18 years in government the Conservatives failed singularly to address that issue, which is so important to young children. He also said:
  "Indeed, I hope that the present Administration will look for fairer means of financing local government, for the present system of financing local government is manifestly unfair."—[Official Report, 16 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 346.]
  The Conservatives failed on that, too, I am afraid. They failed terribly in respect of Warwickshire and the people of Warwickshire do not feel that they have been treated fairly, especially in the past seven years. Lastly, James turned to another issue of the day—the Hospital of St. Cross, which has been constantly under threat throughout the period during which my predecessors were in this place.
  The constituency of Rugby and Kenilworth is at the very heart of England. It has enjoyed local industry—especially manufacturing—and is now beginning to welcome new industries to the area. We have two large traditional industries. I wish GEC Alsthom especially well at this time. I visited it some six months ago with my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), now President of the Board of Trade, and I was extremely impressed by the standard and quality of the manufacturing taking place in Rugby. Peugeot has a plant at Ryton in my constituency and is also doing extremely well. Warwick university is situated near Kenilworth and has an enormous influence on life in the town.
  Rugby and Kenilworth have suffered quite badly during the recessions experienced under the Conservative Government, but we are at last seeing regeneration in our area. Large shops are returning to our town centres, which currently look more like Beirut than those of a modern economy. Sainsbury has recently moved into Kenilworth
  556
  high street, which is excellent news because the shops there were dying. At long last, there is about to be a major redevelopment in Chapel street in Rugby, and Marks and Spencer is committed to opening a large new shop there. I welcome those moves by two large retailing companies, which show confidence in Rugby and Kenilworth.
  As one of my first duties, I had the privilege of opening the new temporary library in Rugby—another long-awaited development. In fact, we have been waiting for the best part of 50 years and we are looking forward to having within one or two years a new library, a new museum and a new art gallery in Rugby.
  Jim Pawsey referred to the reorganisation of schools and the use of receipts from such a reorganisation. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing said, we undertook a major reorganisation of Warwickshire schools. We based that reorganisation on a full and proper consultation with all of the stakeholders in the system—pupils, governors, parents and teachers—and at the end of the process we came up with the right result. We took some very painful decisions, but the children of Warwickshire and of my constituency have benefited enormously from that reorganization.
  Today the people of Warwickshire are about to embark on another consultation exercise, this time about the future of health services at the Hospital of St. Cross. I want that consultation to be as meaningful as the exercise undertaken in respect of the reorganisation of education in Warwickshire. I want my constituents to play a full and informed part in the debate, which is to take place over the next three months. I want us to emerge at the end with a national health service that is worthy of a Labour Government—one that enables us to deliver good-quality services at local level for our country's people.
  I greatly welcome my hon. Friend the Minister's handling of the sensitive issue of the £2 million for Warwickshire. That money is vital to the county in delivering the quality of education to which we are committed. My hon. Friend listened to our case and understood our uniqueness and I am eternally grateful to her for doing so. She mentioned that we took out surplus places in Warwickshire—in fact, 10,000 were taken out during the reorganisation, and every penny of the money saved has been put back into the pupils. We have targeted all our expenditure on the children who need the resources for their education. We have also reinvested in crumbling schools, and I am proud of the results of our efforts.
  I am also very proud to have been a member of Warwickshire county council for the past eight years. Ian Bottrill has provided superb leadership in guiding us soundly and safely through a very difficult period. I pay tribute also to John Airey, who was chair of education during the reorganisation. He recently left politics, and I wish him well. I hope that he will return to public office in the very near future.
  In Warwickshire, we are determined to provide the best possible education for our children. We will use the £2 million to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds, and we shall deliver on the Labour party's promise to make education our first priority. As I have said, the Minister has listened to and understood our arguments, and she has begun to address the unfairness in funding for Warwickshire.
  The previous Government listened to us often, but they never took action to address the problems. This Government have acted: we are committed to a partnership

  557
  between central Government, local government and industry. I look forward to participating in that meaningful partnership, and I shall truly value the experience of working together. At long last, we have a national Government who support local government.
  Warwickshire representatives at all levels—Members of Parliament and councillors, both county and borough, district and parish—have worked together across party political boundaries. We have agreed fully when fighting for Warwickshire's cause not just in the past few months, but over the past five years. I hope that that spirit of co-operation will continue. I urge Conservative Members of Parliament to show the same level of support for Warwickshire's case as the local Conservatives in Warwickshire.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Tom King: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King), who delivered his maiden speech. Coincidences often occur in this place, and the hon. Gentleman may be aware that I spent five years of my life—at a rather junior age—in Rugby. I therefore, know the Hospital of St. Cross.
  The hon. Gentleman showed a fine disregard of the rules in failing to mention one of Rugby's greatest achievements, which has become a substantial export earner for this country. I watched the poor English rugger team being mauled in Australia, but they earned £2 million in the process, so one can see what a powerful industry was founded by a humble school and a sound disregard for the rules.
  I am sure that hon. Members enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's remarks and the sincerity with which he delivered them. We look forward to hearing from him again. He struck one very good bipartisan note. Too often in the House in recent years, we have heard allegations about the total collapse of manufacturing industry in this country. Such attacks do no credit to the fine manufacturing businesses in this country. The hon. Gentleman was right to pay tribute to two fine businesses which stand comparison with any in the world: GEC Alsthom and Peugeot. The House appreciated his references, as will the companies. One never knows one's luck in this place: perhaps the brief entrance and departure of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) may secure the hon. Gentleman an entry in a future diary, as other hon. Members have enjoyed—or not enjoyed—in the past.
  As a Somerset Member of Parliament, I am disappointed that, because of the breakneck speed of the timetable imposed on the passage of the Finance Bill, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—who wished very much to participate in the debate—is not able to take part as he is helping to lead for the Opposition in Committee. I am sure that the Government will understand that this is a very sad day for Somerset, which faces the prospect of having to rebill every council tax payer in the county. This county, which faces a serious financial challenge and has no balances, now faces a bill estimated at £250,000—totally nugatory expenditure—to rebill the whole county.
  I take no comfort or pleasure in telling the House that I gave the clearest possible warning to the Liberal Democrat administration on Somerset county council that
  558
  it was virtually certain to face this outcome. Unless one was prepared to ignore totally the Labour party's assertions in opposition and in government and imagine that, within a month of coming to government, it would overturn its most elementary manifesto pledges and loosen the purse strings on public expenditure, one did not need to have much political experience to recognise the risks that were being taken by the Somerset county council Liberal Democrat administration. It took the decision knowingly: it was warned by the chief executive officer, the county treasurer and the county solicitor of the risks involved. Two former county councillors, now the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard), took the risk and voted for the proposal.
  Somerset county taxpayers now face added expense, on top of the money that the previous Liberal Democrat administration wasted on expensive lawyers when trying to ban access to council land. It also wasted money on an abortive scheme to provide sites for new age travellers. The county could have employed 10 new teachers with that wasted money.
  Mr. Robert Jackson rose—
  Mr. King: I am sorry, but I must speak directly. So far as I know, my remarks do not relate to Oxfordshire.
  I take no pleasure in making these points. We do better for our county if we work together and listen to, and take, advice. I do not claim false credentials in this matter. Two years ago, we fought successfully to raise the cap for Somerset. I see that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is in the Chamber: at the time, he kindly congratulated me on my actions. I shall always be prepared to stand up for my county when the cause is just, when a case can be made based on the evidence, and when there is some prospect of achieving a successful outcome.
  Hon. Members who read the excellent brief prepared by the Library will see that, when Somerset exceeded the cap, we stood together, fought the case and won it. Those who look at the present case will see that there is no prospect of our taking it to a favourable conclusion.
  Mr. Jackson: One of the Government's central arguments is that they are simply continuing the policies of the previous Administration. However, as my right hon. Friend points out, the previous Administration agreed to increasing the budget over cap in Somerset a couple of years ago.
  Mr. King: I find it offensive that, if the risks had not been taken, the county council could have accepted a perfectly sensible proposal for maintaining the cap and expenditure within it. Funding for education and social services could then have been protected properly. However, that amendment was rejected out of hand. We are back where we started—but £250,000 worse off. The county must now make economies, which could have been achieved through sensible planning much earlier in the cycle, in a rush, well into the financial year. Hon. Members representing Somerset constituencies will have

  559
  received the letter from the county treasurer today saying that the council will have to search around to find the savings that must be made. Clearly, there will be hardship.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House for intervening when I shall not be able to stay for much more of the debate. I regret that very much.
  The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have fought together on a cross-party basis. For that reason I deprecate the fact that he is now making the cheapest party political point. He criticises the argument about breaching the cap, but when the argument was put before the county council, did the Conservative members vote against it? No, they did not. They abstained. The right hon. Gentleman will go into the Lobby tonight to vote against the break of a cap, which he did not oppose originally. That is a totally irrational and illogical position. Does he not understand that?
  Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the amendment put forward by the Conservative group, which would have enabled the waste of £250,000 to be avoided—[Interruption.] Will hon. Members who are not even Somerset Members contain themselves so that I may reply to the right hon. Gentleman? The amendment proposed by the Conservative group was voted down, calling the entire budget into question. Of course the Conservative group could not vote against the main question or there would have been no budget.
  The leader of the Conservative group said that the difficulty was that some wretched Liberal Democrat would say that because the Conservatives had not opposed the measure, therefore they had supported it. I never dreamt that the leader of the Liberal Democrats would fall right into that trap.
  Mr. Ashdown rose—
  Mr. King: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has to leave, but I hope that he will not mind waiting a moment.
  I quote from the right hon. Gentleman's speech in reply to the Budget. He said:
  "Under a Labour Government, my county of Somerset will have to sack 90 teachers this year."—[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 328.]
  I give the right hon. Gentleman credit—he has said that before. The leader of the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome have said the same thing.
  That is outrageous. The letter from the county treasurer today states that the council will look around for alternative savings. I understand that it is not considered necessary to sack 90 teachers this year. Alternative economies can be made. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to make sure that he stops his colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party sacking teachers in Somerset this year. That must not happen. It would be intolerable if it happened because of the incompetence and risk taking of a Liberal Democrat administration.
  560
  The case is not helped if it is accompanied by misleading propaganda. We constantly hear the statement that Somerset had the lowest increase of any authority in the country this year.
  Mr. David Heath: No—county. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There must be no interruptions when an hon. Member is addressing the House.
  Mr. King: Hon. Members say that Somerset had the lowest increase of any county. That is, to say the least, economical with the truth. They do not go on to say that 16 other counties had the same level of increase. What they say is technically true, but grossly misleading.
  I hear it endlessly repeated by the leader of the Liberal Democrats that Somerset is the most efficient county in the country. I am proud of Somerset and I have been proud to represent it. Some of the things that the county does, it does well, but such assertions do not help the county. The Department of the Environment can easily establish the facts. I spent three and a half years on the Government Front Bench as Minister for Local Government, the job that the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) is doing now. It does no good for a county's case when people pretend too much or do not tell the whole truth.
  Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I said that Somerset was, by the Government's own figures—his Government—the most efficient in the delivery of education. It has the lowest administration costs per pupil. Those are not my figures. They are not even the Audit Commission's figures, but those of his own Government, when they were in power.
  I am a little confused by the right hon. Gentleman. He seems to be criticising Somerset county council for seeking to breach the cap, yet we understand that tonight he will go into the Lobby in favour of breaching the cap. Can he explain this inconsistency?
  Mr. King: I will deal with all those issues in my speech, but I am worried about the right hon. Gentleman. Will he tell me when he has to go? [Interruption.] He has come into the Chamber, intervened twice and threatened to leave at any moment. He has asked me a fair question, but I hope that in fairness he will allow me to reply in the right order.
  Some may consider these matters to be cause for amusement, but I agree with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). I weep for Somerset and the money that has been wasted. The county faces grave problems. I am to lead a delegation to the Minister next week to complain about the unfairness of the allocation system, and to seek to get the area cost adjustment altered. Those are serious matters. We cannot afford the waste and extravagance that we face.
  I shall now say something that the right hon. Member for Yeovil may find more agreeable. I shall deal with the Government's performance. We listened to the Prime Minister being singularly economical with the truth in his exchanges with the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Member for Yeovil has been right. The Prime Minister keeps boasting about the extra money that he has

  561
  provided for education, but the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to establish that it will not be available this year. The Prime Minister keeps trying to pretend that he is providing more money for education this year.
  I am struck by the change that has overcome Labour Members. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) referred to the Order Paper wavers during the Budget. Many new Members have not learnt that when a Chancellor delivers a Budget speech, they must wait for the end of the sentence or the end of the next sentence. The way in which the Chancellor manipulated his party and concealed the reality of the Budget had Labour Members cheering his announcement of £1.3 billion for new school building. The Order Papers were waving, and half the Labour Members never heard him say that that would be over the next five years. They did not realise that it was not such a substantial injection of cash as it sounded.
  The Prime Minister has been seeking to establish, and the Chancellor has been seeking to persuade his party, that happy days are here again and that the Budget was generous. Yesterday, however, the Prime Minister changed to an earnest assertion that things are terribly tough and that the House must understand that. There is not much Order Paper waving any more.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: I am a little confused by the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Did he or did he not support the provisions made by the previous Government to allow councils to apply for a redetermination of their spending limit? If he did, why is he condemning Somerset council for going through that process, when he accepts that it is operating under considerable spending constraints?
  Mr. King: The hon. Lady will understand that I have some background in and knowledge of these matters. I was Minister for Local Government for three and a half years. I have some interest in and understanding of the way in which assessments are made. I made an assessment myself—my own judgment—which proved to be correct, that two years ago we could produce a case that was convincing and could justify and achieve the lifting of the cap. This year, my judgment was that there was no realistic prospect of repeating the exercise and that such a gamble simply could not be taken with Somerset county council taxpayers' money.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) may be impressed by that judgment or think that it was luck, but it seems to have reflected accurately the outcome—the effect of which is that we shall have to rebill the county, and a quarter of a million pounds has been wasted. The county councillors who voted to exceed the cap said, "We thought that we'd have a go." I regarded that as profoundly unwise and I told them so. They were warned of the risks that they were running also by the council's chief officers.
  Dr. Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. King: No, I am sorry.
  The county council is entitled to expect assistance from the Government because of the extra costs imposed by the Budget that were not provided for in the original local government settlement.
  562
  I should like to reinforce the comments on pension funds made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk. The Minister for Local Government and Housing is right to say that the issue will not arise for two or possibly three years. As we know, however, the impact has already begun to be felt. Comments such as, "Hopefully we can ignore the matter and hope that something turns up when we have to deal with it," are the route to bankruptcy. The Minister rightly said also that the Actuary will not examine the effects until next year. The county treasurer stated:
  "the Actuary assesses the impact … in 1998 to take effect from April 1999".
  I think that the Minister realises that the Government's advice had better change, because it is insufficient. It is manifestly inadequate to pretend that the effects are not being felt—because they are, and provision should be made now to deal with them. Authorities are entitled to hear how the Government will deal with the matter. Ministers seem to be telling authorities, "You will incur the costs and lose the benefits now, and in two years' time we shall talk about what we might do to help you." How can a responsible authority budget in such circumstances?
  Changes to pensions are not the only matter with which authorities will have to contend. Most hon. Members do not appreciate that the fuel duty increase, for example, will have a tremendous effect. The Chancellor has shown great skill in managing to introduce tough measures that half the population does not understand. In one year, his fuel duty increase will raise £1.25 billion. Somerset is a rural county and, therefore, has a substantial bill for school transport—which I think that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will be able to confirm is £4.8 million. The county will now face an unpredicted 10 per cent. increase in fuel costs.
  Moreover, the Budget statement states that 0.8 per cent. increase in inflation will be directly attributable to the Budget, further adding to the Somerset's costs. Since the general election, the county has also had to face three interest rate rises, each of which costs it £270,000. Therefore, to date, the county faces a per annum increase of £810,000 in interest rate costs. Although each of those items might be manageable in circumstances in which Somerset was not against the wire, we now face a situation in which one cost is being piled on to another.
  It was abundantly clear that Ministers would not agree to lifting the cap. In the first months and year of a Labour Government, they wanted to build confidence—with statements from the iron Chancellor on the strict control of public expenditure—in their ability to manage the economy. Nevertheless, the public received no warning about removing the advance corporation tax credit, which will increase pension fund costs for Somerset by £2 million. We were told that there would be a quick little Budget to implement the windfall tax, but what did we get? We got a major, completely unpredicted revenue-raising Budget.
  Mr. Soames: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Louise Ellman rose—
  Mr. King: I am sorry, but I want to make this point.
  I have made my position on capping clear, and I have given advice to the county based on that position. I now find, however, that the Government have imposed costs

  563
  that were not mentioned in their manifesto. They gave no indication that they would impose those costs or accelerate duty increases, which usually occur in November, by five months. Somerset faces those additional costs.
  Opposition Front Benchers have repeatedly challenged Ministers to contribute to compensation for local authorities so that they can meet the unexpected cost increases caused by the Government's revenue-raising activities. Ministers have not even been willing to respond to those requests, and I think that that is outrageous. Therefore, for precisely those reasons—in answer to the right hon. Member for Yeovil—I will certainly vote against the order.
  Mr. Soames: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only is it a matter of the Somerset ratepayers' position being jeopardised—because of irresponsible and reckless Liberal Democrat gamblers—but the Budget represented an overall assault on Britain's rural constituencies? The Chancellor's reckless smash-and-grab raid on pensions and increase in fuel duty will bear very heavily on rural constituencies. Will my right hon. Friend draw into his remarks not only those irresponsible people in Somerset but rural councils across the land?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not discuss councils across the land, because the order deals with only a few councils.
  Mr. King: Any rural county council, whether in Somerset or West Sussex, must be concerned by the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames).
  Sir Robert Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. King: No, I am sorry.
  I will fight for Somerset's interests if I think that a case can fairly be made and won. Sometimes one is disappointed and sometimes one would like to have more money. The challenge will be to achieve proper changes in the area cost adjustment—an issue on which I think that Opposition Members will be able to stand as one.
  Yesterday the House held a debate on rural affairs which was attended by four Labour Members—just 1 per cent. of their number. The message I drew from that poor attendance is that grant distributions are about the appeal for resources and the relative requirements of urban and rural areas, of metropolitan districts and the shires and especially of London and the rest. When I was Minister for Local Government, I was told that the only real difference that might be made by the holder of that office was measured in terms of how much he or she did for London. Resources for the other authorities were crucially affected by the determination for London.
  I warn other hon. Members from rural counties that we face a battle over the area cost adjustment because the voice of the rural counties is very much smaller in the House than it was. To get a fair share we shall have to fight against the voting mass of Labour Members representing urban interests. This is not a happy occasion for Somerset. I have had some pretty tough things to say
  564
  and I regret that we have not been able to stand together, save money for Somerset and work constructively for a better outcome for the county.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. James Plaskitt: I shall be happy to confine my remarks to the order.
  I congratulate the Minister for Local Government and Housing on her decision with regard to Warwickshire. That decision is welcome news for my constituents and will be welcomed throughout the whole county. I thank her for receiving our cross-party delegation, and I thank her and her officials for listening carefully to our arguments.
  Warwickshire's case arose from the consequences of school reorganisation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King) outlined in his excellent maiden speech. The council took a bold initiative and certainly demonstrated leadership in embarking on a school reorganisation that involved the closure of 24 schools and the removal of 10,000 surplus places. It was an extremely effective operation and showed other local education authorities, which may in due course have to face the same problem, how it could be dealt with. Not to have conceded Warwickshire's case would have gent a very unfortunate message, not only to the schools in my county but to all local education authorities which will need to deal with surplus places in due course.
  There should not be a financial penalty for carrying through an efficient and effective reorganisation of schools, yet the way the capping rules are drawn means that such a penalty does or could exist. Because Warwickshire's spending is slightly above its standard spending assessment, the capital financing charge arising from the reorganisation was not automatically reflected in the cap. Listening to Warwickshire's entreaties, my hon. Friend the Minister saw the absurdity in that aspect of the capping regime and, accordingly, allowed Warwickshire's budget. That decision means that people in my constituency and throughout the county will see the benefit of the Government's commitment to education, but the story is very different in Oxfordshire.
  I very much regret that my hon. Friend the Minister decided in the end to impose the cap on Oxfordshire. I served on that authority for 12 years and was one of its leaders for six years. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) that he should not be fooled by the suit because I was certainly no Derek Hatton. The six years that I spent leading that authority were characterised by the fact that we had to set budgets that inflicted savage cuts in the whole range of services provided by the county council, all as a result of the capping regime.
  In recent years, I was part of several delegations to the Department of the Environment and argued Oxfordshire's case with the previous Government. They were cross-party delegations; indeed, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) accompanied me a number of times. We were grateful for his support.
  The current set-up imposes a cap when increases are deemed to be "excessive", as it says in the regulations. It is absolutely impossible to argue that any part of Oxfordshire's budget can be characterised as excessive. In per capita terms, Oxfordshire is the lowest-spending

  565
  county council in the country. Its cap is set at 1.3 per cent. above SSA, whereas the average is 2.4 per cent. At the capped level, the increase in Oxfordshire's council tax will be just 2.4 per cent., the lowest of any county council in the current round.
  The council has gone a long way to try to meet the provisional cap. This year, it has already imposed cuts totalling £10 million on a wide range of services. They are very harmful cuts, but they still leave the authority with a budget provision £6 million above the provisional cap. That is on top of cuts of more than £60 million over the past six years.
  The order will impose a further £6 million-worth of cuts which will hit all services. Where does that leave the education service in Oxfordshire? Thirty-two per cent. of primary children are already in classes of more than 30, which is twice as many as two years ago; 280 teaching posts have been cut in the past four years, and more are now under threat.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the order is hardly in line with our manifesto which contained a pledge to reduce class sizes to under 30?
  Mr. Plaskitt: I am grateful for that intervention; I was about to make precisely that point.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: It was always a pleasure to work with the hon. Gentleman in trying to get some sense out of the previous Government. Indeed, we succeeded in doing so last year. The hon. Gentleman is making a helpful speech on behalf of Oxfordshire, but I hope that he will answer the Minister's criticism of the way the county spent the £3.5 million that was agreed by the Conservative Government last year. He was the leader of the council and made decisions about the spending of that money. The Minister was critical of how it was spent, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to answer her accusations.
  Mr. Plaskitt: The help, as the hon. Gentleman regards it, came in the form of credit approvals and was very much a temporary respite.
  The measures that the Government have introduced are beginning to channel extra money into Oxfordshire for education. They are, of course, extremely welcome, but they are only a trickle when compared to the gaping hole in the bottom of the bucket which is caused solely by the impact of capping. It might be said that councillors in Oxfordshire could protect schools by making cuts elsewhere, but any cuts to fill the gap would have to be very savage and would affect the most vulnerable people. Therefore, if the order is passed, schools will be hit again. It is impossible to justify that when the alternative would have been to allow the public in Oxfordshire to choose to have an average council tax increase in order to maintain decent funding levels for their services. It is an indefensible situation, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) pointed out, it is a real brake on our ability to advance the cause of education in that particular county.
  The whole problem stems from the capping regime itself. It is, and in my view always was, incompatible with local democracy, and it must be abolished. I welcome the
  566
  Government's commitment to move towards its eventual abolition. Those of us who have over the years campaigned vigorously against capping are not asking for a local government spending free-for-all. That is not the alternative to the abolition of crude capping. I am convinced that local authorities across the country are fully willing to play their part in the control of public spending, but the issue must be dealt with by mechanisms that are compatible with decentralising power and reinvigorating local democracy.
  When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary winds up, I hope that he will be able to give me and local authorities up and down the country reasons to hope that work is in hand, that consultations are under way and that we can anticipate as speedy a demise as possible of this discredited and damaging mechanism.
  6.9 pm
  Mrs. Jackie Ballard: I welcome the Government's decision to sign the European charter for local self-governance. I also welcome the announcement that they are committed to ending the capping of local authority budgets, although we do not yet have a timetable. I, too, welcome the decision to accept Warwickshire county council's appeal.
  I am pleased to support the statement made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in the House just five months ago that
  "The incoming Labour Government will be based on the supposition that democracy depends on the people who take the decisions carrying the can and the people who carry the can taking the decisions."—[Official Report, 3 February 1997: Vol. 289, c. 701.]
  I am a generous person, but I am afraid that that is all that I can welcome today. Today is a sad day for local democracy and must be the day when the honeymoon wears off and the local government bride and central Government groom start arguing about more serious matters than which end of the toothpaste tube to squeeze.
  The Minister spoke earlier about increased partnership between local and central Government. It is a strange partnership when one partner tells the other how much they can spend. It is a recipe for marital disharmony if ever there was one. No wonder that even the Labour-controlled Local Government Association has started to criticise the Government.
  Squeezing the toothpaste tube is a suitable analogy because, over the past few years of Tory government, local authority budgets and services have been squeezed from every possible direction. They have been squeezed so much that there is no waste left and no overblown bureaucracies to cut. There are scarcely any non-statutory services such as the youth service or discretionary grants left to cut. Even if the Government jump up and down on the toothpaste tube, nothing more will come out. Yet the Red Book figures show increasing misery over the next two years for local government—misery that this Government seem determined to continue.
  As many hon. Members have said, today's debate is not about local authority funding in general. It is about the Government's proposal to override the will of local electors and impose a cap on the spending of two authorities. It will be a huge disappointment to many, not only in Somerset and Oxfordshire.

  567
  Why are the Government imposing caps on spending? Does the Labour party think that central Government know best on local services? Are the Government philosophically in favour of central Government taking away the powers of local councils? I have searched for the answers to those questions and have found that, during the same debate last year, the Minister for Local Government and Housing said:
  "The Government are so obsessed with ideological dogma that they are breaking their commitments on spending and on capping. They have demonstrated that, far from being in control of local government finance, they have lost sight of reason. The Government are acting against the wishes of the people of Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire. The people want the opportunity to fund their schools and social services properly".—[Official Report, 22 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 358–59.]
  One year later, the names of the Ministers have changed and the name of one of the councils on the capping order has changed, but nothing else has changed—not the ideology, not the dogma and not the determination to ride roughshod over the wishes of local people.
  Education, education, education—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said in the Chamber yesterday. Forcing two councils to sack 140 teachers is not the way to show a commitment to education. However, education is not the only issue, important though it is. Social services are also important, providing vital care for the elderly and children. Those services will suffer in Somerset and Oxfordshire if the cap is confirmed this evening.
  The main Conservative excuse for capping was that it protected the public from outrageous increases in local taxes. Somerset and Oxfordshire had local elections on 1 May and similar administrations to those that had been in place before were returned—a balanced council in Oxfordshire and a majority Liberal Democrat administration in Somerset. The public clearly did not want protecting from this year's council tax increases. Today's decision will save the average council tax payer in Oxfordshire £28 a year, and in Somerset £20 a year. The people of both those counties showed clearly that they had the will to spend that small amount extra to protect the services that they value.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has spoken before about the Oxfordshire settlement. I hope that he will be able to speak about it again tonight. He pointed out that the decision to set a budget above the cap level in Oxfordshire had all-party support. In Somerset, the decision had the support of Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors. As we heard earlier, the Conservative councillors abstained.
  The decision is not about protecting council tax payers or listening to the will of the electorate. Perhaps the Government think that the two councils have transgressed by appealing against their cap limits. From the speech of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), we might believe that they had, but the rules for capping are in place and there is a procedure for appealing. As part of that procedure, even Conservative Ministers would listen to the cases put forward by the few councils that appealed in any year.
  Mr. Brian White: Does the hon. Lady accept that those of us who set budgets in
  568
  this year's local authority round knew the consequences of going above the cap? Most of us took that into account when setting the budgets.
  Mrs. Ballard: All councils knew when they set their budgets that there was an appeal mechanism and that, if they had a strong enough case, they could put their appeal to the Minister and hope that it would be listened to objectively.
  This year, only three councils appealed, because they believed that they had a case that the Minister would listen to. Together with my right hon. Friend, sorry, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—he will be right hon. one day—I was one of the councillors who voted to set a budget above the cap limit. That was not an indulgent or wayward political gesture. It was done in the full knowledge that, if an eventual appeal failed, the cost of sending out new council tax bills would add to the cuts needed to reduce the budget to the cap level. It was also done in the full knowledge that local elections would take place within a few weeks of the bills being sent out. I know that some Labour Members voted in the Oxfordshire decision.
  Legally and technically, councils are allowed to appeal. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater said that he knew that Somerset's case would fail. How could he know? The Minister had to listen to each case and judge them on their merits. She could not fetter her judgment in advance—that would not be allowed.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: I agree with the hon. Lady. The fact that they are merely implementing the previous Government's policies makes nonsense of the Government's case. There is an appeal mechanism. The appeal has been made and has not been heard.
  Mrs. Ballard: I find it hard to believe that the Secretary of State thinks that his predecessor was so infallible that he could not have been wrong on Oxfordshire or Somerset. My hon. Friends the Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon and for Somerton and Frome have spoken in detail in Adjournment debates about the cases of the two counties. Neither council is spendthrift or inefficient. Somerset's budget is 1.2 per cent. above its cap limit and the cap was set at 2 per cent. Oxfordshire's budget is 1.7 per cent. above the cap. As we have heard, it is the lowest-spending county in the country.
  Somerset county council has an unrivalled record of efficiency and prudence. No aspects of its spending are over the top, except, of course, that it spends £12 million more than its education SSA. Is that spent on costly county hall bureaucracy? Is that where the cuts can be found? No. Somerset has the lowest administrative costs of any authority in the country—£9.29 per child. Some authorities spend more than £120 per child. Somerset devolves the highest proportion of spending to schools. The Minister said that she took account of Warwickshire's actions to remove surplus places yet, although Somerset already has the lowest proportion of surplus places in primary schools, it is to be punished today.
  As the Minister admitted in the Adjournment debate on 12 June, Somerset's education SSA is low compared to that of other counties; it is 33rd out of 35 counties. The Minister then said that Somerset was lucky because

  569
  its highways maintenance SSA was in the top 20. She knows, however, that more than 60 per cent. of a county council's total budget is spent on education so, if its education SSA is low, the shortfall cannot be made up from other services. Indeed, any road user in Somerset will tell the Minister about the parlous state of our roads. Perhaps she would like to see them for herself and at the same time visit some of our schools to explain to them why this Government, in common with the previous Government, feel that our children are worth so much less than children in Westminster or Buckinghamshire.
  Somerset's social services are equally prudent. It was one of the first counties to externalise its residential care service and it was the first to have externalised domiciliary care. Many Liberal Democrat councillors—I was one of them—were unhappy about being forced down those routes and were also unhappy about the recent decision to externalise the highways service, but those decisions have saved council tax payers money and have protected local jobs.
  There is no spare money in Somerset, there are no reserves to dip into and there are no uncommitted rainy-day funds. Confirming the cap will mean larger class sizes in schools, fewer social workers and less care for the elderly. Clearly, this evening's vote is not about protecting services and it is not about protecting local taxpayers from council tax increases. I believe that it is about firing a warning shot at Labour-controlled councils for next year. The Government trust them so little that they are prepared to see teachers sacked and elderly people go without care in order to flex their muscles and to show local government that they will not be a soft touch in future. Far from being a soft touch, they will be as much a bully as the Conservative Government were.
  Mrs. Ellman: Does the hon. Lady not recognise that this Government, in the relatively few weeks in which they have been in power, have already made more funding available for schools and for essential house building? They have already made plans to start to get our young people and the long-term unemployed back to work. After 18 years of decay under a Conservative Government, watched over by Liberal Democrats who, in their own patches, have done very little better than the Conservatives, praise should be given to this Labour Government for making a new start on the long road to recovery.
  Mrs. Ballard: The Government have done nothing this year for local services and they have given crumbs for next year. We have already heard about the hole in the finances which has been unearthed by the Liberal Democrats, and the Conservatives have now jumped on the bandwagon. Local government will be very little better under this Government than it was under the Tory Government. This year, it will be no better off. Tonight, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) has the chance, if she really believes in protecting local services, to vote against the capping order.
  This decision will dismay and anger many people across the country who expected better from a Government who were so eager to sign the charter for
  570
  local self-governance and who have such a large local government base. So many Labour Members have local government experience.
  Mr. Livingstone: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Ballard: I will give way to one such Member
  Mr. Livingstone: There may be some confusion after the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). Does the hon. Lady agree that this order is not prompted by anyone asking for extra Government money? The authorities concerned are saying, "Please allow us to spend the money we have already collected on services that are vital." The order cannot be part of Government policy unless people think that, by cracking down on the two councils concerned, they will give a warning to councils throughout the country to restrain their spending in the coming year. Labour Members who are offering comfort to this Government policy may be stabbing their own constituents in the back later on.
  Mrs. Ballard: I could not have put it better than the hon. Gentleman. People knew that the Conservatives had given up on local government, but they expected better from Labour. Capping is wrong in principle. That is a view that my party has always held and I thought that the Labour party held it too.
  After tonight, the young, the old, the weak and the disabled will bear the brunt of the Government's macho muscle flexing. The Liberal Democrats will vote against the order. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and other Labour Members will be most welcome to follow their conscience and to vote with us. They should ignore the fact that Conservative Members are doing a strange about turn. They, too, are welcome in the Lobby. There can be no doubt that the people taking this decision are the members of this Government. They must carry the can for the damage to services in Somerset and Oxfordshire as a result.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. David Crausby: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in such an important debate. I served and, indeed, suffered, for 13 years as a local councillor under the previous Government, with all that capping meant, so I am pleased now to be able to say that I am the first Labour Member of Parliament for Bolton, North-East. I have been joined, I am delighted to say, by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) to make Bolton truly a Labour town.
  Some 85 per cent. of my constituency was previously represented by Peter Thurnham and the other 15 per cent. by Tom Sackville, so I am responsible in part for the replacement of two Conservative Members of Parliament. I understand that both were diligent and hard-working Members. Peter Thurnham was a man of independent mind and felt that he had been poorly treated by the Conservatives. In the end, he decided to join the Liberal Democrats so I like to think that I am responsible for replacing a Liberal Democrat as well. I have some sympathy for Peter Thurnham's view that he was badly

  571
  treated by his party because after all, most of the country felt the same way about how they were dealt with by the Conservatives, which is why the previous Government were swept from power.
  Peter Thurnham and Tom Sackville were preceded by two excellent Labour Members, David Young and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), as she now is. They represented Bolton well when it was the barometer town which decided general elections, before the boundary commission changed everything.
  Bolton, North-East is an ideal mix of town and countryside. There are also some stark economic contrasts in the constituency which so much mirror the divisions that most of us have experienced nationwide over the past 18 years. Bolton was the heartland of the industrial revolution and has suffered more than most, as a result, from the decline of Britain's industrial base. Samuel Crompton was born in Bolton. He cleverly built on the skills and knowledge of local people to make it all happen in Bolton. It could all happen again because we still have a fine tradition of highly skilled tradespeople. Unhappily, too few of them survived the absurd economic experiment of the early 1980s which was perpetrated by the more extreme elements of the previous regime. We witnessed a real crime when we saw the destruction of more of Bolton's industry than had been caused by two world wars. The great challenge that the Government face will be to repair the damage that was done in the 1980s.
  We shall be able to repair that damage only if we use the energy and expertise of local people and local politicians. Central Government spent too many years treating local politicians and local government as if they were the enemy. Bolton was represented throughout those difficult years by a Labour council, which delivered, as it continues to deliver, efficient services against the odds.
  There is a desperate need to avert the annual round of cuts in services. We clearly need a radical review of funding and, more importantly, a new relationship with our local politicians who do such good and important work. They will be the rock on which we will build a better society and they must be allowed to govern locally.
  I was lucky to serve my apprenticeship in the engineering industry in the 1960s. I want today's young people to be offered the same employment opportunities that I had—not just because young people deserve the chance to earn a decent living in order to bring up their families, but because the country needs skilled young people to provide the wealth that our great nation is so capable of achieving.
  I am proud to be an engineer and a committed and active trade unionist, having been brought up in that family tradition. I was elected to represent the largest factory in my constituency, where I have been the works convenor for the past 18 years. I spent much of my time trying to persuade that private employer to improve the company pension scheme, despite the fact that there had been many years of contribution holiday. I am not surprised that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took action on pensions. In my view, there is a great deal of scope to do more. I intend to represent my constituents with the same tenacity that was required in my previous job.
  Bolton, North-East and its people have a fine industrial history, and with the right industrial policies intelligently applied together with the active support of local
  572
  government, we shall have an even better industrial future. Not only do we have good prospects and three Labour Members representing Bolton; we have a newly promoted premiership football team, Bolton Wanderers. Thanks to the assistance of the local council, the Wanderers now have a brand new football stadium.
  For Bolton, 1997 was truly a great year. All we need now is university status for the Bolton institute of higher Education and our year will be complete. We have much to look forward to in our town because our people are the real strength of our community and I am deeply honoured to represent their cause in Parliament.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) on a first-class maiden speech. I am sure that we shall hear him again on many future occasions and he spoke clearly and eloquently. Obviously, Conservative Members were sorry to see Tom Sackville go. Many of us were close friends with Peter Thurnham and were sorry to see him go, but, as far as we were concerned, he went rather earlier than the general election.
  I have many happy memories of visiting Bolton when I was a Minister in the Department of the Environment. I was most impressed by Bolton council and I was pleased to be the Minister who gave planning permission for Bolton Wanderers to build its present stadium. The other day, when I was in Bolton, I was delighted to see what a wonderful edifice it turned out to be. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider inviting a few Opposition Members to watch some of its matches.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also invite the Minister for London and Construction to see the work that Atkins is doing in Bolton, building the wonderful millennium structure that will be in the hon. Gentleman's constituency very soon. However, I shall be in trouble if I talk about Bolton for too long. As I am the first hon. Member to talk about Oxfordshire, let me refer in some detail to the order.
  I have some sympathy with the Minister for Local Government and Housing. I fully appreciate that as local government takes up a quarter of all public spending, one has to be reasonable in these matters. Clearly, the hon. Lady has a broader duty to governance, and those of us who have had to deal with these matters have some understanding of that.
  One has to look at the past to understand why Oxfordshire has got itself into its present financial pickle. Until the mid-1980s, Oxfordshire had a Conservative administration. From 1982–83 to 1985–86, the average growth in the county council's budget was 3.4 per cent., while the average growth in inflation was nearly 5 per cent. Oxfordshire then became a hung council and in the next four years, under a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, it went on a spending bonanza. The average growth in the council budget was nearly 12 per cent. when the increase in inflation was about 6 per cent. That spending bonanza continued until 1992–93, when Oxfordshire county council's budget increased by nearly 7 per cent. and inflation increased by only 2 per cent. There was a considerable increase in spending until the early 1990s.
  Eventually, that level of expenditure became unsustainable and the county started to run into its present difficulties. In order to maintain its spending, Oxfordshire

  573
  spent all its reserves and began to get into difficulties with the capping regime, with all the financial gearing that that involves. Oxfordshire is in the rather unique position of being the only local authority that has sought to break the cap last year and this year. As we have heard, the then Secretary of State listened to the representations that Oxfordshire county council made last year and enabled it to find a way through.
  This year, Oxfordshire again set a budget above cap. Between November 1996 and 1 May, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and other hon. Members representing Oxfordshire constituencies, including myself, and Oxfordshire county council had numerous discussions with the then Minister of State for local government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry).
  We put our case on the basis that Oxfordshire had got itself into a pickle and somehow had to get out of it. The position was made worse because Oxfordshire had no reserves to fall back on and no means of finding resources elsewhere. It is fair to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, in so far as he was able—one recognises that Ministers are always bound by the danger of being taken to judicial review if they are too incautious in what they say—suggested that if a Conservative Government had been elected on 1 May, they would have been sympathetic to Oxfordshire setting a budget above cap.
  The Minister for Local Government and Housing may smile, but we also need to know what the Labour party said to Labour councillors before the general election. This year's budget in Oxfordshire was rather curious in that it was set by a combination of Labour and Conservative county councillors. One can only assume that, in the run-up to the general election, Labour county councillors in Oxfordshire would take some advice from their party as to their position if Labour won the general election. One can only assume that they, too, were given some comfort; otherwise, they would not have set a budget above cap.
  Indeed, the Labour group on Oxfordshire county council cannot see any way forward other than the Government allowing Oxfordshire to continue at the budget that it has set. Only yesterday, the leader of the Labour group of Oxfordshire county council wrote to hon. Members representing Oxfordshire stating that
  "this council needs a clear medium-term financial plan … if it has any chance of steering itself away from imminent bankruptcy."
  We also heard from the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), who used to lead the Labour group on the county council until 1 May. In his view, Oxfordshire had set a responsible budget this year, having regard to all the circumstances.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Did my hon. Friend note that, when I asked the Minister to give a categorical assurance that she had not entered into undertakings with Labour councils before the election, she refused to do so and dismissed the suggestion as an idle rumour?
  Mr. Baldry: That clearly needs to be addressed at some stage because there had to be—and were—discussions between the Labour group on the county council and the
  574
  national Labour leadership. One would hope that the Labour party nationally would have recognised that the Labour group on the county council had been party to the budget setting.
  Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baldry: No, I shall not because I am very conscious that time is pressing on. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will want to speak, as do other hon. Members.
  Oxfordshire county council now finds that it will have to make some very substantial cuts over the next few weeks—against the background of being the lowest-spending county in the country. The proposed cap allows Oxfordshire to spend just 1.3 per cent. above its standard spending assessment, compared with an average of 2.4 per cent. for all other county councils. At the moment, the local authority is not spending profligately.
  I find the position of Ministers somewhat curious, as others have said. During the debate this time last year, the Minister, who then led for the Opposition, congratulated Oxfordshire on its spending and said:
  "Oxfordshire comes 45th out of 47 counties for total expenditure per head. It spends £560 per head … The county average is £629 … The Government are acting against the wishes of the people of Oxfordshire … The people want the opportunity to fund their schools and their social services properly, but they know that the Government will manipulate the figures to ensure that they cannot do that. That is not good enough."—[Official Report, 22 May 1996; Vol. 278, c. 358-59.]
  It was unclear from the hon. Lady's speech today that, last year, she and her colleagues on the Labour Benches supported Oxfordshire in its claim to be allowed to spend moderately above its cap.
  The situation this year is almost exactly identical, so I am at a loss to understand—I think that people in Oxfordshire will be at a loss to understand—why the Labour party is doing a volte-face and imposing a cap on Oxfordshire, which will inevitably lead to redundancies among teachers, the closing of libraries and the deterioration of personal social services, such as home helps, meals on wheels, and so on. I could understand if the hon. Lady had displayed financial rigour last year, but, given her comments, which are clearly recorded in Hansard, and given the voting record of Labour Members last year, I cannot.
  What has changed since last year that has caused the Labour party to do a complete turnaround on this issue? The people in Oxfordshire will want to know, especially as they recognise that a substantial part of the reason why Oxfordshire is in a financial pickle is that Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors drove up spending in the late 1980s and early 1990s without, sometimes, any great benefit from the increased spending. Now that we have got into difficulties, the Labour party is doing a runner.
  I therefore very much hope that, when people in Oxfordshire start to see the deterioration of services, they will recognise that it has come about because of the Government's actions—not only capping Oxfordshire but, since the election, increasing inflation, putting up interest rates three times and lumbering the county with an extra bill of £2 million for pensions. All that will mean that providing services in Oxfordshire will be very much more difficult.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. John McDonnell: The genesis of this debate goes back 13 years to the introduction of rate capping under the Thatcher Government. It was introduced to cut public expenditure under monetarist economic theory and in an attempt, for short-term political expediency, to deliver tax cuts as a bribe before the election.
  The Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and all progressives opposed the capping legislation, basically for two reasons. First, we opposed it because we concretely believed that central Government limitation of local expenditure would result in cuts in services to local communities. Secondly, we opposed it because it was the first time in this country that central Government were to take control of local government expenditure, thus weakening the concept of local democracy. We felt that that was a loss of basic civil liberty.
  We have been proved right; such arguments were proved right throughout the 13-year period—even from the earliest stage. Year on year, capping has resulted in the forcing downwards of local public investment. It has meant the rundown of local services—cuts in education, environmental health and social services. It is a major contributory factor to the loss of teachers, the lack of investment in equipment, the inability to care for those most in need and the ability to maintain decent modern services on which all our communities rely.
  The effects on our communities are self-evident. A generation ill taught is educationally lagging behind our European and international competitors. On estates in urban areas, Thatcher's children are coming out to play, with increased crime, drugs, violence and incivility. There has been a deterioration of basic municipal facilities which were established by previous generations of local councillors. That is why the Labour party consistently for 13 years held a clear and firm position in opposition to capping.
  I was enthused by the Labour party's record and speeches of Labour party spokespeople during those 13 years, as they outlined the iniquities of capping and the commitment to abolish it once Labour was elected. Let us run through some of the forensic evidence of those commitments—just in recent years.
  In 1993 in a statement to the party conference, the speaker from the national executive committee said:
  "How can the Tories justify laying new responsibilities on local authorities … and at the same time cap their attempts to ensure proper funding for the task?"
  In 1994, the shadow spokesperson for the environment said at the Labour party conference:
  "Along with our plans for elected regional councils, my friends, we shall be giving back responsibility to local communities as well. We are going to take the shackles off local government. We are going to end capping and compulsory competitive tendering."
  The comments go on.
  In 1995, the conference carried overwhelmingly a resolution which said:
  "Conference recognises the constraints on local authorities placed by the current system of local government finance."
  It said that the conference
  "notes and reaffirms the existing policies to remove the cap".
  576
  Also in 1995, we issued our policy statement on local government, in which we said:
  "Under the Tories, the government hasn't just taken increasing control over the money which councils need to raise. It has also taken detailed control of the amount that councils can spend.
  But the present capping arrangements suggest that some civil servant or minister in Whitehall knows better than local people and local councillors about the depth, degree and urgency of the needs of each and every local community and its capacity to pay for what it needs. This can't be right—in principle or in practice."
  I was especially enthused by the speech of my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party at our conference in 1995, in which he said:
  "A young country shouldn't be frightened of such change. It will strengthen Britain. The only thing that threatens the Union is a government that refuses year on year to listen to the people. We will rebuild local government and end the muddled system of rate capping."
  In 1996, we published "New Labour New Life for Britain" and, in 1997, we published our election manifesto—both of which included a commitment to end capping.
  For more than a decade, we have been preparing for power and, in that preparation, we have been clearly committed to scrapping the capping regime. Therefore, it is with extreme concern that I say that, with the first order on local government revenue, we are about to enforce capping—unreformed, unreconstructed and unrelenting.
  The same arguments that led us to make the speeches, applaud the leadership statements and vote for the resolutions over the past 13 years apply today. I was convinced then by what the party said and I remain convinced. In all honesty, with all integrity, I cannot support the Government in the Lobby to cap councils. I do not do so lightly. I come from a tradition of democratic centralism and I believe that when a democratic decision is made in a party, the members and representatives should adhere to it. That is what I am doing. I am adhering to the policies determined democratically by the majority of the party. Why is that so important for us? It is because it strikes at the heart of internal party democracy in the Labour party and also at our concept of socialism.
  In 1996, we adopted a statement of Labour's values, entitled "Socialist Values in the Modern World". It said:
  "This core belief in the power of community to liberate the individual is the oldest and most enduring basis of socialism. Even before Keir Hardie led the Independent Labour Party in the 1890s, people in Britain and abroad came together to argue for the use of collective power—through political parties, trade unions, local authorities … to attack privilege and domination and advance the individual interests of the majority of people."
  Those are the values we adopted then. Capping is an element, no matter how small, in undermining that power of the community and, therefore, cannot be supported.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Yeo: I shall comment briefly on what has been an excellent debate about a crucial subject. The debate featured two maiden speeches of high quality. The first was from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King), who gave an eloquent description of his constituency and an interesting account of his work in removing surplus school places. Unfortunately, he did not give a great place in his speech to the achievements of

  577
  Rugby school in inventing an important new British export, but I am sure that the House looks forward to hearing again from him.
  The second maiden speech was from the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby), who spoke enthusiastically about the role of manufacturing in his constituency and the achievements of Bolton Wanderers. I share his hopes about job prospects for his constituents in the future and I am sure that the House also looks forward to hearing from him on other occasions.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) relentlessly exposed the failings of the Liberal Democrat-controlled Somerset county council. He also renewed his credentials as an independent and powerful defender of his constituents' interests and, importantly, of the rural community as a whole. He rightly pointed out that the countryside is less well represented in this Parliament than in previous ones, at least those in which I have served.
  The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) convincingly demolished the case for capping Oxfordshire county council, of which he is a former member. With the assistance of an intervention from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), he underlined the importance of early notice from the Government of their intentions on the replacement for capping.
  The hon. Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) pointed out that much of what the Government have said on capping today and in the past few days has been meant as a warning to Labour-controlled councils that might have been deluded enough to believe that the Labour party election manifesto meant what it said when it referred to the abolition of capping. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who has temporarily left his place, underlined the illogicality of the Minister's arguments. He also emphasised the additional burdens that Oxfordshire county council now faces and which I mentioned earlier.
  The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) pointed out that, two years ago, even the Prime Minister gave an unequivocal pledge on capping. I salute the hon. Gentleman's intention to vote against the Government tonight. That is a brave gesture and I hope that I will not put him off by saying that when I did the same myself, as a new Member, it took me a long time to recover from the damage to my career in the eyes of the Whips. Nevertheless, I applaud his stance on such an important issue of principle.
  Two clear conclusions have emerged from the debate. First, the Government must clarify their intentions on the timetable for ending capping and on its replacement. They must tell us what the new regime will mean at an early date if damaging uncertainty and confusion are not to plague the important decisions that councils have to take when they set council tax levels next year and the year after.
  Secondly, the urgency of the need for clarification of the Government's intentions has been enormously increased by the time bomb that is now ticking away. It was introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his smash-and-grab raid on the pension funds, and it will seriously affect all local authorities. I hope that the Under-Secretary, when he winds up, will at least
  578
  acknowledge the existence of that problem and the importance of responding to it sooner rather than later. That alone would be a considerable advance on the Government's position so far. I hope that he will shed some light on those two important issues.
  6.55 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We have had an interesting debate which has ranged widely. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) has spoken twice. On the second occasion, the level of support for him on the Conservative Benches was significantly lower than on the first. Being charitable, I hope that that was not a reflection on his colleagues' view of his oratory or the force of his argument. In his first attempt, the case he put was relatively weak, but he compensated for that by the force with which he expressed it. He reminded me of the advice given to a young politician who was nervous about the force of his argument. He was told, "If you have a weak case, shout loudly."
  The hon. Member for South Suffolk made a number of points and I shall seek to address them. He asked about the changes to advance corporation tax, although he was stretching it, in a debate on council tax caps in 1997–98, to drag in that measure, which will not come into effect until 1999–2000. The impact of Budget changes on local authority pension funds cannot be known until after the revaluation that is due after March 1998. That revaluation will decide any changes that authorities must make to their contributions to the funds. Those changes will necessarily take account of all factors affecting funds, including, for example, early retirement. The new level of contributions will not affect local authority budgets until 1999–2000.
  Mr. Yeo: Will the Minister confirm that the income received by local authority pension funds will be lower, from the date of the Budget, because of the change in the tax treatment of dividends received by all pension funds and that, therefore, the income of those funds will be substantially reduced?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, a number of different factors will affect the income that pension funds receive and, until the revaluation is made after March 1998, local authorities will not know what deficit—if any—they will have to cover. Therefore, it is not possible for them to make any provision currently as the hon. Gentleman suggests. That is not a relevant factor to the order.
  The second issue that the hon. Gentleman raised was the review of standard spending assessments. He asked for an indication of the changes that the Government might make. He is an experienced Member of Parliament and he knows very well that Governments review the options until they reach a conclusion, at which point they share their thinking with the House. We are considering with local government representatives the range of possible changes that have been suggested. We will reach a preliminary view in the autumn about which changes should be made, we will consult local government in the autumn and we will then bring a report before the House in the new year to implement any changes that we propose. That is the timetable that has been followed in previous years, as the hon. Gentleman will know.

  579
  Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the implementation of our manifesto pledge to end crude and universal capping. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State made only too clear at the outset, we shall make those changes at the same time as we introduce the replacement scheme, based on best value and local performance plans.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget statement that we would review future arrangements for local authority finance, but that we would retain capping for 1998–99, while putting in place measures to improve local accountability that will allow us to fulfil the manifesto commitment. It was right for us to take an early opportunity to let local authorities know the position, so that they could plan accordingly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King), in an impressive maiden speech, paid tribute to his predecessors and to his constituency. Appropriately, he referred to education reorganisation in Warwickshire, which he described as painful but right. I appreciate his kind words about the handling by my hon. Friend the Minister of State of the case put to her by Warwickshire for the relaxation of the cap.
  The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) made the fair point that there was no doubt about the new Government's commitment, made clear in opposition before the election and made clear again after the election, to stick to the inherited local government settlement this year.
  Mr. David Heath rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: I was talking about the speech by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater. I trust that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will have the courtesy to listen to my response to what was said by another Member from his part of the country.
  The right hon. Member for Bridgwater made that valid point, and recognised the fact that there was no prospect of Somerset county council's being immune from the impact of the cap. He then became involved in a private altercation with Liberal Democrat Members from that county, into which I do not feel that I should intrude, so I shall pass on to the comments of my hon. Friend—
  Mr. Heath: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) expressed appreciation of the Minister of State's decision in respect of Warwickshire, but expressed concern about the position in Oxfordshire, an authority with which he has had considerable involvement. Indeed, I believe that he was leader of the county council for a time.
  My hon. Friend suggested, as have some other hon. Members, that Oxfordshire is the lowest-spending county per head—a factor that he thought should justify special treatment. I have to tell him that spending per head is not in itself the best measure of need to spend. Standard spending assessments are designed to provide that other measure, and using SSA comparisons, which make allowance for the different circumstances in each authority, Oxfordshire spends more than 13 other counties.
  580
  The hon. Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard)—
  Dr. Harris: Will the Minister give way.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am afraid that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a very short winding-up speech. I have less than five minutes before the debate has to end, so I regret that I cannot.
  The hon. Member for Taunton argued that Somerset and Oxfordshire should be able to spend respectively £6 million and £3.4 million above cap. However, as was pointed out in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), many other local authorities have faced similar difficulties, yet have managed to set budgets within the cap limits that they knew would apply this year.
  In response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), the hon. Member for Taunton claimed, incorrectly, that the Government were making no additional finance available to local authorities this year. She must be aware of the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill which has begun the process of honouring our policy of releasing capital receipts. Those will be available as finance to local authorities in the current year.
  Mrs. Ballard: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: I was simply correcting an incorrect statement that the hon. Lady made, but I shall give way to her.
  Mrs. Ballard: I am sure that the Minister knows well that the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill affects capital receipts for housing projects. We are talking about two county councils tonight, and county councils are not housing authorities, so they will not benefit from that Bill.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am well aware of the responsibilities of county councils as opposed to those of district councils, but the hon. Lady said that there was no additional finance for local authorities. That is what I was correcting.
  Mr. David Heath: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: I have already said that I shall not.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby), in an impressive maiden speech, paid tribute to his predecessors and to his constituency, which I have had the pleasure of visiting a couple of times in the past two years.
  The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), after a brief excursion via Bolton, with which he, too, has associations, focused on Oxfordshire and offered us an interesting suggestion. He said that the former Minister responsible for local government, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), had said privately that he would have considered relaxing Oxfordshire's cap had he remained in office. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it is not a basis for policy making, as I am sure the hon. Member for Banbury knows.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Minister of State's advice to councils before the general election had revealed the appropriate policy that the Government

  581
  would follow. My hon. Friend was absolutely clear in her advice to councils, both Labour and others, before the election. She said that if we were successful in that election, the new Government would work within the existing settlement, so all authorities should plan accordingly.
  Sir Robert Smith: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) outlined, in a speech of political philosophy, his view of capping. However, as he made no specific comment about Oxfordshire or Somerset, I shall move on to my concluding remarks.
  We have carefully considered all relevant considerations in each authority's case before reaching our final decisions on the caps for Oxfordshire, Somerset and Warwickshire. The Minister of State has seen representatives of the authorities in person, and I have responded to Adjournment debates on both Somerset and Oxfordshire in recent weeks.
  We are persuaded that the proposed caps are reasonable, achievable and appropriate in the light of all the circumstances of each authority, and of our view of the appropriate level of local authority spending as a whole. Local authorities are responsible for a quarter of all public expenditure, and no sensible Government can overlook that fact.
  Some hon. Members have suggested that the cap may undermine our party's commitment to education. That is nonsense. We inherited this year's settlement from the previous Administration, and we made it clear well in advance of the election that we felt that we had no choice but to stick with it.
  The Budget, however, makes it clear that we are committed to education. We are making extra provision of £835 million for schools. That is for revenue spending in 1998–99, and is £1 billion more than this year's figure. The new deal for schools will also provide an extra £83 million for repairs. We are committed to education and we are committed to local government. I commend the order to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 36.

  Division No. 62]

  [7.6 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Benton, Joe

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Best, Harold

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Blackman, Liz

  Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Boateng, Paul

  Ashton, Joe

  Borrow, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Banks, Tony

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Barron, Kevin

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Battle, John

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

  Beard, Nigel

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Burden, Richard

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Burgon, Colin

  582

  Butler, Christine

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Byers, Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caborn, Richard

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Cann, Jamie

  Graham, Thomas

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caton, Martin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cawsey, Ian

  Grogan, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gunnell, John

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hanson, David

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hill, Keith

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Coaker, Vernon

  Home Robertson, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)

  Hope, Phil

  Colman, Tony (Putney)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Connarty, Michael

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cox, Tom

  Hurst, Alan

  Cranston, Ross

  Hutton, John

  Crausby, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Ingram, Adam

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jamieson, David

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Doran, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dowd, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Drew, David

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Laxton, Bob

  Efford, Clive

  Lepper, David

  Ellman, Ms Louise

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Linton, Martin

  Etherington, Bill

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lock, David

  Fisher, Mark

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Flynn, Paul

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Follett, Barbara

  McFall, John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foulkes, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Galbraith, Sam

  McNulty, Tony

  Galloway, George

  McWalter, Tony

  Gardiner, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  583

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mallaber, Judy

  Roy, Frank

  Marek, Dr John

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sawford, Phil

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Martlew, Eric

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Maxton, John

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Meale, Alan

  Singh, Marsha

  Michael, Alun

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Milburn, Alan

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Miller, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Snape, Peter

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Soley, Clive

  Morley, Elliot

  Spellar, John

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mountford, Kali

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Stevenson, George

  Mudie, George

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mullin, Chris

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stott, Roger

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stringer, Graham

  Norris, Dan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwdy W)

  OIner, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Timms, Stephen

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Tipping, Paddy

  Osborne, Mrs Sandra

  Touhig, Don

  Trickett, Jon

  Pearson, Ian

  Truswell, Paul

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pike, Peter L

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Plaskitt, James

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Vaz, Keith

  Pond, Chris

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pound, Stephen

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  White, Brian

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wills, Michael

  Quinn, Lawrie (Scarborough)

  Winnick, David

  Radice, Giles

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rapson, Syd

  Worthington, Tony

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wray, James

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Breed, Colin

  Baker, Norman

  Burnett, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Burstow, Paul

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  584

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Chidgey, David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Oaten, Mark

  Feam, Ronnie

  Öpik, Lembit

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Rendel, David

  Gorrie, Donald

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hancock, Mike

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Harvey, Nick

  Tyler, Paul

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Webb, Professor Steve

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Willis, Phil

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Mr. Andrew Stunell and

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Mr. Adrian Sanders.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) may have unwittingly misled the House. He said that he and his Conservative colleagues would be voting against the order. Perhaps he was guilty of misunderstanding the situation or was misinformed. Certainly, he and his colleagues did not vote against the order. Perhaps he would like to explain why he unwittingly misled the House.
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that my hon. Friend has been misinterpreted. He said that he would not vote for the order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am sure that that explanation removes the need for any ruling by me

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION
  That the draft Asian Development Bank (Sixth Replenishment of the Asian Development Fund) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
  That the draft International Fund for Agricultural Development (Fourth Replenishment) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

  CONTRACTING OUT
  That the draft Contracting Out (Metropolitan Police and Civil Staffs Pensions) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.—[Mr. McAvoy.]
  Question agreed to.

  Thanet Regeneration
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McAvoy]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Will hon. Members please leave the Chamber as quickly as possible, in fairness to the hon. Member who has the Adjournment?
  7.20 pm
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful to Madam Speaker for selecting this topic and giving me the opportunity to bring some of the problems facing Thanet to the attention of the House. I regard it as a great honour to have secured this debate.
  I have made my home in Thanet, having lived there for six years even before I became its Member of Parliament. It is one of the few places in which I have found the same warmth of welcome as on my native Merseyside. It is a great honour for me to represent the people of the area and to present some of their problems to the House.
  There is a great deal of misapprehension about Thanet. Because it is in the south-east, it is sometimes mistakenly thought of as a prosperous area. Indeed, only this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health referred in a television interview to "the prosperous south-east". That rather innocuous remark upset many of my constituents, who are far from prosperous.
  I happen to know that my right hon. Friend knows Thanet well—he even visited me during the general election campaign—and I am certain that he intended to say, "the prosperous parts of the south-east", but none the less his remarks added to a picture which suggests that Thanet is not really the problem area that we make it out to be.
  I want to bring some of the facts to the attention of the House. There is considerable economic deprivation in Thanet, which leads directly to social deprivation. As it happens, only 80 per cent. of my constituency is in Thanet, the other 20 per cent. being in the Dover district, but Thanet's social deprivation is exported throughout the constituency, so everybody suffers from it.
  In June this year, unemployment in Thanet was 10 per cent., down from 10.7 per cent. in May. One should compare that with unemployment in the south-east as a whole, at 3.7 per cent., and in Kent, at 5.4 per cent., and with the national average, at 5.6 per cent. Our unemployment is higher than that in Glasgow or on Merseyside.
  The problem is even worse than those figures suggest, because Thanet has a large tourist industry and a large agricultural industry, so unemployment is depressed in the summer months as a result of seasonal work. The figures later in the year will show our unemployment to be as high as 14 per cent.
  Eight of the wards in Thanet—large, three-member wards—are in Kent's top 50 for social deprivation. Some of the wards in my constituency have male unemployment as high as 60 per cent. There are 4,015 children in Thanet who receive free school meals. Despite above average A-level results, the number of students going on to further education is half the Kent average, as a result of the low wages in their households.
  586
  In Thanet, 51,852 homes lack the exclusive use of a bathroom; 70 per cent. of council tenants receive rent rebates; 30 per cent. of households include a council tax benefit claimant; and there are 900 empty business premises. The statistics go on and on. One, which I discovered only this week, really horrified me: 41 per cent. of the households in Thanet have a total income of less than £10,000 a year. To put that in perspective, Members of Parliament receive £12,000 a year just to cover our additional costs for having to live away from home for a few days a week. My constituents have to live on that money for the whole year.
  Progress has been made; there is no question about that. The first step along the route to progress was that the European Union recognised our problems and granted us objective 2 status. That embarrassed the previous Government, who granted us assisted area with development area status. We have also managed to make some successful single regeneration budget and lottery bids, and further progress was made in May 1995, when the good people of Thanet, for the first time, overwhelmingly returned a Labour council.
  That council has begun the business of transforming Thanet. It first transformed its financial management, and I shall come to the significance of that later. We built a superb regeneration and economic development unit in the council. The overriding aim of our manifesto was to create jobs. In that endeavour, we have received wonderful help over the past 12 months from the Government Office for the South East. When we first got objective 2 status, I do not think that GOSE or the then Conservative council knew how to exploit it. Since 1995, we have learnt together, and over the past 12 months, the office has come up trumps.
  The council has transformed itself into what we call a quasi-local development agency. Now it can start to attract inward investment. The council created two business parks. One, which was entirely in private hands, was created by threatening compulsory purchase, although we were willing enough to work with the developer to make progress.
  The council also purchased 10 acres of land from its meagre resources to build a second business park, known as Thanet Reach. The two parks are now built, serviced and ready for jobs; Kent international business park has already attracted an investment from the Cummins group, and the building of its factory has been started, which is good news indeed.
  We have attracted some other major investments. Holyman-Sally is to invest £85 million in catamarans, to run from Ramsgate; Dreamland Ltd. has started to refurbish the fairground at Margate and to construct, in an adventurous arrangement with the local council that will lead to the renovation of a large area of Ramsgate, a designer outlet called Ramsgate Boulevard, which we hope will attract thousands of people to the town.
  I want to say a little more about the governance of regeneration. Although the economic development unit and the efforts of GOSE have been a step forward, we have been less successful in some other areas. There has been little democratic membership of the regeneration partnership, at the direct instructions of the previous Government. We fought long and hard, and now we have eventually been allowed to put some councillors on that partnership. The council would also like the local Member

  587
  of the European Parliament to be on it. I hope that the Government will one day make it clear that they will allow him to be on the partnership.
  Some of our endeavours suffer from a lack of support from some of the quangos that should be helping us. English Partnerships has always talked a good fight, but backed away from it at the last moment. For the first few years of its life, East Kent Initiative seemed more interested in the channel tunnel than in Thanet, and for the past few years it seems to have been misdirected and looking for a mission in life. Now, it merely stands between us and inward investors. A new organisation, Locate in Kent, has been set up. I hope that the regeneration unit of the local council will be able to deal directly with that organisation. It can attract the inward investors, and the council can then turn that contact into real development.
  I met the chief executive of Locate in Kent yesterday. It was a helpful meeting and I was encouraged by what he said. He gave me his corporate brochure, which I read before making this speech, and I was horrified to see that it does not mention the Thanet Reach business park or include one of the major roads into Ramsgate, which I do not find encouraging. If Locate in Kent does not tell the whole story about Thanet, who will? I hope that he will put that right.
  I welcome the Government's proposals for regional development agencies, but I hope that the Minister will ensure that when they are set up, they report to a Minister, that they have full democratic control and that the regeneration unit of Thanet council will be able to work directly with them. I also ask that we work out what the council and the regional development agency should each do and ensure that they do not stand on each other's toes and duplicate effort.
  We have some serious infrastructure problems, which need to be tackled. I shall take the House on a quick drive into Thanet. The A299 is being dualled, which is a step forward, but the dualling terminates on the A253, so there is no dual carriageway into Ramsgate. Furthermore, someone driving a 40-tonne lorry into our port has to go through the heritage town and round a hairpin bend—in fact, there are two sharp bends—which was intended for the horses and carts of Wellington's army, not a 40-tonne articulated truck. The Ramsgate harbour approach road is badly needed. The tragedy is that it is fully funded, it had been through all its planning processes and the archaeological work had started, when the new Conservative county council, elected on 1 May, decided to put the project on hold. All that the county council has succeeded in doing is to worry our inward investors. I ask the Government to do whatever they can to give the county council a kick up the pants and tell it to get on with building that road.
  When one comes into Ramsgate and turns right on the A256, one leaves Thanet, but quickly comes to the jewel in our local crown—it is also one of the jewels in the United Kingdom crown. Pfizer is a pharmaceutical and animal health company—the largest animal health company in the world and the fastest-growing human medicine company. It is the fastest growing because it has the most successful research organisation, and the most successful component of that research division is in Sandwich. Several thousand people work there and another thousand will work there in five years, but not unless we upgrade the roads to the Pfizer site.
  588
  The company has already decided to move 300 jobs to the M25 corridor. That will be the thin end of the wedge, unless we give it the infrastructure improvements that it needs.
  If one turns left from the A253 on to the A256, one can see that we also need to improve the road to Thanet Reach. We also desperately need a decent rail link. I call upon the Government to work with Railtrack to build a fast link from Thanet to Ashford, to join the high-speed rail link to London. The joke is that Pfizer came to my constituency in the mid-1950s because of the high-speed rail link that existed then. Unfortunately, it is the same high-speed link now, only a good deal dirtier and less well kept.
  Grants are important if we are to attract inward investment, but inward investors tell us that they are typically offered £16,000 a job to invest in Thanet, whereas they can get £30,000 a job to invest in Wales. I realise that there will be some dispute over those figures. The Minister may even challenge them, but that is what inward investors are telling us, so either the figures are correct or their perception is wrong. We need to deal with the problem, whichever it is.
  We need quality jobs with decent rates of pay. I was horrified to find out that GOSE offered someone a lower grant than he ought to have had because it thought that he would pay too much. He wanted a trained and motivated work force. GOSE thought that he should have a low-paid work force. That was some time ago. I hope that GOSE does not have that attitude now, and I call on the Minister to confirm that it does not.
  Council finance is another important element. Because of our large housing benefit problem—we pay out about £40 million in housing benefit to low-paid people and suffer from what is sometimes called dole by the sea—the net cost to the council is £3 million a year. That £3 million, which the Secretary of State of the time said would not fall on councils, comes out of the general fund budget of only £15 million. If we had that money, we could spend it on local business, small businesses and tourism. As we do not have it, those businesses suffer. I call on the Government to keep a promise made by the previous Government, who said that they were going to deal with that problem.
  This week, we heard that RAF Manston is to close. I should be pleased if the Minister responsible was prepared to meet me and others from Thanet to discuss the transition to private use. The closure will upset many people in Thanet—they remember Manston when it was the front line of the battle of Britain, so they have a sentimental attachment to it. If it has no military use now, we could at least make it into a private, specialised airfield, which could create thousands of jobs.
  I must briefly mention health care, because East Kent health authority has today launched a review of health care throughout east Kent. I was disappointed with a written answer that I received tonight from the Department of Health, which tells me that clinical need will be "a major component" of the priorities considered by that review. It ought to be the primary component. I call on the Minister to say so.
  In conclusion, we have had lots of bad news in Thanet recently, even since the general election. The county council has attacked the harbour approach road, the Ministry of Defence has closed down RAF Manston and

  589
  the local health trust has decided that it wants to close Ramsgate hospital. Now is the Minister's opportunity to give me some good news. If she cannot do so tonight, let her at least tell me that the Government are committed to reviewing those issues and that some time during the next five years I shall have action on them to take back to the good people of Thanet, who desperately need the Government's help.
  7.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on his success in achieving this Adjournment debate and on his election success. I visited his constituency a couple of years ago to look into some employment issues with the local employment service as a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment. I remember thinking that his constituency was very like mine—Wallasey—and wondering why it had a Conservative Member of Parliament. At the election, he put that right.
  Thanet gained European Union objective 2 status in 1994, reflecting the economic decline that the area has suffered in recent years—a decline that my hon. Friend highlighted well. Objective 2 programmes tend to be of three-year duration. The first ended in 1996 and involved about £11 million of grant aid. The new programme started from January and will mean another £14 million of grant aid to support a range of local initiatives. My hon. Friend's point about the high levels of unemployment was well taken—my constituency suffers similar levels. To date, Thanet has received £13.6 million in regional selective assistance, with further investment of £85 million levered in as a result of the grants, to create more than 1,800 jobs. In addition, £9 million spread over five years was allocated to the Thanet Regeneration Partnership in 1995–96 under round 1 of the single regeneration budget and a range of projects are already under way and achieving results. The partnership also submitted a bid under round 3 and secured a further award of just under £6 million.
  Thanet also benefits from European funding under the INTERREG Community initiative, which includes two initiatives that will spend £3.2 million in Thanet alone. Taken together, those grants represent a substantial commitment to Thanet by the Government and the European Union and they reflect confidence in Thanet's ability to deliver results.
  Since coming to power, the Government have spelt out the new approach that we want to bring to regeneration. We do not regard regeneration as being only about schemes and projects or bricks and mortar; it is also about social regeneration—people are as important as buildings. In our approach to round 4 of the single regeneration budget, we have spelt out our concern to attack the causes of social and economic decline and exclusion and to tackle the needs of deprived communities. That means collaboration and partnership at local level.
  We want an integrated approach, and we have started at the top with the new Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We also want integration at regional level. My hon. Friend mentioned bodies in the
  590
  south-east such as East Kent Initiative and Locate in Kent. National bodies such as English Partnerships also have a role to play in the region. I sympathise with my hon. Friend because more than 40 such organisations are operating in Merseyside. I am certain that a more integrated approach would bring real benefits and avoid some of the duplication and confusion that has arisen from current arrangements. That is where our proposals for regional development agencies come in.
  I am pleased that my hon. Friend supports the move to regional development agencies. The Government regard them as an essential first step to effective, co-ordinated, strategic regional economic development that will enable the English regions to improve their competitiveness. One of our important jobs will be to bring together the various regional organisations and help them work together to ensure that the regions gain the greatest possible benefit from their efforts.
  Ministers are still considering what arrangements are appropriate to the specific needs of each region. That is why the Government Offices in all regions are carrying out a national consultation exercise to ensure that Ministers have access to as wide a range of views about future structures as possible. Local authorities are included in the process and I am sure that they will make a valuable contribution to the development of that policy. I look forward to Thanet district council's contribution. A consultation event, one of a series organised by the Government Office for the South East, takes place in Kent next week. The opinions expressed then will be weighed carefully.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the membership of the monitoring committee that steers and oversees Thanet's objective 2 European funding. The approach taken by the Government Office for the South East reflects current Government policy. However, those of us who represent constituencies that receive European Union structural funds are only too well aware of the frustrations that some of these arrangements have created. It is a question of balancing proper monitoring with efficiency and accountability, a balance with which Government Offices continue to wrestle. The arrangements are set out in the single programme document and the European Union expects them to be fulfilled.
  I am aware that the Member of the European Parliament for Kent, East has written to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning raising his possible membership of the monitoring committee. Of course Members of the European Parliament have a legitimate interest in the way in which programmes are implemented. I am aware of the views of several of them on the matter, which I shall take up with colleagues.
  I should also like to take this opportunity to assure my hon. Friend that the Government Office for the South East is working actively and closely with Thanet district council and local partners to ensure that the forthcoming 1997 to 1999 phase of the objective 2 programme delivers maximum benefit for the regeneration of the area.
  The Ramsgate harbour approach road is part of the pilot capital challenge scheme announced last year by the previous Government. Kent county council was successful in securing credit approval worth more than £25.9 million over three years to build the road. More than a third of the allocation available for the whole south-east region

  591
  has been set aside for that one scheme. As my hon. Friend knows, the scheme seeks to provide a new link between the strategic road network and Ramsgate harbour and is regarded as a major catalyst in the diversification of Ramsgate port, creating environmental benefits for the town while aiding the economic regeneration of the Thanet area.
  It is therefore surprising that Kent county council is holding up the scheme that it championed so effectively when it made the bid. The county council changed hands when the Conservatives took control at the last election. It is reviewing the system of road schemes in its area. I hope that it comes to a conclusion quickly but I note that my hon. Friend's predecessor, Jonathan Aitken, said:
  "Our town of Ramsgate needs and deserves this road."
  In the same debate, he was supported in his plea by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who said:
  "I endorse his arguments utterly and whole-heartedly."—[Official Report, 4 December 1996; Vol. 286, c. 1181.]
  I sincerely hope that whatever its decision, Kent county council will get on with it and remove the uncertainty.
  By far the largest road building scheme being funded in Kent is the A299–A253 extension, which is the Isle of Thanet's link to the M2 and the strategic road network. My Department is funding Kent county council's scheme to upgrade the road to dual carriageway standard with grade-separated junctions at a total estimated cost of more than £170 million. There are no short-term plans to improve the A253 between Prospect Inn and Lord of the Manor. It is for Kent county council as the local highway authority to develop proposals for that section of the road and bid for funding of the scheme in the usual way.
  From a local transport point of view, Kent has done extremely well in recent settlements, taking more than 10 per cent. of national resources. In 1997–98, it will receive £77.3 million in financial support. In a year when the financial constraints bit hard, that compares well with the previous year's figure of £81.6 million.
  I note my hon. Friend's comments about rail services in Thanet. The area is served by three trains per hour from London, provided by Connex South Eastern. As he said, the journey time is about one hour 45 minutes. I understand that that will be reduced when the channel tunnel rail link comes into operation. He mentioned a fast connection via Ashford. The Stour Valley line between Thanet and Ashford via Canterbury has been identified as needing upgrading to become a strategic link between Thanet and London linking into the channel tunnel rail link at Ashford. I am sure that he will be watching for progress.
  The franchising director has powers to support and encourage investment in new railway services. He has developed criteria for appraising proposals to support new services that offer wide public benefit but may not be viable on a purely commercial basis. He has made recommendations on that criterion that Ministers are considering, but it will be for potential operators of new services to approach him with their proposals.
  On attracting quality jobs, I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that casualised or low-paid jobs are not the answer to creating proper, sensibly based regeneration. I am pleased that he supports the Government's intention to legislate for a national minimum wage. I am not aware of the case that he described where an applicant for
  592
  regional selective assistance apparently received less grant because the previous Government thought that the wages that he was paying were too high. Conservative Members were boasting only yesterday in another Adjournment debate about how low agricultural wages were. They never seem to learn. Rest assured, this Government do not share those opinions.
  My hon. Friend also asked about RAF Manston. Naturally, Government Office for the South East officials wish to maintain a close working relationship with local partners to monitor developments with regard to the future of RAF Manston and to evaluate how the site may be used to assist in Thanet's economic regeneration. In view of the announcement earlier this week by the Ministry of Defence on the proposed withdrawal of the RAF from Manston, the Government and local partners are examining the potential civil development of the site with renewed urgency. However he will appreciate that at this stage I am not in a position to be more definite.
  The administration of housing benefit is a matter for the Department of Social Security, but I will pass on my hon. Friend's observations. As he knows, 95 per cent. of private sector housing benefit expenditure by authorities is returned direct to them. The remaining 5 per cent. is fed into authorities' general funds through the revenue support grant mechanism. An additional 0.5 per cent. is fed into the general fund in recognition of authorities' expenditure in what are known as incentive areas, where they stand most chance of controlling their administrative expenditure through their own efficiency.
  I understand that in some circumstances an authority may lose out, for example when a rent determined by the rent officer is lower than the actual rent that the authority is required to meet. However, changes to the housing benefit rules in 1996 have reduced that problem and a discretionary lump sum is available from the Department for Social Security to meet extra cases of hardship.
  I am aware that the council made representations to my Department through the then sponsor Minister for the south coast at the end of last year. The council wanted the capping regime amended so that its expenditure on housing benefit would be disregarded. The previous Government refused to do that and my hon. Friend will not expect me to give a commitment on such a complex issue tonight. The funding regime for 1997–98 is now fixed, but it will be open to Thanet to make representations for next year at the appropriate time.
  This has been a wide-ranging debate. Indeed, my hon. Friend set me a formidable task of trying to answer the many questions that he asked. I am sure that I have not dealt with all of them, but he has left the Government in no doubt about the needs of his area. He is already proving that he is a doughty fighter for his constituents. Some of the issues that he brought up tonight are already being addressed and local partnerships and individual members of the community deserve much credit. There is still much to do, and my hon. Friend has illustrated the wide range of departments and agencies with responsibilities in the area. The challenge now faced by Thanet and its partnerships is to use all the resources available to secure a successful future for their people.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eight o'clock.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions Review
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement about the review of pensions which her Department is to undertake. [9606]

  Ms Harman
  Our Election Manifesto promised a review of the central areas of insecurity for elderly people in this country. I have today launched a wide-ranging review of pensions.

  We have inherited a major pensions challenge. The failure over the last two decades to develop an adequate pensions strategy has resulted in widening inequalities amongst pensioners. Too many of our older citizens do not enjoy security in retirement.

  Only by achieving a sustainable consensus for change can the country meet the pensions challenge. We want everyone who can make a positive contribution to this review to do so.

  Our starting-point must be the health and success of the wider economy. We must give everyone a real opportunity to be able to participate in it. By establishing the conditions for stable, sustainable growth, we will build a stronger economy and provide the essential foundations for decent and secure pensions. By opening up fresh opportunities to come off welfare and into work, we will ensure that more people have the opportunity to contribute to their own pensions.

  The review will address nine fundamental challenges:
  To achieve a sustainable consensus on pensions policy. We need to reach a broad-based agreement, which will allow people to plan for their long-term future and avoid the constant changes in pensions policy we have seen in the last 20 years.
  To agree where the responsibility for funding pensions should lie and to establish the right balance between the public and private sectors.
  To respond to demographic change. Talk of a demographic "time-bomb" is exaggerated, but there are real issues to address as the ratio of working age people to pensioners falls in the first half of the next century.
  To respond to social and labour market change. The last 50 years have seen far-reaching changes in the way we live and work. The pension system needs to reflect this. It must be capable of responding to future change. We need to ensure it provides everyone—men and women, the self-employed, full and part-time workers, those in permanent jobs and those on short-term contracts—with the chance to build up better pensions in their own right.
  To ensure resources devoted to pensions are used to maximum effect. We need to make sure that every penny available for pensions is used as efficiently and effecively as possible, whether it comes directly from individuals and employers, or indirectly from them through the tax system.
  240
  To get the regulation of pensions right. The personal pensions mis-selling scandal illustrates too clearly what can go wrong when pensions are not properly regulated. People need to have confidence in pensions and be sure their pensions are secure. We need to find a balance with provides an appropriate level of security, eliminates the scope of abuse and does not impose an undue burden on providers.
  To raise awareness of pensions and improve the level of financial education so that people understand the importance of saving for retirement and make the right choice about which pension product is best for them.
  To narrow the pensions gap between men and women so as to give women more security in retirement. Many pensions are simply not flexible enough to cope with women's working patterns. Women still earn less on average than men and are more likely to have caring responsibilities.
  To strike the right balance between the generations. We face the challenge of providing for the future, but we must also look at the position of today's pensioners. The views and concerns of current pensioners will be at the heart of the review process. We will ensure that current pension costs are manageable and that excessive costs are not placed on future generations.

  This is a formidable challenge and the Government has a key role in bringing change about. But it cannot tackle the issues on its own. We want to receive advice and hear new ideas from everyone with an interest in pensions.

  We shall retain the basic state pension as the foundation of pension provision, and SERPS for those who wish to remain in it.

  We will also build on the good quality second pensions that many employees enjoy by supporting and strengthening the existing framework of occupational pension provision where that is necessary. And we wish to consider with the pensions industry how an Investors in Pensions award could be established to set a benchmark against which employers, employees and trustees can measure the quality of their own scheme.

  We recognise that, for many people, security in retirement can best be achieved by building up their own funded second pension. We shall therefore consult widely on how best to take forward our proposals for new Stakeholder Pensions. These will offer secure, flexible and value for money second pensions for those who cannot join an employer's occupational scheme, whose pay is low or intermittent, and for whom personal pensions are usually unsuitable.

  The review will take forward consultation on the development of Citizenship Pensions for carers who are unable to contribute to pensions in their own right. As a result, carers can lose out on the pension entitlements they would otherwise acquire, and end up on means-tested benefits.

  Both these proposals, which we plan to legislate for and implement in this Parliament, will be particularly good news for women.

  As part of our consultative approach, I have invited Tom Ross, of Alexander Clay and vice-president of the National Association of Pension Funds, to chair a group of pensions experts to report to me on the current state of pension provision in the United Kingdom and on likely future trends. Their work will inform the development of our plans for a modern, responsive pensions system for the future.
  241
  Modernising the social security system is a key priority of the Government. Our long-term objective is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to build up an adequate pension to guarantee security in retirement. We aim to build a society in which there is a wide consensus on the future for pensions, both now and tomorrow, and provide dignity in retirement for the whole nation.

  Chief Adjudication Officer
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she will publish the thirteenth annual report of the Chief Adjudication Officer; and if she will make a statement. [9607]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The report published today records some welcome improvement in the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service in standards of decision making. Whilst overall the improved performance of last year has been maintained, the report makes clear that there is still much to be done.

  The Social Security Bill introduced on 10 July is a key step towards building a modern welfare state using new technology to develop improved benefit processes. The Bill makes provision for the simplification of decision making and appeals.

  The report describes favourably the numerous initiatives that the Agencies have introduced to tackle weaknesses and improve their overall performance. But the decision making and appeals framework at present works against the decision makers. Despite the valuable help the Agencies get from the Chief Adjudication Officer and his staff, the system is too cumbersome, over-legalistic and prevents the use of modem technology.

  The Social Security Bill will create a framework which enables the Agencies to make decisions in a more straightforward way. The decisions made will be more accurate and easier for both the decision makers and customers to understand.

  Social Fund
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she intends to publish her annual report on the Social Fund for 1996–97 and the annual report of the Social Fund Commissioner. [9608]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Secretary of State's annual report on the Social Fund for 1996–97 (CM 3667) was published today and has been laid before Parliament. The report records that the gross budget allocated to the discretionary part of the Fund during the year was £440.5 million.

  Total gross expenditure in 1996–97 was £539 million. This included almost 2 million non-repayable grants and interest free loans worth £432 million and Funeral, Maternity and Cold Weather Payments worth £107 million.

  The Secretary of State makes clear in the Report our commitment to modernising and improving welfare delivery. The current Social Security Bill will enable the decision-making process for budgeting loans to be made easier for applicants to understand, less time consuming for staff to operate and more cost effective to administer.
  242
  The Social Fund Commissioner's annual report has also been published today and copies placed in the Library.

  Windfall Tax
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will ensure that social security entitlements are increased to match any increases in consumer charges due to the windfall tax. [2976]

  Mr. Field
  Any increase in consumer charges will be a matter for the regulators. Representations from individual companies would have to be considered on their own merits, but we can see no reason for any price increases as a result of the windfall tax. Benefit amounts will be reviewed at the normal time in the normal way taking account of movements in the Retail Prices Index and Rossi indices.

  Immunisation (Disability Compensation)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will review the compensation available for people disabled by immunisation. [7238]

  Mr. Denham
  The Vaccine Damage Payment scheme is currently being considered.

  Income Support
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will give a breakdown of the current numbers of people claiming and in receipt of income support by(a) duration, (b) client group and (c) local authority area. [8514]

  Mr. Bradley
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make it her policy to abolish the Child Support Agency. [9020]

  Mr. Bradley
  Children are entitled to the support of both parents wherever they live. The receipt of regular maintenance is a key part of our programme for helping lone parents into work and we are determined to ensure that all absent parents honour their responsibilities to their children. We intend to look closely at all aspects of the Child Support Agency to ensure that it provides an efficient and effective service. Our key objectives for the Agency during the coming year are to sort out cases faster, tackle the backlog of cases and pursue fathers who avoid paying.

  Disability Living Allowances (Parkinson's Disease)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will(a) list and (b) make a statement on recent amendments to the rules for Parkinson's disease sufferers' entitlement to disability living allowances. [9110]

  Mr. Denham
  Entitlement to Disability Living Allowance is based not on specific disabilities, but on the effects that a person's disability has on their need for help with personal care and/or mobility needs. There are no particular rules relating to the claims from people with Parkinson's Disease.

TREASURY

  Self-employed Building Contractors
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what legislative changes affecting the tax status of self-employed building contractors(a) have been made since 1994 and (b) are planned for the future; when such changes will take effect; what penalties are provided for non-compliance; and if he will make a statement. [7458]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 11 July 1997]: Legislation contained in the 1995 Finance Act introduces new rules governing entitlement to subcontractors' tax certificates. Further legislation in the 1996 Finance Act provides for the introduction of registration cards for those subcontractors who will not qualify for certificates under the new rules. The Inland Revenue are continuing to discuss with industry representatives the legislation which will contain more detailed arrangements for the scheme. An announcement will be made shortly about the implementation of these changes. Penalties of up to £3,000 will be chargeable for certain offences under the scheme.

  Endowment Mortgages
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the changes in tax credit provisions in the Budget on the maturation of with-profits endowment mortgages; and if he will make a statement. [7896]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 July 1997]: The changes to the tax credit provisions should have very little, if any, effect on the maturity benefits from ordinary life assurance policies, including those used to back mortgages. Tax credits are not generally paid to insurance companies in respect of the investments supporting this type of business.

  Pocket Budget
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of preparing, printing and distributing the pocket Budget edition of the Budget proposals. [8927]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Treasury has for some years printed and distributed a "popular" short-form version of the Budget. The final cost for this year will depend on the demand for copies but is expected to be around £50,000.

  Consumer Expenditure
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of his Budget proposals he estimates will reduce consumer expenditure. [7578]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Budget tightens fiscal policy in a balanced way and puts the public finances on a sound long-term footing.

  Departmental Bud gets
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, following the recent Budget, he will give his estimate of the total real level of his Department's budget, in 1995–96 prices, in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; if he will estimate what such figures were
  244
  for (1) 1997–98 and (2) 1998–99 following the November 1996 Budget on the basis of the estimates of the GDP deflator contained in that Budget; and if he will make a statement. [8321]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: The figures requested for the spending plans of the Chancellors' Departments within the Control Total are as follows: (a) £3,000 million, (b) £2,949 million, (1) £3,027 million, (2) £2,999 million.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new plans he has to introduce cuts and savings in his Department as a result of the effect on his Department's budgets for 1997–98 and 1998–99 of the upward revisions to the GDP deflators in the Budget on 2 July; and if he will make a statement. [8322]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: All Departments are reallocating spending within their Departmental ceilings as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Members' Pension Fund
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effects of the Budget changes to ACT on the hon. Members' pension fund surplus or deficit; and if he will review the decision concerning whether the hon. Members' scheme should remain opted out of SERPS. [8477]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: These are matters for the Scheme's trustees and the House Authorities in consultation with their professional advisers.

  Stationery
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department spent on stationery provision in respect of paper items in each of the last five years. [8865]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The amount spent on paper by the Treasury in each of the last five years was:

  1992–93: £95,518

  1993–94: £73,182

  1994–95: £89,417

  1995–96: £96,310

  1996–97: £94,729.

  In real terms, the amount spent has declined by 10 per cent. between 1992–93 and 1996–97.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy towards economic and monetary union. [9758]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) will have profound implications for British businesses and the British economy whether Britain is in or out. Britain's national interest demands a better informed and more reasoned debate than we have had in the past.
  245
  I have therefore announced the publication of a report on the pros and cons of EMU. Copies are available in the Vote Office. The report was first published by David Currie earlier this year for the Economist Intelligence Unit. The Government has republished it today, in a shorter and more accessible form.

  I have also announced that the Treasury will publish on 24 July a practical guide for businesses on EMU. Copies of the guide will also be available from the Vote Office. The aim of this is to give businesses the information they need to make the preparations that are necessary whether or not we join EMU.

  I announced today that I shall be establishing an advisory group with senior representatives from across the private sector, to discuss matters of common concern about the practical implications for business of EMU.

  The Government's policy towards EMU has not changed. Those countries that choose to take part in EMU must do so on the basis of sustainable convergence as set out in the Maastricht Treaty. Any decision about Britain joining the single currency will be determined by a hard headed assessment of Britain's economic interests.

  While nothing has been ruled out, there are still formidable obstacles to the UK joining the single currency in the first wave.

  End-year Flexibility
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amounts for 1997–98 resulting from the carry forward of underspends allowed under the end-year flexibility schemes for capital, running costs, health, EU structural funds and nationalised industries expenditure. [9759]

  Mr. Darling
  A list of amounts for end-year flexibility totalling £198 million for capital expenditure; £387 million for running costs; £234 million for health expenditure; £499 million for EU structural funds and £63 million for Nationalised Industries expenditure is shown in tables that have been placed in the Library.

  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, individual cash limits and running costs limits will be increased when end-year flexibility is taken up.

  The total increase in cash limits resulting from the take-up of end-year flexibility will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Amounts for 1997–98 voted cash limits resulting from the carryover of capital underspends

  Class vote

  Vote title

  £ thousands

  II, 3

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office BBC World Service

  1,213

  III, 1

  Intervention Board—Executive Agency: CAP market support and administration

  842

  246

  Amounts for 1997–98 voted cash limits resulting from the carryover of capital underspends

  Class vote

  Vote title

  £ thousands

  III, 2

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  8,000

  IV, 1

  Department of Trade and Industry: programmes and administration

  539

  IV, 2

  Department of Trade and Industry: science

  6,747

  IV, 9

  Office of Gas Supply

  103

  V, 1

  Highways Agency

  11,979

  V, 2

  Department of Transport: administration and transport services

  2,000

  V, 5

  Roads and Local Transport

  4,020

  V, 6

  Department of Transport: other transport agencies

  177

  V, 8

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  120

  VI, 2

  Regeneration and countryside and wildlife, England

  10,125

  VI, 3

  Environmental protection and water

  505

  VI, 5

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: administration

  5,427

  VIII, 3

  Public Record Office

  2,000

  VIII, 4

  The Crown Prosecution Services

  95

  VIII, 6

  HM Procurator General and Treasury Solicitor

  307

  VIII, 7

  The Crown Office, Scotland and Lord Advocate's Department

  1,821

  IX, 1

  Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services

  2,698

  X, 1

  Department of National Heritage: programme expenditure and administration

  6,752

  X, 3

  Charity Commission

  81

  XII, 3

  Department of Social Security

  5,036

  XIII, 1

  Agriculture, fisheries and environmental services, Scotland

  4,725

  XIII,2

  Local government, housing, transport, other environmental services and European funds, Scotland

  3,623

  XIII,3

  Education, industry, arts and libraries, Scotland

  7,435

  XIII,5

  Law, order and protective services, police grant and social work services, Scotland

  1,047

  XIII,6

  Scottish Office: administration

  1,151

  XIII,7

  General Register Office for Scotland

  346

  XIII,8

  Scottish Record Office

  450

  XIII,9

  Administration of justice, Scotland

  1,055

  XIV,1

  Agriculture and fisheries, Wales

  2,000

  XIV,2

  Industrial support, training and enterprise and education, Wales

  6,880

  XIV,3

  Roads and transport, housing, other environmental services, Cadw, arts and libraries, health and personal social services, ERDF and Welsh Office administration, Wales

  2,148

  XV,1

  Northern Ireland Office administration, law, order protective and miscellaneous services

  2,198

  XVI,1

  HM Treasury

  2,000

  XVI,3

  HM Customs and Excise: administration

  1,248

  XVI,4

  Inland Revenue: administration

  4,597

  XVI,5

  Inland Revenue: Valuation Office(Executive Agency): administration

  534

  XVI,8

  National Savings

  863

  247

  Amounts for 1997–98 voted cash limits resulting from the carryover of capital underspends

  Class vote

  Vote title

  £ thousands

  XVI,9

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  189

  XVII,1

  Cabinet Office: Office of Public Service

  19,057

  XVIII,2

  Cabinet Office: security and intelligence services

  3,698

  Total voted capital end year flexibility

  135,831

  Amounts for 1997–98 non-voted cash limits resulting from the carryover of capital underspends

  Cash block

  Description of expenditure

  £ thousands

  DOE/HC

  Department of the Environment

  1,269

  Grants and capital expenditure financed by the Housing Corporation in England.

  DOE/LACAP

  Department of the Environment

  4,676

  Basic credit approvals to local authorities in England for housing, transport (except passenger transport authorities), education, health, other services and (for counties only) fire service. Supplementary credit approvals, specified capital grants and certain other grants to local authorities in England for housing.

  DOE/OES

  Department of the Environment

  227

  Supplementary credit approvals for other environmental services in England. Lee Valley Regional Park Authority and the Isles of Scilly (water and sewerage).

  DOE/LACAP

  Supplementary credit approvals for health in England

  429

  DOT/LACAP

  Department of Transport

  1,185

  Supplementary credit approvals for transport in England. Basic credit approvals for passenger transport authorities. Supplementary credit approvals to cover local authority expenditure which will be reimbursed by ERDF grant.

  LCD/LACAP

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  347

  Supplementary credit approvals for magistrates' courts (England and Wales).

  MAFF/LACAP

  Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

  320

  Supplementary credit approvals for flood defence, coast protection and harbour improvements in England.

  NID1

  Northern Ireland Departments

  13,994

  Services in Northern Ireland broadly analogous to services in Great Britain covered by cash limits but including family practitioner services.

  NID4

  Northern Ireland Departments

  442

  Expenditure in Northern Ireland on national agriculture capital grant schemes, certain assistance for production, marketing and processing and the fishing industry.

  SO/LA1

  Scottish Office

  22,150

  Net capital allocations and grants to local authorities in Scotland for roads and transport, non-HRA housing, police, education, social work services, general services and urban programme.

  248

  Amounts for 1997–98 non-voted cash limits resulting from the carryover of capital underspends

  Cash block

  Description of expenditure

  £ thousands

  SO/LA2

  Scottish Office

  4,298

  Net capital allocations and grants to local authorities in Scotland for HRA housing. Capital expenditure by New Towns in Scotland for housing and other environmental services.

  WO/LACAP

  Welsh Office

  12,997

  Basic credit approvals for local authorities in Wales. Supplementary credit approvals for all services (except ERDF projects). Strategic Development Scheme grants both capital and current) and some housing grants.

  Total non voted capital end year flexibility

  62,334

  Total capital end year flexibility

  198,165

  Amounts for 1997–98 cash limits and external finance limits resulting from the carryover of understands on health expenditure

  Class, vote

  Description of expenditure

  £ thousands

  XI, 1

  Hospital, community health, family health and related services, England

  91,218

  XI, 2

  Department of Health administration, miscellaneous health and personal social services, England

  12,188

  XIII, 4

  Hospital, community health, family health, other health services and welfare food, Scotland

  48,135

  XIII, 5

  Law, order and protective services, police grant and social work services, Scotland

  699

  XIII, 6

  Scottish Office: administration

  233

  XIV, 3

  Roads and transport, housing, other environmental services, Cadw, arts and libraries, health and personal social services, ERDF and Welsh Office administration, Wales431

  XIV, 4

  Hospital, community health, family health services and other health services (part), Wales

  10,978

  NHS Trusts (Scotland)

  Scottish Office

  19,167

  NHS Trusts (Wales)

  Welsh Office

  15,442

  NID 1

  Northern Ireland Office Services in Northern Ireland broadly analogous to services in Great Britain covered by cash limits but including family practitioner services37,479

  Total health end year flexibility

  235,970

  Amounts for 1997–98 cash limits resulting form the carryover of underspends on structural funds expenditure

  Cash limit

  Vote title or description of expenditure

  £ thousands

  Class IV,

  Department of Trade and Industry:

  83,394

  Vote 1

  programmes and administration

  Class V,

  Department of Transport

  5,106

  Vote 3

  Transport industries

  DOE/ERDF

  Supplementary credit approvals for capital expenditure by local authorities and payments to public and private sector bodies in England funded by ERDF grant

  75,578

  249

  Amounts for 1997–98 cash limits resulting form the carryover of underspends on structural funds expenditure

  Cash limit

  Vote title or description of expenditure

  £ thousands

  Class IX, Vote 1

  Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services

  202,655

  DNH/ERDF

  Payment of ERDF grants, including supplementary credit approvals in respect of capital expenditure by local authorities

  14,517

  Class XIII, Vote 2

  Local government, housing, transport, other environmental services and European funds, Scotland

  41,822

  SO/ERDF

  Payments of grants to local authorities and other bodies in Scotland on approved projects which match forecast European Regional Development Fund receipts

  44,459

  Class XIV, Vote 1

  Agriculture, fisheries and environmental services, Wales

  808

  WO/ERDF

  Payments of European Regional Development Fund grants in Wales including supplementary credit approvals in respect of capital expenditure by local authorities

  23,789

  NID 1

  Services in Northern Ireland broadly analogous to services in Great Britain covered by cash limits but including family practitioner services

  7,275

  Total structural funds end year flexibility

  499,403

  Amounts for 1997–98 external finance limits resulting from the carryover of underspends on Nationalised Industries expenditure

  £ thousands

  British Waterways Board

  470

  Civil Aviation Authority

  3,800

  London Transport

  28,000

  Jubilee Line

  30,000

  Caledonian Macbrayne

  300

  Highlands and Islands Airports

  200

  Total nationalised industries end year flexibility

  62,770

  Amounts for 1997–98 running costs limits resulting from the carryforward of running costs underspends

  Department

  £ thousands

  International Development

  5,245

  Intervention Board—Executive Agency

  4,062

  Trade and Industry

  5,244

  Office of Fair Trading

  694

  Office of Telecommunications

  280

  Department of Transport

  8,008

  OPRAF

  431

  ORR

  497

  Department of the Environment

  26,281

  Health and Safety Executive

  10,645

  Home Office

  1,400

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  1,960

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  805

  Crown Prosecution Service

  3,496

  Public Record Office

  1,066

  Serious Fraud Office

  751

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  2,906

  Crown Office

  1,259

  Department for Education and Employment

  54,788

  OFSTED

  770

  Department of National Heritage

  527

  OFLOT

  727

  Charity Commission

  217

  250

  Amounts for 1997–98 running costs limits resulting from the carryforward of running costs underspends

  Department

  £ thousands

  Department of Health

  10,644

  Department of Social Security

  64,877

  Scottish Office

  10,968

  Scottish Courts Administration

  3,900

  Scottish Record Office

  664

  General Register Office

  545

  Welsh Office

  4,407

  Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales

  333

  Northern Ireland Office and Departments

  46,738

  HM Treasury

  16,109

  Customs and Excise

  19,682

  Inland Revenue

  56,275

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  595

  National Savings

  2,196

  Office of National Statistics

  3,392

  Office of Public Service

  10,515

  Cabinet Office

  1,123

  Security and Intelligence Services

  1,510

  Privy Council Office

  220

  Total running costs end year flexibility

  386,752

WALES

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to have regular review of his relationship with a Welsh Assembly after its establishment. [8491]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The White Paper, which will be published later this month, will set out the Government's thinking on the role of the Secretary of State for Wales after the Welsh Assembly is established.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the date of the referendum to establish a Welsh Assembly. [9803]

  Mr. Davies
  Subject to the House of Commons approving a motion to disagree with the amendment on dates of referendums inserted into the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill in another place, the referendum in Wales will be held on 18 September 1997.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department spends on biking press releases to(a) hon. Members and (b) other individuals or groups, each time his Department issues a press release; how many such press releases were issued by his Department (i) in the period 1 May to 1 July and (ii) in the period 1 January to 1 March; and if he will review his Department's use of couriers to deliver press releases and investigate the possibility of using fax or e-mail. [8811]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Department does not use couriers to bike press releases. Press releases are sent to media outlets by fax where appropriate. Work is in hand to make press notices available publicly on the Internet.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in the targets set for the WDA, what are the boundaries of(a) the M4 corridor and (b) the A55 corridor; and what is the total population within each corridor. [8992]

  Mr. Hain
  For the purpose of Welsh Development Agency strategic guidance and targets, the eastern M4 corridor is defined as the coastal strip running from Chepstow in the east to Pyle in the west to the southern boundary of the programme for the valleys areas, extending east to include, broadly, the southern half of Monmouthshire. The total population is approximately 800,000.

  In north Wales the eastern A55 corridor is defined as the non-rural part of the Wrexham county borough council area, the whole of Flintshire and the northern part of Denbighshire, including the towns of St. Asaph, Rhyl and Prestatyn. The total population is approximately 320,000.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the 50 per cent. target set for the WDA for new jobs outside the M4 and A55 corridors is based on full-time job equivalents. [8993]

  Mr. Hain
  The target for jobs created and safeguarded is on the basis of full-time equivalents.

  CADW
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what targets he has set for CADW Welsh Historic Monuments Executive Agency for 1997–98. [9761]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  CADW has been set the following key targets for 1997–98:

  1. To complete 90 per cent. of the approved conservation maintenance programme.

  2. To complete 75 resurvey lists.

  3. To resolve 75 per cent. of ad hoc listing cases within 17 weeks.

  4. To complete 110 scheduling actions, of which at least 70 per cent. involve additional protection.

  5. To resolve 75 per cent. of listed building consent cases within 4 weeks and 90 per cent. of cases in 6 weeks.

  6. To resolve 75 per cent. of scheduled moment consent cases within 13 weeks and 90 per cent. of cases within 17 weeks.

  7. To resolve 80 per cent. of historic building grant applications in 18 weeks.

  8. To resolve 80 per cent. of ancient monument grant applications within 6 weeks.

  9. To pay 90 per cent. of properly presented claims for historic buildings and ancient monuments grants within 5 weeks of receipt.

  10. To achieve a market share of 63 per cent. of the number of visitors to the top twenty heritage sites in Wales.

  11. To reduce direct net cost per visitor at Cadw's sites to an average of 32 pence.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Schengen Acquis
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the documents 252
  comprising the Schengen Acquis, giving (a) titles, (b) date adopted and by which body and (c) length and language of each document, indicating which of the documents are confidential; and if he will place copies in the Library. [6393]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 3 July 1997]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 15 July and have placed a copy of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) on what occasions(a) Ministers and (b) officials have refused to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings with hon. Members to discuss matters relating to interests registered by those hon. Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests; [8097]

  (2) if he will ensure that (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department refuse requests from hon. Members to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings relating to interests held by those hon. Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 of the Register of Members' Interests. [8094]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The First Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 2850) made it clear that, when Members are meeting Ministers or others on topics in which they have an interest, the onus is on the Member to declare that interest, not the Minister to know. It is not practicable for Ministers and officials, amongst their other duties, to vet requests for meetings against the Register of Members' interests.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) on what dates since 1 May(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have met commercial lobbyists to discuss matters relating to the business of his Department; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings; [8095]

  (2) on what dates since 1 May (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have attended meetings with organisations representing (i) commercial and (ii) non-commercial interests organised by commercial lobbying firms; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings. [8096]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in response to the hon. Member for Newport, (Mr. Flynn) West on 2 June, column 99, Ministers and Officials will in the normal course of business receive deputations from many groups who are concerned to press their own interests or those of their clients, which Ministers and Officials take due care to consider within the wider public interest and Government policy. As it is not practicable to distinguish particular groups as lobbyists, we cannot keep a register of such meetings.

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the representations he has received concerning the possible infringement of religious liberties under new article 6a of the proposed treaty of Amsterdam. [8788]
  253
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department spends on biking press releases to(a) hon. Members and (b) other individuals or groups, each time his Department issues a press release; how many such press releases were issued by his Department (i) in the period 1 May to 1 July and (ii) in the period 1 January to 1 March; and if he will review his Department's use of couriers to deliver press releases and investigate the possibility of using fax or e-mail. [8820]

  Mr. Fatchett
  This Department does not deliver press releases by courier. They are distributed by fax or e-mail, and are also available on the Internet.

  Islamabad Embassy
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he has made for amending the opening hours for provision of visas to the public in the Islamabad embassy; on what date he anticipates it will be open for normal hours; what is the size of the backlog of visa applications; and what factors underlie the problems experienced. [9108]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The normal operation of the Entry Clearance Section in Islamabad has been disrupted over recent weeks by a number of crashes of the Section's computer equipment. I am pleased to say that the faults have been repaired. We also expect to install a new system within a few weeks.

  In the meantime, the Visa Section ended its restricted operation, and re-opened for normal business, on Monday 14 July. It is giving priority to Visit applications. New settlement applications will be accepted from 21 July, and the backlog of 1,200 settlement applications is being tackled as quickly as possible.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Press Releases
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department spends on biking press releases to(a) hon. Members and (b) other individuals or groups, each time her Department issues a press release; how many such press releases were issued by her Department (i) in the period 1 May to 1 July and (ii) in the period 1 January to 1 March; and if she will review her Department's use of couriers to deliver press releases and investigate the possibility of using fax or e-mail. [8819]

  Clare Short
  My department does not use a biking service for any of its press releases. They are sent by fax, post and through the Central Office of Information's News Delivery Service. Nine press releases were issued in this way between 1 January and 1 March 1997 and 12 between 1 May and 1 July.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Oil and Gas Developments
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she proposes to introduce regulations requiring environmental impact assessments for all oil and gas developments for which licenses are being sought. [7102]

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she plans to initiate an environmental impact assessment on the development of oil fields west of the Shetland Islands. [8049]

  Mr. Battle
  I have today published for consultation draft regulations which would implement the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/377 EC) as it applies to offshore oil and gas activities on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf.

  Implementing the Directive for oil and gas projects will give the public improved rights of access to environmental information about projects likely to have significant effects on the environment and make the decision process more open than it is now. This should give people greater confidence that consent decisions are being made on the basis of proper science and thorough evaluation.

  Member States are required by the Directive to consider environmental information which the interested public has had an opportunity to see and comment on before consent can be given to projects which could have a significant effect on the environment.

  The draft Regulations would implement the Directive as it applies to consents for significant offshore oil and gas projects, including deep drillings, production developments and pipeline construction. They set out how the Secretary of State should decide which projects are likely to have significant effects on the environment and so require environmental assessments; the initial data companies must provide to permit that decision to be made; and, if one is required, the detailed information needed in any environmental statement.

  They also require applicants to place notices to inform the public that an environmental statement has been required for a particular project and that copies of the statement can be obtained from or inspected at public addresses so that the public's views may be taken into account in reaching any decision on consent.

  The proposed regulations would replace the Department's present procedures under which assessments have been required for developments within 25 miles of the coast or in other sensitive areas where recommended by the Government's statutory environmental advisers such as the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. These advisors will continue to be consulted under the new procedure.

  The draft regulations have been sent to other Government departments and to the organisations normally consulted on oil and gas licensing, including the Wildlife and Countryside Links' Oil and Gas Environmental Consortium—which represents Friends of the Earth, the Marine Conservation Society and other national and regional environmental interest groups—and

  255
  a number of fishermen's organisations as well as oil and gas industry representatives. Copies have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Comments on the proposed Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipe-lines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1997 should be made to the Department of Trade and Industry by 1 October 1997.

  Coal Board Property Sales
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how the sale of National Coal Board Estates was conducted; how many tenders were received; and what were the criteria which decided that National Coal Board Estates be sold to Fell Estates Ltd; [7235]

  (2) what assurances were (a) sought from and (b) given by Fell Estates Ltd. concerning the status of existing leaseholders; [7236]

  (3) what assessment she had made of the sale of National Coal Board Estates to Fell Estates Ltd.; and if she will make a statement. [7234]

  Mr. Battle
  British Coal have undertaken a thorough trawl of their completed property sales and have been unable to find any record of selling any of their property to Fell Estates Ltd.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total spending in the United Kingdom on(a) computers, (b) telecommunications and (c) peripherals in 1996; what was the net monetary vale of United Kingdom exports of information technology for 1996; what is the sum of these figures as a percentage of total gross domestic product for that year; and if he will make a statement. [8715]

  Mr. Battle
  Figures for sales within the UK and of exports from the UK of the specified items in 1995 (the latest year for which complete information is available) are as follows:

  £ million

  Total sales in UK

  UK exports

  Computers

  10,362

  7,540

  Telecommunications equipment

  3,749

  1,859

  Computer peripherals

  1,061

  417

  The contribution of these industries to gross domestic product was 0.6 per cent.

  Musical Instrument Industry
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will take steps to encourage the United Kingdom domestic musical instrument manufacturing industry; and if she will make a statement. [9004]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government acknowledges the continuing contribution to the economy of the UK's musical instrument industry. However a changing world environment and intensified competition pose new challenges which must be overcome if the sector is to maintain and improve its performance. The Government 256
  is in regular contact with the sector through its representatives and is keen to continue this partnership for the future benefit of the sector.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the licences expire in respect of each operating nuclear power station; and if she will list the stations where the operating licence has been extended, indicating for each station listed the dates of the expiry of the original licence and the dates of renewals granted. [8911]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 16 July 1997]: Nuclear site licences do not have set expiry dates. A licence remains in force until such time as either a new licence is granted for the site, the operator surrenders the licence, or it is revoked by the Health and Safety Executive.

  As explained in my answer of 10 July 1997, Official Report, column 599, subject to nuclear power stations continuing to meet the high standards of safety demanded by the Health and Safety Executive, decision on their closure are a matter for the operators.

  Debt Payments
  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations she has had with bodies representing industry, including small businesses, in preparation for the forthcoming Green Paper on the late payment of debt. [9102]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have met the following bodies representing all sizes and types of business: the Forum of Private Business, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Confederation of British Industry, the British Chamber of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the British Bankers Association, the Union of Independent Companies, the Country Landowners Association, and the National Farmers Union. In addition, my officials have met interested parties, including the Credit Services Association.

  We will continue to meet interested parties during the consultation period following the publication of the Green Paper.

  Director General of Fair Trading
  Helen Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she intends to publish the report by the Director General of Fair Trading for the year 1996. [9757]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The 23nd Annual Report by the Director General of Fair Trading has been published today. It covers the period from 1 January 1996 and 31 December 1996. Copies of the Report have been laid before Parliament.

  Small Businesses
  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her Department's definition of small businesses. [9021]
  257
  Mrs. Roche
  There is no single definition of a small business, mainly because of the wide diversity of businesses.

  The question of an appropriate definition is meaningful only in the context of a specific measure for which it is considered necessary to separate one category of enterprises from another for reason of size.

  In practice, a variety of definitions are adopted depending on the objective of the schemes or initiative. Such definitions are normally based upon the number of employees, but may also refer to turnover or other factors such as growth potential.

  For statistical purposes the DTI usually uses the following definitions:

  Micro firms: 0–9 employees

  Small firms: 0–49 employees (includes micro businesses)

  Medium firms: 50–249 employees

  Large firms: 250+ employees.

  Advice from Business
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she has taken to ensure that Ministers in her Department receive advice from business. [8974]

  Mr. Battle
  Ministers and officials are in regular contact with business people representing all sectors and sizes of firms from across the country. In addition to consulting business and other interested parties from time to time on specific policy proposals, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has initiated a more formal process of consultation with business on policies and priorities to improve competitiveness.

  This initiative—Competitiveness UK—will include establishing an Advisory Group of prominent business people to advise the President on all aspects of competitiveness; holding a Business Summit on 23 July to establish common ground on a range of areas for further discussion; and creating a number of Working Parties drawn mainly from business to advise on specific aspects of competitiveness. This will help inform the development of policies for a White Paper on Competitiveness to be published next year.

  Arms Export Licences
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will give for the Review of Criteria for Assessing conventional Arms Export Licences(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8235]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The review of criteria used in considering licence applications to export conventional arms is being taken forward as a matter of urgency. We expect to complete the review in the next few weeks. It is being conducted by officials in the relevant Government departments as part of their regular duties. The cost of the review could be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

PRIME MINISTER

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the representations he has received concerning the possible infringement of religious liberties under new article 6a of the proposed treaty of Amsterdam. [8789]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who lead on European matters, have also received a number of representations on this matter.

  Computers (50th Anniversary)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans the Government have to commemorate the 50th anniversary on 21 June 1998 of the first running of a stored program on a computer at Manchester. [8285]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 July 1997]: The Government recognises the significance of this anniversary. The original stored-program computer, known as The Baby, was created at Manchester's Computer Science Department, and ran the first computer program on 21 June 1948. The Government welcomes an initiative of the computer conservation specialist group of the British Computer Society, to build a replica of the original machine, to mark the event. The replica is being built at Manchester University, with sponsorship from ICL.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister how many and what percentage of employees in his Policy Unit are(a) of Asian origin and (b) of Afro-Caribbean origin. [8970]

  The Prime Minister
  One Afro-Caribbean.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 July,Official Report, column 43, and the answer of 11 July, Official Report, column 626, if he will transfer responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing investigation to the Metropolitan police. [9023]

  The Prime Minister
  Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary have from the outset conducted the Lockerbie Criminal Investigation. There is no reason to depart from that. The investigation relates to the mass murder of 270 people committed in Scotland. My noble and learned Friend, the Lord Advocate has responsibility for ensuring that crimes in Scotland are properly investigated and Section 12 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 authorises him to issue instructions to any Chief Constable with regard to reporting offences alleged to have been committed in his area. The transfer of this inquiry to the Metropolitan police would remove that power from the Lord Advocate in this case and would impede the proper investigation of it.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 July,Official Report, column 43, what steps he proposes to bring to a conclusion the Lockerbie issue. [9024]
  259
  The Prime Minister
  As I told my hon. Friend on 18 June,Official Report, column 509, we will try every avenue to make progress in this matter, but the onus is on Libya to comply with the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what new plans he has to introduce cuts and savings in his Department as a result of the effect on his Department's budgets for 1997–98 and 1998–99 of the upward revisions to the GDP deflators in the Budget on 2 July; and if he will make a statement. [8306]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: All Departments are considering the case for reallocating spending within their Departmental ceilings as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if, following the recent Budget, he will give his estimate of the total real level of his Department's budget, in 1995–96 prices, in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; if he will estimate what such figures were for (1) 1997–98 and (2) 1998–99 following the November 1996 Budget on the basis of the estimates of the GDP deflator contained in that Budget; and if he will make a statement. [8305]

  Mr. Smith
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: The figures requested for my Department's spending plans within the Control Total are as follows: £875,285,000, £884,375,000, £883,977,000 and £899,727,000.

  Stationery
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much his Department spent on stationery provision in respect of paper items in each of the last five years. [8869]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  My Department was created in April 1992 by transferring certain areas of responsibility from six Departments. The 1992–93 figures are not available as the costs were partly met by these Departments. Expenditure for the last four years was:

  1993–94: £12,519.74

  1994–95: £23,480.20

  1995–96: £25,127.51

  1996–97: £27,630.39.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people received a television licence at the £5 discount price(a) at the latest date for which data are available, (b) 12 months before that date and (c) 24 months before that date; and in each case what was the total cost of the scheme calculated against a colour licence. [9013]

  Mr. Fisher
  I understand from the BBC that the information is as follows:March 1997–650,000 people; cost £54.9 million; colour licence fee—£89.50
  260
  March 1996–641,100 people; cost £52.2 million; colour licence fee—£86.50
  March 1995–678,800 people; cost £54 million; colour licence fee—£84.50.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects to publish his White Paper on his proposals for the national lottery. [9826]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The White Paper will be published on 21 July.

  Tourism
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to review the role of those of his Department's bodies with responsibility for tourist(a) promotion, (b) registration and (c) accommodation standards; and if he will make a statement. [7900]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  As "Breaking New Ground" made clear, we shall conduct a thorough review before putting forward any proposals for change. The timing and scope of this are currently under consideration.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much his Department spends on biking press releases to(a) hon. Members and (b) other individuals or groups, each time his Department issues a press release; how many such press releases were issued by his Department (i) in the period 1 May to 1 July and (ii) in the period 1 January to 1 March; and if he will review his Department's use of couriers to deliver press releases and investigate the possibility of using fax or e-mail. [8816]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  My Department does not bike press releases either to hon. Members or other recipients each time it issues a press release.

  None of the 61 press releases issued in the period 1 May to 1 July or of the 59 issued in the period 1 January to 1 March were distributed by bike or courier. My Department uses fax, the Internet and the Central Office of Information's News Distribution Service which, inter alia, supplies my Department's Press Releases to the Parliamentary Online Information Service (POLIS), which is available on line to all hon. Members.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Huntingdon Life Sciences
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the results of the investigation into Huntingdon Life Sciences currently being undertaken by the Home Office Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate will be made public with particular reference to any action taken against members of staff found guilty of cruelty to animals. [8337]
  261
  Mr. George Howarth
  The personal licences of two individuals have been revoked. The police have charged these two individuals with offences under the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

  We expect to issue a public statement about the outcome of the Home Office investigation and are currently seeking legal advice on its extent, nature and timing. Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 prohibits the disclosure of information given in confidence and we must also avoid prejudicing the prosecutions being sought by the police.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licences for experimentation on animals in the field of microsurgery have been applied for under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [8661]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Twenty-four. Applications for microsurgical training are referred to the Animal Procedures Committee and are noted in the Committee's annual report.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the members of the Animal Procedures Committee and their area of expertise. [8668]

  Mr. Howarth
  The information requested is as follows:

  Age of expertise

  Professor Margaret Brazier

  Law

  Professor Ronald Anderson

  Animal husbandry

  Professor Margaret Boden

  Philosophy and psychology

  Professor Barry Bridges

  Histology

  Professor Fiona Broughton Pipkin

  Perinatal physiology

  Dr. David Christopher

  Regulatory toxicology

  Dr. Yvonne Cripps

  Law

  Professor Robin Dunbar

  Primate behaviour

  Professor Paul Flecknell

  Comparative biology

  Mr. John Gregory

  Laboratory animal science

  Professor Susan Iversen

  Experimental psychology

  Mrs. Judy MacArthur Clark

  Veterinary science

  Miss Cindy Milburn

  Animal welfare

  Dr. Iain Purchase

  Toxicology

  Dr. Jacqueline Southee

  In-vitro toxicology

  Professor Michael Spyer

  Physiology

  Dr. Anthony Suckling

  Animal welfare

  Professor John Turner

  Evolutionary genetics

  Mr. Les Ward

  Animal welfare

  Perjury
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 July,Official Report, column 522, when he expects the police investigation into the alleged perjury of Jonathan Aitken in the discontinued libel action against The Guardian to be concluded. [8736]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner informs me that the investigation is being pursued as expeditiously as possible. When the investigation is complete, a report will be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. This investigation is an operational matter for the Commissioner.

  Foxhunting
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the impact on farmers' incomes of a ban on foxhunting. [7286]

  Mr. George Howarth
  A Private Member's Bill to ban hunting with hounds is currently before the House. This will provide the opportunity for Parliament to consider all the effects of a ban.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department spends on biking press releases to(a) hon. Members and (b) other individuals or groups, each time his Department issues a press release; how many such press releases were issued by his Department (i) in the period 1 May to 1 July and (ii) in the period 1 Janaury to 1 March; and if he will review his Department's use of couriers to deliver press releases and investigate the possibility of using fax or e-mail. [8818]

  Mr. Straw
  No Home Office press releases are sent out by courier. In the period of 1 May to 1 July, my Department issued 41 press releases. In the period 1 Janaury to 1 March the number was 55. The Home Office uses both electronic distribution and fax to deliver press releases speedily to the media. In addition, all releases are placed on the Internet.

  Homosexuals
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with regard to Application Number 28186/94 Euan Sutherland v. United Kingdom concerning the age of consent for homosexuals, if the United Kingdom's case includes the contention that such matters are within the margin of appreciation of each member state; in the event of the Government being minded to settle the case, what steps will be taken to ensure that the United Kingdom's rights in this respect are protected; and if he will make a statement. [8995]

  Mr. Michael
  The European Court of Human Rights recognises that states have a margin of appreciation in deciding, through a democratic process, how best to legislate in controversial areas. The Government welcome the Court's recognition of the importance of this doctrine in enabling countries to have distinctive, appropriate and fair controls that reflect genuine national differences. Social and moral questions, on which there can be widely differing opinions, will often fall within the margin of appreciation. In taking the view that the age of homosexual consent is a matter on which Parliament should decide what is appropriate for the United Kingdom, on the basis of a free vote, the Government again emphasise the importance of the margin of appreciation in such issues.

  International Crimes
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that responsibility for the investigation of major international crimes involving(a) foreign Governments and (b) state prosecutors in other countries is devolved to the Metropolitan police. [9022]
  263
  Mr. Michael
  The investigation of crime is primarily a matter for the police force in whose area the offence occurred. All chief officers may call for, and be asked to provide, assistance in such investigations, whether the offence was committed in this country or elsewhere. The Metropolitan police exceptionally takes the lead in providing assistance in respect of hostage situations involving British citizens abroad. As the present arrangements are tried and tested, I see no reason to change them.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum were lodged(a) at the point of entry, (b) in country and (c) in total, in each month since January 1996; and how many asylum applications were awaiting an initial decision as at the end of each month since January 1996. [9756]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the table and takes into account recent upward revisions to the number of in-country asylum applications lodged between September 1996 and May 1997. Due to an error in the method of calculation, certain in-country applications were not recorded in the monthly totals during this period.

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, by location of application, and applications awaiting an initial decision, January 1996 to May 1997

  Principal applicants

  Number of asylum applications

  Lodged at port

  Lodged in-country

  Total

  Applications awaiting an initial decision2

  1996

  January

  1,070

  2,240

  3,310

  69,765

  February

  975

  1,880

  2,850

  69,160

  March

  985

  2,160

  3,145

  69,165

  April

  760

  1,310

  2,070

  67,730

  May

  740

  1,010

  1,755

  66,400

  June

  805

  925

  1,730

  64,700

  July

  835

  1,680

  2,515

  63,265

  August

  905

  1,230

  2,140

  62,000

  September

  1,205

  3980

  32,185

  360,455

  October

  1,270

  31,540

  32,810

  358,970

  November

  1,180

  31,270

  32,450

  357,415

  December

  1,710

  3975

  32,685

  357,405

  Total 1996

  12,440

  317,205

  329,640

  n/a

  1997

  January

  1,210

  31,505

  32,715

  356,640

  February

  1,135

  31,340

  32,475

  355,820

  March

  1,210

  3950

  32,160

  354,950

  April

  1,385

  31,280

  32,665

  354,020

  May

  1,365

  31,230

  32,590

  353,545

  Total 1997 (January to May)

  6,310

  36,300

  312,605

  n/a

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Number of applications awaiting an initial decision as at end of month.

  3Revised.

  n/a = not applicable.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crime Victims and Witnesses
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Attorney-General what discussions he has had with the Home Secretary about the care of victims of crime and of witnesses. [7311]

  The Attorney-General
  It is not my practice to give details of meetings with Ministerial colleagues on particular topics. I have frequent discussions with my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary about Departmental matters of members interest. As regards fulfilment of our commitment to improving the position of victims and those who give evidence in court, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Home Secretary on 3 July,Official Report, columns 235–37.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the work of the Serious Fraud Office. [7312]

  The Attorney-General
  The aim of the Serious Fraud Office remains to investigate and prosecute serious and complex fraud and so deter fraud and maintain confidence in the probity of business and financial services in the United Kingdom. To this end since 5 April 1996 the SFO has secured the conviction of 26 defendants out of 29 prosecuted.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will give for the proposed review of the Crown Prosecution Service(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8250]

  The Attorney-General
  Sir Iain Glidewell is aiming to report by the end of the year.

  No firm estimate as to the likely cost is yet available.

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Attorney-General how many sentences considered unduly lenient he has sought leave to refer to the Court of Appeal since 1 May. [7313]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).

SCOTLAND

  NHS Operations (Cancellations)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were admitted to hospital for surgery and subsequently discharged without the operation having taken place in each NHS hospital trust or health board hospital in the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997. [6854]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 4 July 1997]: I regret that information on cancellations of operations in the level of detail requested is not collected. The figures for cancellations of planned admissions for in-patient and day case treatment during the period 1 October 1996

  265
  to 31 March 1997 are given in the table. The number of cancellations involved is very small in relation to the total number of admissions. The Government and the NHS in Scotland are working to reduce to as few as possible the number of occasions when patients have their operations cancelled.

  Cancellation of planned admissions by NHS hospitals during the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 19971

  Number

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  670

  Angus NHS Trust

  25

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust

  174

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  11

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  20

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  374

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  126

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  28

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  40

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  354

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  12

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  49

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  13

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  110

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  157

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  7

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  68

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  64

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  136

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  24

  Orkney Health Board Unit

  13

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  52

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  291

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  434

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  221

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  691

  Shetland Hospitals and Community NHS Trust

  9

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  54

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  72

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  88

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  33

  The Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  153

  The Yorkhill NHS Trust

  39

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  165

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  222

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  241

  Western Isles Health Unit

  7

  Scotland

  5,247

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients awaiting operations were informed by letter of the cancellation of their hospital admission for the operation in respect of each NHS hospital trust and health board hospital during the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997. [6855]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 4 July 1997]: I regret that information on cancellations of operations in the level of detail requested is not collected. The figures for cancellations of planned admissions for in-patients and day case treatment during the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997 are given in the table. The number of cancellations involved is very small in relation to the total number of admissions. The Government and the NHS in Scotland are working to reduce to as few as possible the number of occasions when patients have their operations
  266
  cancelled. I would expect all hospitals to notify patients of the cancellation of their admission for treatment as soon as possible and by the most appropriate method.

  Cancellation of planned admissions by SHS hospitals during the period 1 October 1996 to 31 March 19971

  Number

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  670

  Angus NHS Trust

  25

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust

  174

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  11

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospital NHS Trust

  20

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  374

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  126

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  28

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  40

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  354

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  12

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  49

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  13

  Inverclyde Royals NHS Trust

  110

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  157

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  7

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  68

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  64

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  136

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  24

  Orkney Health Board Unit

  13

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  52

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  291

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  434

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  221

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  691

  Shetland Hospitals and Community NHS Trust

  9

  South Ayrshire Hospital NHS Trust

  54

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  72

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  88

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  33

  The Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  153

  The Yorkhill NHS Trust

  39

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  165

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  222

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  241

  Western Isles Health Unit

  7

  Scotland

  5,247

  1 Provisional.

  Local Authority Pension Funds
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an assessment of the additional amounts that local authorities in Scotland will have to pay into their pension funds as a result of the proposed changes to advance corporation tax; and from where these moneys will be provided. [7342]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 8 July 1997]: The funding of local authority pension funds is a matter for local authorities. Although the loss of tax credits will have some impact on the income of local authority pension funds, the extent to which these changes feed through to authorities' budgets will depend on the overall judgements made by the funds' actuaries as they undertake subsequent revaluations to the funds. In addition, pension funds should benefit from improved company performance as a result of the reduction in Corporation Tax and other measures in the Budget to encourage quality long term investment.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the date of the Scottish Assembly referendum. [7662]

  Mr. McLeish
  The referendum on the establishment and tax-varying powers of a Scottish Parliament will be held by this Autumn. My noble Friend Lord Sewel gave an undertaking during Committee on the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill in another place that the Government would announce the date of the referendum by Report. [House of Lords O.R. Volume 581 Number 25. Column 103]. On the currently envisaged timetable, the date will therefore be announced by 21 July.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Minister of State's meeting with Professor J.D. Percy and colleagues of the Accounts Commission on arrangements and responsibilities for a Scottish Parliament. [9109]

  Mr. McLeish
  I have agreed to meet with Professor Percy and the Accounts Commission but have yet to arrange a date.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the date of the referendum to be held in Scotland on the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. [9825]

  Mr. Dewar
  Subject to the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill receiving Royal Assent, the referendum on our proposals for a Scottish Parliament will be held on Thursday 11 September 1997.

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what occasions(a) Ministers and (b) officials have refused to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings with hon. Members to discuss matters relating to interests registered by those Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8065]

  Mr. Dewar
  It would not be practicable for Ministers and officials, among their other duties, to check requests for meetings against the Register of Members' Interests. The First Report of the Nolan Committee made it clear that, when hon. Members are meeting Ministers on matters in which they have an interest, the onus is on the Member to declare that interest and not on the Minister to know of it (Cm 2850 paragraph 2.63).

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department refuse requests from hon. Members to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings relating to interests held by those Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8062]

  Mr. Dewar
  The First Report of the Nolan Committee (Cm. 2850) recognised the value of enabling hon. Members to retain interests outside the House, provided these were properly declared, both in the Register of Members' Interests and on other occasions. Subject to these requirements, and to the Rules of the House relating to delegations to Ministers, hon. Members are free to seek meetings relative to such interests with Ministers and 268
  officials. Such requests are considered alongside the many other approaches from individuals and organisations concerned to press their own interests or those of others.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) on what dates since 1 May(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have met commercial lobbyists to discuss matters relating to the business of his Department; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings; [8063]

  (2) on what dates since 1 May (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have attended meetings with organisations representing (i) commercial and (ii) non-commercial interests organised by commercial lobbying firms; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings. [8064]

  Mr. Dewar
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in response to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 2 June Official Report, column 99, Ministers and officials receive deputations from many groups who are concerned to press their own interests or those of their clients. These are considered in the context of the wider public interest and of Government policy. As it is not practicable to distinguish particular groups as lobbyists, I do not propose to introduce a register of such meetings.

  Multi-storey Flats (Glasgow)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of housing units in Glasgow classified as multi-storey flats; and how many of these are unoccupied at the last date for which figures are available. [8245]

  Mr. Chisholm
  Information on the number of dwellings by type and location is available only for dwellings owned by local authorities. At 1 April 1996, the latest date for which information is available, there were 23,145 local authority dwellings in Glasgow classified as high rise flats. Information on unoccupied dwellings (vacant stock) is collected from local authorities, but not specifically by type of dwelling.

  Less-favoured Areas
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to propose extension of less-favoured area status in Scotland. [7275]

  Mr. Chisholm
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to propose an extension to the less favoured areas in Scotland.

  Beaufort's Dyke
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide details of the nature of material, quantity and degree of radioactivity of the radioactive material dumped in Beaufort's Dyke in the 1950s. [8721]

  Mr. Chisholm
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 8 July 1997,Official Report, columns 427–28.

  269
  As indicated therein copies of the relevant documentation, containing such information as is available, have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will institute an immediate review by a senior advocate of the Skye Bridge toll order. [9153]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Invergarry-Kyle of Lochalsh Trunk Road (A87) Extension (Skye Bridge Crossing) Toll Order 1992 sets out the tolling regime for the bridge. My officials will consider the terms of the Toll Order in the light of the decision of the High Court in the appeal and my decision on toll levels for regular users set out in my reply to the hon. Member on 4 July,Official Report, columns 288–90. There is no case for the wider review suggested.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the costs to public funds of buying out the Skye Bridge contract. [9152]

  Mr. Dewar
  The exit value of the contract is governed by the terms of the concession agreement with the operator. My Department calculated an estimate of the cost of termination of the contract on those terms as part of my delivery of our manifesto commitment to review the toll regime. All information relevant to that calculation is known to my Department and there would be no basis or purpose for a review.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will suspend Skye Bridge toll collection pending the hearing of the appeal; and what powers he has to pay interim recompense to Skye Bridge Ltd. pending the outcome of the appeal. [9155]

  Mr. Dewar
  No. Accordingly the question of paying interim recompense does not arise.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Safety
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures his Department is taking to ensure higher standards of food safety. [7279]

  Mr. Rooker
  Our top priority is the creation of a Food Standards Agency to raise standards of food safety. But we are not waiting for the creation of the Agency: we are reviewing all of the work of the Department to ensure we have in place the right policies and procedures to deliver the highest standards of food safety.

  Farm Animal Welfare
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve farm animal welfare; and if he will make a statement. [7291]

  Mr. Morley
  We have already implemented new rules on welfare in transit, commissioned an urgent review of pre-export enforcement arrangements for live animals, and secured an amendment to the Treaty of Rome which recognises animals as sentient beings.

  We shall be announcing further initiatives shortly.

  Beef Farmers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for additional assistance to beef farmers. [7292]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Substantial sums of money have already been spent on helping the industry. In the circumstances and in view of the need for tight control on public expenditure, I have no current plans to make additional payments to beef producers to compensate them for the relatively low level of beef prices.

  Open Government
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to publish more information under the provisions of the open government code. [7293]

  Mr. Morley
  I am fully committed to maximising openness both under the Code of Practice and in the proposed Freedom of Information Bill and am making steps to improve availability of information.

  Food Imports
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce new controls on imported food. [7294]

  Mr. Rooker
  I assume that this question refers to our proposals to extend existing UK rules on Specified Bovine Material (SBM) to bovine material that has been imported. SBM may not be used in human or animal food or in cosmetic, pharmaceutical or medical products. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on 5 June,Official Report, columns 227–228, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Cereal Growers (Green Pound)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the impact of revaluations of the green pound on cereal growers. [7295]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Market prices for cereals have fallen significantly over the past twelve months but it is difficult to say how much of this is due to green pound revaluations and how much to other factors. Arable area payments to farmers in 1997 have been substantially protected from the effects of recent revaluations under arrangements agreed by the EU Agriculture Council in March this year.

  Diet
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what role his Department plays in(a) compiling and (b) disseminating information about healthy diets. [7296]

  Mr. Rooker
  In order to ensure that healthy eating advice is based on firm scientific grounds, the Ministry supports a programme of research and, together with the Department of Health, a surveillance programme of the diet of the population.
  271
  The Ministry, working closely with the Department of Health and the Health Education Authority, develops literature on healthy eating based on this information and on expert advice from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA), and disseminates a range of materials to the general public and to health professionals.

  Agri-environment schemes
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what role the Government's plans for agri-environment schemes will play in its proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy. [7298]

  Mr. Morley
  In the forthcoming negotiations on CAP reform the Government will press for progressive cuts in production-related support and for a part of the resultant savings to be used for targeted measures to help rural areas, including through agri-environment schemes.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of agri-environment schemes. [7302]

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what economic measures he is assessing to direct United Kingdom agriculture towards more ecologically sustainable systems; and if he will make a statement. [8500]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) on 16 July,Official Report, column 184.

  Sheepmeat and Goatmeat Imports
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ban the import of sheepmeat and goatmeat form countries where there is no requirement for the removal of specified offals in ovines. [7299]

  Mr. Rooker
  No. The specified materials of sheep and goats that are currently prohibited from sale for human consumption in the UK are the heads, excluding the tongue, unless from Australia or New Zealand.

  Following advice form the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee my right hon. Friend announced on 5 June proposals for legislation to extend the list of specified materials to include the spleen of all animals and the spinal cord of animals over 12 months of age. These additional measures would apply to animals slaughtered in the UK and to sheepmeat and goatmeat imported into the UK, other than from New Zealand and Australia.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for speeding up change to the common agricultural policy; and what policy priorities he will promote in its place. [7300]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government's objective is to secure a more market-oriented Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) through the phasing out of production related support. The Commission is expected to produce 272
  legislative proposals for reform of several key sectors of the CAP later this year. Making progress on discussion of these will be a priority for the UK Presidency of the Agriculture Council.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his discussions with his European Union counterparts about the reform of the common agricultural policy. [8722]

  Mr. Rooker
  My right hon. Friend, the Minister, has had a number of discussions with the Commission and with Ministers of other Member States, in which he has made clear the need for early radical reform of the CAP. The strength of our argument has been broadly accepted by the Commission in its "Agenda 2000" paper which was published yesterday. We look forward to leading the debate on this and on the legislative proposals for reform which the Commission should produce later in the year.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to reform the system of milk quotas. [7303]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Reforming the CAP dairy regime and its system of milk quotas is a high priority for the Government. I shall continue to press in the Agriculture Council for cuts in support prices and the removal of quotas, to be accompanied by time limited, degressive and non-discriminatory aid payments to dairy farmers, decoupled from production, in order to facilitate adjustment to these reforms.

  Beef Export Ban
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet his European counterparts to discuss the next steps towards lifting the beef export ban. [7301]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I will be attending the Agriculture Council on 22–23 July. Although the lifting of the export ban is not on the agenda for this meeting, I will be taking every opportunity to raise this as appropriate in the informal discussions which take place in the margins of these meetings.

  Fish Breeding
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to implement the recommendations on fish-breeding areas in the report chaired by Lord Perry. [7158]

  Mr. Morley
  The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology recommended that consideration should be given to the establishment under the Common Fisheries Policy of a system requiring fishermen to report to the authorities if there is a high proportion of juvenile fish in their catch. Following receipt of such a report the area should be surveyed by the appropriate national authority and, providing that the report is verified, the area should be closed until the juvenile fish have dispersed.

  Following the Committee's report, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) undertook a review of the feasibility of operating temporary closures of areas with large numbers

  273
  of juvenile fish. They concluded that, where the nursery areas are large, permanent and contain high concentrations of juveniles that are discarded, then it is to the benefit of the fishery to close such areas on a permanent or temporary basis. This applies primarily to flatfish nursery grounds, for which there is already a closed area known as the Plaice Box, and the Government is seeking to improve the effectiveness of the Plaice Box in current negotiations on a European Commission proposal for new technical conservation measures.

  For the large stocks of roundfish, the juveniles are much more dispersed and their distribution is more dynamic. For these stocks CEFAS concluded that temporary closure of areas in the way proposed by the Committee does not appear to be a practical proposition, and monitoring and enforcement would be costly. However, there are a number of fixed areas which are closed to different types of fishing to protect young roundfish and pelagic fish. The Norway Pout Box, off eastern Scotland, protects young haddock and other gadoids from small mesh industrial fisheries. The Mackerel Box off south Cornwall protects juvenile mackerel. Many herring spawning grounds are protected as the vulnerable spawn are densely laid on the gravel seabed. The UK has also introduced restrictions on fishing in the estuarine nursery areas of bass.

  The scope for further measures to protect juvenile fish is being explored in the negotiations on new EC technical conservation rules.

  Beef (Consumer Confidence)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the level of consumer confidence in British beef in the United Kingdom; and if he will bring this information to the attention of the Council of Agriculture Ministers. [7297]

  Mr. Morley
  We have seen significant improvements in the level of beef consumption since March 1996. Most recently McDonald's and Burger King have announced that they will be using British beef again. We see this as further evidence that confidence in British beef is returning. The level of consumption will no doubt feature in discussion at future Councils of Agriculture Ministers.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department spends on biking press releases to(a) hon. Members and (b) other individuals or groups, each time his Department issues a press release; how many such press releases were issued by his Department (i) in the period 1 May to 1 July and (ii) in the period 1 January to 1 March; and if he will review his Department's use of couriers to deliver press releases and investigate the possibility of using fax or e-mail. [8824]

  Mr. Morley
  MAFF does not use motor-cycle messengers to deliver press releases. These are made available to hon. Members, to the media and other interested parties via both the Central Office of Information's News Distribution Service (NDS) and direct mailing.

  The COI's NDS delivery mechanisms include a newswire service which supplies press releases to the Parliamentary Online Information Service (POLIS) [which
  274
  can be accessed by all MPs and Lords], hand deliveries, fax and postal deliveries, online databases, and a widely accessed [World Wide] Web site on the Internet.

  MAFF also has a website containing its press notices which is updated daily and used by journalists and other individuals and organisations.

  The Department keeps a watching brief on new developments in information transmission to ensure the most cost-effective delivery mechanisms are used at all times.

  In the period 1 May to 1 July 1997, MAFF issued 65 press notices and in the period 1 January to 1 March issued 67 press notices.

  Food (Chemical Contamination)
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what statistics his Department holds on chemical contamination incidents involving foodstuffs; and if they are available to the public. [9760]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department compiles annual reports on all such incidents reported to it. These reports are available to inquirers, free of charge. The latest report by the Department's Incident Response Team, entitled "Food Protection 1996" has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle have been slaughtered to date under the Selective Cull scheme; and at what cost to public funds. [7379]

  Mr. Rooker
  The total number of animals slaughtered under the Selective Cull scheme as at 9 July was 11,304.

  Scheme expenditure to 4 July 1997 was £9,063,800.77, which is broken down as follows:

  £

  Compensation

  8,106,720.82

  Incineration

  5,128.87

  Slaughter fees

  483,467.19

  Rendering fees

  241,821.69

  Storage and transport

  226,662.20

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle have been slaughtered to date under the over 30 months scheme; and at what cost to public funds. [7380]

  Mr. Rooker
  As at 30 June 1997, 1.533 million animals have been slaughtered under the Over Thirty Months Scheme, at a cost of:

  £ million

  Compensation

  751.780

  Slaughter

  91.735

  Rendering, incineration and hides

  89.806

  Storage and Transport

  56.357

  Total

  989.678

  Old Documents
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the date and title of the oldest document or archival unit retained by his Department which has not been passed on to the Public Records Office for release for public inspection. [7201]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 July 1997]: The earliest records held by my Department date from 1940 and consist of three documents which form part of Public Record Office Class MAF 152: Ministry of Food war history papers (1914 to 1962).

  Rodent Control
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the next national rodent survey will be undertaken. [8447]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on the level of rat and mice infestation is being collected as part of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' 1996 English House Condition Survey. The results of the survey are expected to be published towards the end of this year.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the recommendations of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health relating to Government responsibility for rodent control; and if he will make a statement. [8449]

  Mr. Morley
  The recommendations of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health were made following publication of the 1993 National Rodent Survey and they were fully considered at the time. The position will be reviewed after the results of the 1996 English House Condition Survey on rodent infestation are known later this year.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what requirements are placed upon local authorities to(a) record and (b) respond to incidents of rat infestation. [8442]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949, local authorities are required to keep their districts as free as practicable from rats and mice and to carry out such inspections as may be necessary for this purpose. The Act requires occupiers of land, other than agricultural land, to give notice in writing to the local authority of rodent infestations.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to bring about a reduction in levels of rat infestation in domestic properties. [8452]

  Mr. Morley
  Although the results of the 1993 National Rodent Survey showed that there had been a small increase since the late 1970s in the level of rat infestation in properties used for domestic purposes, overall, the survey did not provide sufficient evidence to warrant a change in current rodent control policies. The situation will be reviewed in the light of the 1996 survey, the results of which are expected to be published towards the end of this year.
  276
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many rat infestations were recorded(a) in total and (b) by local authority for each year since 1990. [8443]

  Mr. Morley
  In 1993, 4.8 per cent. of properties were infested with rats. This information is not available at the level of local authority due to the small sample size. Figures are not available for other years.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the factors underlying the growth in the incidence of rat infestation in domestic properties. [8448]

  Mr. Morley
  Rodent numbers can be affected by a number of factors including climate, food availability, level and effectiveness of control, availability of breeding sites and levels of predators. The 1996 English House Condition Survey, the results of which will be available later this year, will provide more detailed information about levels of rodent infestation.

  National Parks
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what specific grants are available to encourage the adoption of environmentally sound practices in agriculture in the national parks. [8507]

  Mr. Morley
  MAFF operates a wide-ranging package of voluntary incentive schemes which are available to farmers in the national parks. In addition, the national parks have their own schemes.

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new plans he has to introduce cuts and savings in his Department as a result of the effect on his Department's budgets for 1997–98 and 1998–99 of the upward revisions to the GDP deflators in the Budget on 2 July; and if he will make a statement. [8298]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: All Departments are reallocating spending within their Departmental ceilings as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, following the recent Budget, he will give his estimate of the total real level of his Department's budget, in 1995–96 prices, in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; if he will estimate what such figures were for (1) 1997–98 and (2) 1998–99 following the November 1996 Budget on the basis of the estimates of the GDP deflator contained in that Budget; and if he will make a statement. [8295]

  Mr. Morley
  The figures requested for the Department's spending plans within the Control Total are as follows: £3,541 million, £3,149 million, £3,452 million and £3,201 million.

  BSE
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the study from Oxford University on horizontal transmission of BSE, with particular regard to its relationship to stocking density; and if he will make a statement. [8695]

  Mr. Rooker
  Professor Anderson, who heads the team at Oxford University, was a member of the epidemiology sub group of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) which advised Government on maternal transmission. That advice was made public through a MAFF press notice issued on 18 April 1997, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  I understand that Professor Anderson's team are shortly to publish further papers. Professor Anderson has recently been reported as saying that the higher incidents of BSE in larger herds, as compared with smaller herds, could be due to one of two factors, either:

  (i) greater use of concentrated cattle feed in larger herds; or

  (ii) horizontal transmission from cow to cow as opposed to maternal transmission which is from a cow to its own calf.

  Professor Anderson went on to say that he was not able, on the basis of the information available to him, to distinguish between these two hypotheses.

  The variation in risk according to herd size is one of a number of observations first published by scientists from the Central Veterinary Laboratory, Weybridge in the Veterinary Record in 1992. I am putting a copy of that paper in the Library of the House. The view of my own advisers is that the more likely explanation for the higher incidents in the larger herds is more intensive use of animal feed in such herds as this ties in with certain other epidemiological observations, including the fact that a number of large herds which had a high incidence of BSE have, as a result of changing feed patterns, eradicated BSE within those herds which had been free for some years. This explanation argues in favour of the feed rather than the horizontal transmission hypothesis.

  I must emphasise that Professor Anderson was talking about research findings not yet published and I will of course look to the independent advisory committee, SEAC, for further analysis of this work.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the compensation levels for farmers with cattle affected by tuberculosis. [8833]

  Mr. Rooker
  It would be inappropriate to review compensation while Professor Krebs' Committee is looking at badgers and bovine tuberculosis.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the Krebs report on future policy in relation to badgers and tuberculosis. [8832]

  Mr. Rooker
  Later this year.

  Broiler Chickens
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the need for legislation to protect broiler chickens; and if he will make a statement. [8657]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government intends to ensure that the broiler industry works to high welfare standards. Work on a new welfare code is already in hand. I have received various representations that there is a case for further legislation and will consider this in the light of developments here and in Europe.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of broiler chickens which suffer from(a) leg disorders and (b) heart disease because of rapid body growth. [8658]

  Mr. Morley
  (a) It is not possible to give a simple estimate of the number of broiler chickens which suffer from leg disorders. Those that occur may be the result of one, or a combination of, a number of different factors. The severity of the effect on individual birds will also be subject to variation.

  (b) I know of no scientific data which allows for conclusions to be drawn on any direct relationship between rate of growth and the incidence of heart disease in broiler chickens.

  Hunting Ban (Disposal of Stock)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what alternative arrangements he is considering for the disposal of fallen stock and destruction of animal casualties if hunting were banned. [8843]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are already arrangements for disposing of fallen stock and the destruction of animal casualties other than via hunt kennels. Disposal can be by rendering at an approved rendering plant, incineration or burial, in accordance with the provisions of the Animal By-Products Order 1992 (as amended). This Order also provides for certain premises to receive fallen stock, including knackers' yards: knackermen will usually be licensed slaughtermen for the purpose of killing animal casualties.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to lay new regulations about contaminated land. [7874]

  Angela Eagle
  We hope shortly to be able to make an announcement of how we propose to proceed regarding the implementation of the contaminated land provisions in Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (inserted by section 57 of the Environment Act 1995).

  Voluntary Sports Clubs
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his
  279
  assessment of the cost of granting mandatory rate relief to voluntary sports clubs in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [7991]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have insufficient data on which to make a reliable estimate of the cost of granting mandatory rate relief to voluntary sports clubs. However, we are currently reviewing the basis on which voluntary sports clubs are eligible for rate relief.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those water companies which offer lower drainage charges where a property does not drain surface water into a public sewer; and if he will ensure that all water companies are obliged to offer such a charge. [8462]

  Angela Eagle
  Lower drainage charges for customers who do not receive a surface water drainage service are offered by three water companies: North West Water, Severn Trent Water and (for customers with rateable values over £7000) Northumbrian Water. Customers are liable for sewerage service charges and companies are not obliged to offer this rebate. The Director General of Water Services, however, would not like to see customers charged for a service which is not provided, and has raised this matter in discussion with companies.

  Construction Industry
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, if he will list the membership of each of his Department's non-departmental public bodies with responsibility for the construction industry, indicating their functions and terms of reference; and if he will make a statement on their role in respect of Government policy in the construction industry. [8458]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are four such bodies.

  BUILDING REGULATIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

  Chairman:

  Professor Jack Anderson

  Members:

  Mr. Ken Blount

  Mr. Norman Bright MBE

  Mr. Graham Butler

  Mr. James Carter

  Mr. Henry Dawson

  Mr. Michael Finn

  Mr. Stuart Holt

  Professor Patrick O'Sullivan OBE

  Miss Pat Tindale

  Professor John Wiltshire.

  The Committee is established under Section 14 of the Building Act 1984 to advise the Secretary of State on the exercise of his power to make building regulations, and on other subjects connected with building regulations.

  BRITISH BOARD OF AGRÉMENT

  Chairman:

  Mr. A. J. Jackson CBE

  Members:

  Mr. N. M. Chaldecott OBE

  280

  Mr. A. M. Cooper

  Mrs. O. C. Dargan

  Mr. R. F. Gainsford

  Mr. D. J. Harper

  Dr. P. C. Hewlett

  Mr. T. Henney

  Mr. D. W. Quinion

  Mr. C. A. Rackcliffe

  Miss. P. Tindale

  Mr. J. W. Turner CBE

  Mr. C. A. Wilson.

  The British Board of Agrément (BBA), established in 1966, assesses and certifies the performance of construction products and materials which are new or innovative or for which no technical standards exist. Agrément Certificates are recognised within the Approved Document to Building Regulation 7 as a means of establishing a product's fitness for use.

  BBA also provides important services in relation to implementation of the Construction Products Directive, representing the UK in the European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA), and in the European Union of Agrément. BBA currently holds the Presidency of EOTA.

  Although BBA is an executive NDPB, it also runs as a commercial organisation and is a company limited by guarantee.

  ASSESSMENT PANEL FOR CONSTRUCTION RESEARCH

  Chairman:

  Professor Peter Dale

  Members:

  Professor Jack Anderson

  Mr. Norman Bright MBE

  Miss Pat Tindale

  Mr. Don Leeper

  Dr. Jack Chapman

  Miss Judith Stammers

  Dr. Dipesh Bhattacharya

  Mrs. Sandi Rhys Jones.

  The terms of reference of the Panel are to provide informed, strategic advice to the Department on trends in construction and the development of research strategies in relation to emerging technical issues relevant to the construction process and to the Department's statutory responsibilities and policy objectives; and to give informed, strategic advice on the value of past research—its appropriateness, relevance to policy, management, impact, achievement and transfer into effective application.

  EXPORT ACTION GROUP FOR BUILDING MATERIALS

  Chairman:

  Mr. P. M. Rose CBE

  Members:

  Mr. J. Bonney

  Mr. P. D. Marshall

  Mr. J. Gill

  Mr. C. Jarvis

  Mr. J. R. Owens

  Mr. A Lorentzen

  281

  Mr. D. Wilkinson

  Mr. C. M. F. Newton

  Ms A. Carew-Cox

  Mr. K. Lambourne

  Mr. M. Arndell.

  The terms of reference of the Group are:
  To provide timely and effective advice to DETR Ministers and Officials on methods and priorities for pursuing business opportunities overseas for UK suppliers of building materials and construction products.
  To provide feedback more generally on the delivery and effectiveness of support mechanisms provided by government and other organisations and, where appropriate, to suggest improvements.
  To provide advice on measures to improve co-ordination, communication and presentation of export opportunities and initiatives within the industry and between government and industry.

  Sewerage Pipes
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the extent of damage being caused to plastic sewerage pipes by rats; and what assessment he has made of potential risks to public health from this. [8454]

  Angela Eagle
  I understand that the water industry is not aware of any documented evidence of a problem of rats chewing through sewer pipes and there are no indications that such damage to plastic pipes is causing risk to public health.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what regulations control the use of high pressure water jets to clean sewerage pipes; and if these take account of possible damage caused to the pipes. [8453]

  Angela Eagle
  No formal regulations exist to control the use of high pressure water jets to clean sewerage or drainage pipes. The Water Research Centre has prepared a Code of Practice on pressure jetting which has been accepted by the manufacturers of such equipment and contractors. I understand that water companies are likely to specify its use in pressure jetting contracts.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if standards for the manufacture of plastic sewerage pipes take account of the need to resist damage by rats. [8445]

  Angela Eagle
  Standards for plastic sewer pipes do not contain any particular provisions to take account of the need to resist damage by rats but my Department will ensure that the issue is raised with the British Standards Institution and organisations which test the suitability of plastic pipes to be used for drainage.

  Environmental Task Force (Horticulture Training)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will examine the potential role of horticultural training within the environmental task force; and if he will make a statement. [8487]

  Angela Eagle
  We want to see as wide a range of organisations as possible in the environmental field involved in constructing high quality programmes,282
  projects and training for the environmental task force. We hope that horticultural projects will be included among these.

  Planning Applications
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of local authority planning applications are currently dealt with under the delegated powers procedure(a) in total and (b) by local authority; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of these procedures for planning matters.
  [8461]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department is this year collecting, for the first time, statistics on the number of planning applications which were decided by planning officers under delegated powers by each local authority. This information should allow an assessment, over time, of the relationship between the numbers of applications decided by local authorities, their performance and their use of delegated powers. The first figures will be collated at the end of September. I will ensure the figures are forwarded to my honourable Friend as soon as possible after they have been compiled and checked.

  Home Buyers
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the adequacy of the protection afforded to new house buyers. [8455]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am aware of criticisms of the protection afforded by the National House-Building Council's warranty scheme for new houses. The Council has announced a wide ranging review including insurance cover, inspection service, communications with consumers and house builders, and powers to discipline bad builders. I have recently met representatives of the Council and I have asked to be kept closely in touch with the progress of this review.

  My hon. Friend, the Minister for Local Government and Housing has also recently met the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Association of British Insurers to discuss ways in which the mortgage lending and insurance industries can develop better mortgage protection products.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has evaluated into the relationship between agricultural production and global climate change; and if he will make a statement. [8488]

  Angela Eagle
  UK emissions of greenhouse gases from agriculture are evaluated using research sponsored by my Department and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  We estimate that, in 1995, UK agricultural production was responsible for about 1 per cent, 30 per cent. and 10 per cent, of UK emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide respectively. Agricultural land use change resulted in the release of a further 4 per cent. of total emissions of carbon dioxide. Together these emissions were equivalent to about 7 per cent. of the

  283
  climate change impact of all UK greenhouse gas emissions in 1995. Land set aside from agricultural production removed an amount of carbon from the atmosphere equivalent to about 1 per cent. of UK carbon dioxide emissions in 1995.

  Research evaluated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide from global agricultural production and related land use change together account for about 34 per cent. of the climatic disturbance from current man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

  Rat Infestation
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what responsibilities have been placed upon the water companies to control rat infestation of the sewerage system. [8451]

  Angela Eagle
  There is no specific duty on water and sewerage companies in relation to the control of rats in sewers. However, all sewerage undertakers have programmes to control and reduce the number of rats in their systems. This includes the use of baits in pumping stations and air vents to stop rats entering the system, or on ledges within sewers. In addition, I understand that the water industry will be undertaking some research into the issue of rats in sewers early next year.

  Local authorities have a long standing duty to keep themselves informed about the sufficiency of drainage systems in their area to ensure that they do not pose a threat to public health. Failure to control rat infestations on property could be enforceable by the Local Authority Environmental Health Officer under Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, if it is judged to be a statutory nuisance.

  I have no plans at present to introduce legislation to regulate the performance of sewerage undertakers in this field.

  "Household Growth"
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the statistical assumptions behind the household composition growth figures contained in his Department's response to the consultation paper "Household Growth" with particular reference to Bradford metropolitan district council. [8457]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Descriptions of the methodology and main statistical assumptions underlying the household projections presented in the consultation paper "Household Growth: where shall we live?" are set out in the annexes of "Projections of Households in England to 2016", published by HMSO in March 1995, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The projections for the Metropolitan District of Bradford are given in Table 9 of this publication.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many miles of hedgerow he estimates will be(a) planted and (b) cut down in the next three years. [8508]
  284
  Angela Eagle
  The most recent statistics on hedgerow planting and removal come from a survey of hedgerow changes in England and Wales between the years 1990 to 1993, undertaken by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology on behalf of the Department of the Environment. That survey estimated that on average some 4,400 km of hedgerows were newly planted each year, whilst an average of 3,600 km of hedgerows were removed each year.

  Estimates for future years have not been made. New planting is encouraged, in England, through the Countryside Stewardship and Environmentally Sensitive Areas Schemes administered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, in Wales, through Tir Cymen and the Hedgerow Renovation Scheme operated by the Countryside Council for Wales. Important hedgerows are protected from removal under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997.

  Environmental Information Appeals Tribunal
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to introduce an independent environmental information appeals tribunal. [8676]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government's proposals for appeals procedures relating to information in general, including environmental information, will be set out in our forthcoming White Paper on freedom of information.

  Animal Furs
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department has taken to(a) control and (b) prohibit the import of animal furs on conservation grounds. [8662]

  Angela Eagle
  The import of furs into the United Kingdom is controlled under European Council Regulation 338/97 which implements the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) within the European Union as a whole. A permit is required from the Department of the Environment to import the fur of any species listed in the CITES Appendices. Trade in furs from endangered species, such as leopards and tigers, is strictly prohibited. Trade in other less sensitive species is strictly controlled and monitored to ensure that they are not over-exploited. My Department is also responsible for the EU ban on the import of furs from harp and hooded seal pups under the EC Seals Directive 83/129. The Directive is implemented in the UK through the Import of Seal Skins Regulations 1996.

  Housing
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many homes are(a) owner occupied, (b) privately rented without housing benefit, (c) privately rented with housing benefit, (d) rented from local authorities and (e) rented from housing trusts or housing associations (i) in England and Wales and (ii) in the Borough of Bournemouth; and if he will provide comparable figures for 1987. [8756]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 15 July 1997]: The Department's estimates of the stock of dwellings in England as at December 1987 and December 1996 are shown in the table below.
  285

  England—stock of dwellings

  (000s)

  Owner occupied

  Rented privately or with job1

  Rented from housing associations

  Rented from local authorities

  Total

  December 1987

  12,264

  1,899

  512

  4,403

  19,078

  December 1996

  13,865

  2,116

  946

  3,586

  20,514

  1 Notionally includes renting from other public sector.

  The information used to compile these figures does not show how much of the privately rented stock contains people claiming housing benefit. However information from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) shows that during 1995–96 nearly one third of private renters (including those in rent free accommodation) were claiming housing benefit. Comparable figures for 1987 are not available.

  Bournemouth—stock of dwellings

  Private

  Rented from housing associations

  Rented from local authorities

  Rented from other public sector

  Total

  April 1987

  60,644

  638

  6,591

  375

  68,248

  April 1996

  65,325

  1,985

  5,726

  60

  73,096

  It is not possible to provide reliable information at local authority area level compatible with the FRS data quoted above.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people have been living in houses in multiple occupation in each of the last five years; how many of them have been aged under 25 years and what proportion of those aged(a) under 25 years and (b) over 25 years have been (i) male and (ii) female. [8800]

  Age and gender of occupiers of HMOs in England (percentage in brackets)

  Traditional HMOs (bedsits)

  Shared houses/flats

  Households with lodgers

  Purpose Built HMO

  Self-contained converted flats

  Hostels, boarding houses etc

  All HMOs

  Number of People in HMO

  631,467

  343,187

  106,645

  246,354

  1,533,597

  237,717

  3,098,967

  Under 251

  457,605 (72)

  202,855 (59)

  58,012 (54)

  98,542 (40)

  483,579 (32)

  121,236 (51)

  1,421,829

  Male

  283,743 (62)

  115,322 (57)

  41,338 (71)

  n/a

  242,861 (50)

  67,607 (56)

  —

  Female

  173,862 (38)

  87,534 (43)

  16,674 (29)

  n/a

  240,718 (50)

  53,629 (44)

  —

  25 and over2

  173,862 (28)

  140,332 (41)

  48,633 (46)

  147,812 (60)

  1,050,018 (68)

  116,481 (49)

  1,677,144

  Male

  150,217 (86)

  79,197 (56)

  27,443 (56)

  n/a

  496,437 (47)

  86,469 (74)

  —

  Female

  23,645 (14)

  61,135 (44)

  21,190 (44)

  n/a

  553,581 (53)

  30,013 (26)

  —

  Source:

  Totals from the Local Authority Houses in Multiple Occupation Survey 1995. Proportions from the English House Condition Survey 1991 and Census 1991.

  1Under 30 years old for hostel residents.

  2 30 and over for hostel residents.

  Hostels
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many direct access hostel places in London currently cater for clients with partners; [9008]

  (2) how many direct access hostel places in London cater for clients with pets. [9009]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many direct access hostel places there are currently in London. [9007]
  286
  The only information about the stock of dwellings in Bournemouth comes for the annual "Housing Investment Programme" (HIP) returns, which combine the owner occupied and rented privately groups together. The figures for April 1987 and April 1996 are as follows:

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 15 July 1997]: I regret that information in the form requested is not available. The following table shows the latest estimate of occupants of houses in multiple occupation by age and gender in England.

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not held centrally. The London Hostels Directory, published by Resource Information Service, and partly funded by my Department, gives details of more than 27,000 bedspaces in over 600 different buildings. It is not possible to say how many of these places are direct access. As part of the Rough Sleepers Initiative in London, my Department is funding 278 places in hostels and nightshelters. Most, though not all of these places will be direct access.

  Council Tax
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has conducted into the correlation between income levels and council tax bands. [9070]
  287
  Mr. Raynsford
  None. The council tax is a property based tax and council tax benefit is available to help meet the bills of people on low incomes.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much his Department spends on biking press releases to(a) hon. Members and (b) other individuals or groups, each time his Department issues a press release; how many such press releases were issued by his Department (i) in the period 1 May to 1 July and (ii) in the period 1 January to 1 March; and if he will review his Department's use of couriers to deliver press releases and investigate the possibility of using fax or e-mail. [8810]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department uses a courier for delivery of press releases to the Press Gallery. This is part of a general courier service for the Department as a whole and costs for these specific deliveries are not separately identified.

  With this exception, it is not normal practice for the Department to send press releases by courier to hon. Members, other individuals or groups.

  In common with other Departments, press releases are distributed to the media through the Central Office of Information's News Distribution Service, which utilises a combination of electronic and hard copy delivery methods. In addition to this, the Department issues releases to other interested parties by post, or exceptionally fax.

  Roads Programme (Leicester)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions if orders have been submitted for(a) the Leicester Eastern district distributor road and (b) the Leicester A46–47 link road scheme stage 2. [8324]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  (a) No; (b) Yes.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the funding considerations underlying his Department's advice to the city council to apply for funding through the 1998–99 TPP bid for the Leicester A46–47 trunk road. [8325]

  Ms Jackson
  My Department's advice was that if the City Council wished the A46–47 scheme to have any possibility of obtaining funding under the 1998–99 TPP settlement they must bid for it. In giving the advice it was made clear that there can be no guarantee of funding for this or any other project, ahead of the settlement.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's policy on the construction of the Leicester A46–47 link road; and what priority it accords to(a) environmental issues and (b) economic benefit in determining this policy. [8326]

  Ms. Jackson
  The policy on the construction of the A46–47 link road is the same as that for all road schemes presented to the Secretary of State. The overall merits are assessed in the context of the public interest.
  288
  The A46–47 forms part of the accepted package of transport proposals which constitute the Central Leicestershire Package. Advice on the appraisal of projects and on the preparation of package bids is issued to authorities each year. This covers, inter alia, environmental issues and economic benefit.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the red-route proposals under consideration by his Department for the London Borough of Wandsworth. [9098]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The roads in Wandsworth designated as red routs are the A3, A24, A205, A214, A217, A306, A3205 and A3220. We are currently consulting on whether the A214 should remain in the red route network. The implementation programme for other red routes in Wandsworth is set out in the Traffic Director for London's Annual Report and Accounts for 1996–97, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Network Cards
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the decision by train operators to limit when network card holders can use their cards; and if he will make a statement. [8227]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government has no powers to prevent train operators changing the conditions applying to the Network Card. Train operators' participation in the Network Card scheme is entirely voluntary and there is no formal obligation on them to offer the Network Card.

HEALTH

  Closures
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospitals and health units currently subject to proposals for closure. [6824]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not collected systematically. However, a recent survey carried out for management purposes identified the hospitals listed as having recently been, or are currently, the subject of consultation which could lead to the full closure. Closure is normally dependent on the reprovision of services elsewhere and/or are conditional on a successful Private Finance Initiative contract.

  Anglia and Oxford

  Chesterton Hospital

  Fulbourn Hospital

  Ida Darwin Hospital

  St. Andrew's Hospital

  Northern and Yorkshire

  St. Mary's Hospital

  Walkergate Hospitals

  Winterton Hospitals.

  North Western

  Ulverston Hospital.

  289
  North Thames

  Goodmayes Hospital

  Horton Hospital

  Napsbury Hospital

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital Hackney1

  Queen Charlotte's Hospital1

  Runwell Hospital

  St. Andrew's Hospital

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital1

  Shenley Hospital

  Warley Hospital.

  South Thames

  Battle Hospital

  Bromley Hospital

  Eversfield Hospital

  Joyce Green Hospital (including the Orchard House Psychiatric Unit)

  Sundridge Hospital

  West Hill Hospital.

  South Western

  Belmont Hospital

  Lynton Hospital2

  Odiham Hospital

  Ridley House

  Winsford Hospital.2

  Trent

  Badsley Moor Lane Hospital

  West Midlands

  All Saints Hospital

  Hereford Eye Hospital

  Hereford General Hospital

  Highcroft Hospital

  Goscote Hospital

  Monyhull Hospital

  Northcroft Hospital

  St. Edward's Hospital

  Stanfield Hospital

  Stallington Hospital

  Westcliffe Hospital

  Wordsley Hospital.

  Notes:

  1There is a moratorium on all hospital closures in London during the current review of the capital's health services.

  2Temporary closures.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities and trusts which have been deemed by the regional offices of the NHS Executive to have serious financial problems at the close of the 1996–97 financial year. [7758]

  Mr. Milburn
  The names of health authorities and trusts assessed as having serious financial problems are disclosed in the following tables.

  Health authorities with serious financial problems at Epsom Health Care Q4 1996–97

  Barking and Havering

  Barnet

  Bedfordshire

  290

  Berkshire

  Bexley and Greenwich

  Bradford

  Brent and Harrow

  Buckinghamshire

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  Cambridge

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  Dudley

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  East and North Hertfordshire

  East London and City

  East Norfolk

  East Surrey

  Enfield and Haringey

  Isle of Wight

  Kingston and Richmond

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  Leeds

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  Newcastle

  North and East Devon

  North and Mid Hants

  North Cumbria

  North Essex

  North West Anglia

  North Yorkshire

  Oxfordshire

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  Sandwell

  Solihull

  Somerest

  Suffolk

  Wakefeild

  West Surrey

  West Sussex

  Wiltshire.

  Trusts with serious financial problems at Q4 1996–97

  Airedale

  Alexandra Health Care

  Anglian Harbours

  Ashford Hospital

  Brighton Health Care

  Christie Hospital

  City Hospitals

  Countess of Chester Hospital

  Derby City General Hospital

  East Anglian Ambulance

  East Cheshire

  East Somerset

  East Surrey Healthcare

  Essex Rivers Healthcare

  Forest Healthcare

  George Eliot Hospital

  Hillingdon Hospital

  291

  Ipswich Hospital

  Lewisham Hospital

  Mayday Healthcare

  Mid Essex Hospital Services

  Mount Vernon and Watford Hospitals

  North East Lincolnshire

  Northampton Community Healthcare

  Northampton General Hospital

  Northwick Park and St. Mark's

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospital

  Peterborough Hospitals

  Pilgrim Health

  Pinderfields Hospitals

  Pontefract Hospitals

  Preston Acute Hospitals

  Queen Mary's Sidcup

  Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham

  Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton Healthcare

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare

  Royal Hospital of St. Bartholomew, the Royal London Hospital and London Chest Hospital

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals

  Royal Victoria Infirmary and Associated Hospitals

  Scunthorpe and Goole Hospitals

  South Buckinghamshire

  St. Albans and Hemel Hempstead

  St. James's and Seacroft University Hospital

  St. Mary's

  Stockport Acute Services

  Stoke Mandeville Hospital

  The Horton General Hospital

  The King's Mill Centre for Health Care Services

  The Poole Hospital

  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals

  University College London Hospitals

  West Middlesex University Hospital.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS trusts which have non-technical deficits indicating the amount of their(a) technical and (b) non-technical deficits. [7760]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested for 1996–97 non-technical deficits is available in the following table. The deficit disclosed for these trusts may contain an element of technical deficit but the total cannot be further analysed into technical elements and non-technical elements from information available.

  Trusts with non-technical deficits at Q4 1996–97

  Trust

  Deficit 1996–97 £000

  Addenbrooke's

  -285

  Airedale

  -1,700

  Alexandra Health Care

  -1,814

  Avalon, Somerset

  -155

  Avon Ambulance Service

  -57

  Bassetlaw Hospital and Community Services

  -391

  Bedford Hospital

  -281

  Bournewood Community and Mental Health

  -2

  Brighton Health Care

  -2,006

  Carlisle Hospitals

  -1,223

  292

  Trusts with non-technical deficits at Q4 1996–97

  Trust

  Deficit 1996–97 £000

  Central Middlesex Hospital

  -2,920

  City Hospitals

  -622

  Community Health Sheffield

  -220

  Countess of Chester Hospital

  -1,792

  Derby City General Hospital

  -1,194

  Dorset Community

  -1,633

  East Anglian Ambulance

  -200

  East Cheshire

  -393

  East Somerset

  -400

  East Suffolk Local Health Services

  -422

  East Surrey Priority Care

  -1,519

  East Wiltshire Health Care

  -518

  Eastbourne Hospitals

  -589

  Epsom Health Care

  -1,492

  Essex Rivers Healthcare

  -1,450

  Forest Healthcare

  -4,418

  Furness Hospitals

  -137

  George Eliot Hospital

  -1,436

  Glenfield Hospital

  -277

  Gloucestershire Ambulance Service

  -98

  Harrow and Hillingdon Healthcare

  -1,072

  Heathlands Mental Health

  -547

  Hereford Hospitals

  -78

  Hillingdon Hospital

  -1,569

  Ipswich Hospital

  -1,298

  Leicester Royal Infirmary

  -917

  Lewisham Hospital

  -2,866

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital Trust

  -469

  Mayday Healthcare

  -903

  Mid Anglia Community Health

  -279

  Mid Essex Hospital Services

  -1,154

  Mid Kent Healthcare

  -226

  Milton Keynes General

  -157

  Mount Vernon and Watford Hospitals

  -2,232

  Newham Healthcare

  -713

  North-east Lincolnshire

  -4,327

  North Hampshire Hospitals

  -135

  North Hertfordshire

  -244

  North-west Anglia Health Care

  -551

  Northampton Community Healthcare

  -237

  Northampton General Hospital

  -1,361

  Northwick Park and St. Mark's

  -3,969

  Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre

  -135

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospital

  -792

  Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare

  -175

  Phoenix

  -512

  Pinderfields Hospitals

  -780

  Pontefract Hospitals

  -669

  Premier Health

  -594

  Princess Alexandra Hospital

  -250

  Rockingham Forest

  -129

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals

  -1,513

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare

  -532

  Royal Hospital of St. Bartholomew, the Royal London Hospital and London Chest Hospital

  -4,744

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals

  -3,688

  Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital

  -54

  Royal United Hospital, Bath

  -778

  Royal Victoria Infirmary and Associated Hospitals

  -7,079

  Scunthorpe and Goole Hospitals

  -1,145

  South Buckinghamshire

  -1,350

  South Devon Health Care

  -2,530

  South Kent Community Healthcare

  -216

  Southampton University Hospitals

  -250

  Southend Community Care Services

  -585

  St. Albans and Hemel Hempstead

  -1,383

  St. James's and Seacroft University Hospital

  -4,894

  St. Mary's

  -945

  St. Mary's Hospital

  -307

  St. Peter's Hospital

  -292

  293

  Trusts with non-technical deficits at Q4 1996–97

  Trust

  Deficit 1996–97 £000

  Stockport Acute Services

  -627

  Swindon and Marlborough

  -744

  The Horton General Hospital

  -461

  The King's Mill Centre for Health Care Services

  -1,400

  The Poole Hospital

  -1,801

  The Radcliffe Infirmary

  -27

  The Royal Surrey County and St. Luke's Hospitals

  -576

  The Royal West Sussex

  -224

  The West Dorset General Hospitals

  -1,379

  United Leeds Teaching Hospitals

  -8,273

  University College London Hospitals

  -2,246

  Warrington Hospital

  -357

  Wellhouse

  -400

  West Middlesex University Hospital

  -1,796

  Whittington Hospital

  -374

  Wiltshire Health Care

  -430

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the additional costs to the NHS in England if pay rates were set at hourly rates(a) £2.75, (b) £3.00, (c) £3.25, (d) £3.50, (e) £3.75, (f) £4.00, (g) £4.25, and (h) £4.50 for (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1997–98. [7447]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) on 2 June at column 37, and also to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) on 9 June at column 421.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) on what dates since 1 May(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have met commercial lobbyists to discuss matters relating to the business of his Department; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings; [8091]

  (2) on what dates since 1 May (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have attended meetings with organisations representing (i) commercial and (ii) non-commercial interests organised by commercial lobbying firms; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings. [8092]

  Ms Jowell
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 2 June 1997 at column 99, Ministers and officials in the Department receive deputations from many groups who are concerned to press their own interests or those of their clients, which Ministers and officials take due care to consider within the wider public interest and Government policy. As it is not practicable to distinguish particular groups as lobbyists, the Department cannot keep a register of such meetings.

  Benzodiazepines
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what quantity of each individual type of benzodiazepine was prescribed via community pharmacists in England and Wales in(a) 1995 and (b) 1996. [8497]
  294
  Mr. Milburn
  The available information is shown in the tables.

  Table 1: Benzodiazepines: number of prescription items dispensed (thousands), 1995 and 1996

  England

  Drug group

  1995

  1996

  Temazepam

  6,063

  5,540

  Diazepam

  3,411

  3,600

  Nitrazepam

  2,582

  2,539

  Lorazepam

  818

  785

  Chlordiazepoxide

  438

  428

  Oxazepam

  300

  304

  Lormetazepam

  201

  234

  Loprazolam

  213

  221

  Clonazepam

  168

  180

  Clobazam

  70

  74

  Triazolam

  0

  0

  Totals

  14,266

  13,905

  1. Data cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  2. A "0" indicates less than 500 prescription items.

  3. Figures may not add up due to rounding.

  Table 2: Benzodiazepines: number of prescription items dispensed (thousands), 1995 and 1996

  Wales

  Drug group

  April 1995 to March 1996

  April 1996 to March 1997

  Temazepam

  588

  548

  Diazepam

  371

  416

  Nitrazepam

  245

  243

  Lorazepam

  78

  76

  Chlordiazepoxide

  35

  37

  Oxazepam

  35

  35

  Lormetazepam

  21

  24

  Loprazolam

  21

  23

  Clonazepam

  12

  14

  Clobazam

  1

  3

  Midazolam Hydrochloride

  1

  1

  Totals

  1,411

  1,420

  Note: These figures were obtained from the Welsh Office.

  Day and Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department is taking to ensure that local authorities monitor the effect of changes to charging policies for day and domiciliary care service take-up and use. [8509]

  Mr. Boateng
  Currently local authorities are not required to keep the Department informed about their charging policies, nor when they introduce charging for the first time or when revising their charges.

  Local authorities are, however, expected to monitor the effect of charges themselves as suggested in the Advice Note issued by the Social Services Inspectorate in January 1994.

  Long-term Care (Elderly People)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects his Department to have determined
  295
  the form of its examination into the future funding of the long-term care of the elderly; and if he will make a statement; [8532]

  (2) what is his Department's policy on establishing a Royal Commission on the funding of long-term care for the elderly; and if he will make a statement. [8501]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 30 June at columns 28–29.

  Erb's Palsy
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require hospital trusts to collate statistics on the incidence of Erb's palsy in new born babies. [8327]

  Ms Jowell
  Erb's Palsy and brachial plexus injuries are, fortunately, rare occurrences. Most babies with Erb's Palsy recover spontaneously within a few months.

  We do not intend to require the collection of information on incidence.

  Tamworth Primary Care Project
  Mr. Brian Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the Tamworth Primary Care Organisation project. [8434]

  Mr. Milburn
  None. There are two stages to the application process—an expression of interest followed by a formal application. Everyone who has submitted an expression of interest to pilot the new arrangements under the NHS (Primary Care) Act 1997 will receive feedback on their proposal from their local health authority and will be given the opportunity to re-visit their proposal in light of the comments made. Formal applications to enter the Primary Care Act Pilot scheme have to be with Health Authorities by 1 November and applicants will be notified as to whether their application has been approved before the end of December.

  Rat Infestation
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy for reducing public health problems arising through rat infestation. [8441]

  Ms Jowell
  Statutory responsibility for the control of rat infestations rests with local authorities. There is no evidence that the levels of infestation found in the 1993 National Rodent Survey were associated with detectable effects on public health. Officials from the Department of Health, in discussion with officials from other government departments, will continue to monitor trends in infestation and the adequacy of current control measures.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 3 July,Official Report, column 230, relating to PFI schemes, how many of these schemes contain an element of service provision; and what services are to be provided under PFI in each case. [8460]

  Mr. Milburn
  Of the 14 major hospital Private Finance Initiative schemes selected for prioritisation, two, at Dartford and Gravesham National Health Service Trust and Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS Trust, have 296
  reached agreement to proceed to financial close. Both trusts will continue to provide a full range of NHS services to NHS patients under their respective PFI schemes. The following support services have been transferred to, and will be managed and operated by, the trusts' private sector partners:

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

  Estate maintenance

  Domestic services

  Catering

  Laundry

  Portering

  Security

  Non-emergency patient transport.

  Norfolk and Norwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  IM&T Systems

  Grounds and Estate Maintenance

  Domestic services

  Portering

  Financial services

  Catering

  Waste disposal and Laundry

  Car parking

  Non-emergency patient transport

  Security

  Telecommunications

  Energy and Utilities.

  The other 12 NHS trusts with major hospital PFI schemes selected for prioritisation are at various stages of negotiation with their private sector partners.

  Waiting Times
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust area were awaiting non-emergency treatment for(a) up to 12 months, (b) up to 18 months and (c) over 18 months. [8874]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information about patients waiting for admission to National Health Service trusts on either an in-patient or day case basis is published twice yearly in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England". The latest available shows the position on 31 March 1997. Similar information is given on a health authority basis in the quarterly "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England (Resident Based)". The latest available information gives the position on 31 December 1996. Copies of both documents are available in the Library.

  General Practitioners
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to improve the recruitment and retention of general practitioners in the NHS in Stoke-on-Trent, North. [8872]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are aware that in some areas recruitment and retention difficulties are occurring and are talking to the profession about ways in which some of the difficulties might be overcome.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners are trained to deal with people with learning difficulties. [8876]
  297
  Mr. Milburn
  All general practitioners practising as principals have had to undergo vocational training. During this period of vocational training the general practitioner will be exposed to the variety of patients who present in Primary Care. As most people with learning difficulties are living at home, they will be included in this training. EL(96)109 stated that the Government intends to take steps to improve the vocational training scheme for GPs to allow those starting constructed schemes after 1997 to spend a greater proportion of training time in general practice from April 1998. This will result in greater exposure to such patients.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners were working in the NHS for each of the last five years in Stoke-on-Trent, North. [8873]

  Mr. Milburn
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Number of General Practitioners in Staffordshire FHSA

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  11996

  Restricted principals

  3

  3

  3

  2

  0

  Unrestricted principals

  502

  511

  515

  504

  239

  Assistants

  5

  5

  6

  10

  4

  Trainees

  31

  33

  22

  26

  6

  All practitioners

  541

  552

  546

  542

  249

  Note:

  1 North Staffordshire Health Authority.

  Source:

  General Practitioner Census 1 October.

  Data for Stoke-on-Trent is not held centrally.

  Health Action Zones
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the criteria he is planning to use in the selection of health action zones; [8880]

  (2) if he will list the number of areas he intends to designate as health action zones. [8881]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government intends to set out criteria and arrangements for selecting areas as health action zones in due course.

  Health Provision (Variation)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the variation in health provision nationally; and if he will make a statement. [8882]

  Mr. Milburn
  Purchasers are responsible for funding those services which are clinically effective and meet the needs of local people in light of the resources available.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to encourage hospitals to be more energy efficient; and if he will make a statement. [8738]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department of Health is committed to encouraging hospitals to be more energy efficient. The Department will be requesting all National Health Service 298
  trusts to comply with the new target level as made by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 17 March 1997 at columns 457–459, of an overall 20 per cent. improvement by March 2000.

  NHS trusts are required to provide data on energy consumption which is analysed by NHS Estates, an Executive Agency of the Department of Health. NHS trusts receive detailed information on energy usage in the NHS which they can use to effectively monitor their efficiency performance.

  To assist energy efficiency performance management, NHS trusts are encouraged to participate in benchmarking networks to enable them to compare their performance relative to other similar trusts.

  Foreign Doctors
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations are carried out into the backgrounds of foreign doctors, with particular reference to previous human rights violations, prior to employment by the NHS, and if he will make a statement. [8731]

  Mr. Milburn
  No routine investigations are carried out into the background of foreign doctors specifically in respect of previous human rights violations. However, such doctors are subject to a number of checks as part of immigration control and prior to registration with the General Medical Council and employment within the National Health Service. If as a result of these investigations doubts were raised in relation to possible human rights violations, these would be pursued.

  Hospital Discharge Procedures
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to review hospital discharge procedures. [8879]

  Mr. Boateng
  We wish to encourage a collaborative and co-operative approach to hospital discharge from all agencies. In order to support this, we are exploring proposals to address the difficulties around hospital discharge procedures and the problems which are caused by ensuing delays.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the Annual Report and Accounts of the Medicines Control Agency. [9806]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have received the report and copies have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Medicine Commission
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the annual report of the Medicine Commission for 1996. [9609]
  299
  Mr. Milburn
  We have received the report, and copies have been laid before both Houses of Parliament today in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Bound volumes have been placed in the Library containing the 1996 reports of the Medicines Commission, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Advisory Board on the registration of Homeopathic Products, the British Pharmacopoeia Commission and the Veterinary Products Committee.

  We are glad to acknowledge the valuable work done by the distinguished members of the Medicines Act Advisory Bodies and thank them for the time and effort dedicated in the public interest to this important work.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contingency plans have been made for meeting projected increases in the incidence of Hepatitis C; and if he will make a statement. [7898]

  Ms Jowell
  There is little reliable data on the prevalence and likely future incidence of Hepatitis C in the population. The Department of Health made £1 million available to fund research into the natural history, transmission and prevalence of Hepatitis C. To date nine studies have been commissioned and the results of this research will become available over the next three years. A further £0.5 million has been allocated this year to expand this research programme. Once we have a clearer picture, we will be able to plan accordingly and make sure that the National Health Service is equipped to deliver the services required based on the best scientific evidence available about the disease.

  Drugs
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision is being made in respect of places on fast track and stabilisation programmes for drug users; and if he will make a statement. [7901]

  Ms Jowell
  It is for health authorities and local authority social services departments to determine the needs of their local population for treatment and rehabilitation for drug misusers and to commission services to meet those needs.

  The Task Force to Review the Effectiveness of Services for Drug Misusers, whose report was published in May 1996, found that treatment and care services were effective in reducing the level of criminal activity amongst the drug misusing population. Guidance to health and local authorities issued in March this year asked them to prioritise the needs of drug misusers who are involved in, or at risk of, criminal activity when commissioning services.

  We are committed in our Manifesto to introducing a Testing and Treatment order to break the link between drugs and crime. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be responsible for the introduction of this order.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spends on biking press releases 300
  to (a) hon. Members and (b) other individuals or groups, each time his Department issues a press release; how many such press releases were issued by his Department (i) in the period 1 May to 1 July and (ii) in the period 1 January to 1 March; and if he will review his Department's use of couriers to deliver press releases and investigate the possibility of using fax or e-mail. [8821]

  Ms. Jowell
  The Department of Health's press releases are made available to hon. Members and to the media via the Central Office of Information's News Distribution Service (NDS).

  NDS's delivery mechanisms include a newswire service which, among others, supplies press releases to the Parliamentary Online Information Service (POLIS), which can be accessed by all Members of Parliament and Peers, hand deliveries, fax and postal deliveries, online databases, and a widely accessed World Wide Web site on the Internet.

  These mechanisms are used either singly or in combination to ensure the most cost-effective methods are used to reach the relevant target audiences and to suit the nature of the documents; eg whether press releases are despatched on their own, or accompanied by reports or consultation documents. No separate costing is available for the hand delivery service alone.

  Press releases issued

  Number

  1 January 1997 to 1 March 1997

  50

  1 May 1997 to 1 July 1997

  63

  The Department and the COI keep a watching brief on new developments to ensure the most cost-effective delivery mechanisms are used.

  Secondary Care Services (East Kent)
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what priority will be accorded to the medical needs of the population of east Kent in the East Kent Authority's Review of Secondary Care Services in East Kent. [9101]

  Mr. Milburn
  We understand that the review is taking full account of local health needs. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman of East Kent Health Authority for further information.

  Mercury Fillings
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics he has collated about how many dentists are using mercury in teeth fillings; what studies he has made of the toxic side effects of mercury fillings on children; and if he will make a statement. [9103]

  Mr. Milburn
  Out of 14,512 dentists who received payment under the General Dental Services for at least one filling in the quarter April to June 1997, we estimate that 13,600 received a payment for at least one amalgam filling. Evaluation of relevant, scientific research by authoritative national and international expert committees has indicated no risk of systemic toxicity and only a few cases of hypersensitivity. The Department continues to monitor and evaluate research in this area.

  Departmental Budgets
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, following the recent Budget, he will give his estimate of the total real level of his Department's budget, in 1995–96 prices, in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; if he will estimate what such figures were for (1) 1997–98 and (2) 1998–99 following the November 1996 Budget on the basis of the estimates of the GDP deflator contained in that Budget; and if he will make a statement. [8303]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: The figures requested for the Department of Health's spending plans within the Control Total are as follows: (a) £33,079 million, (b) £33,516 million, (1) £33,422 million and (2) £33,174 million. (Source: Treasury)

  On the new estimate of the GDP deflator announced in the Budget on 2 July, the health budget will increase from £34,928 million in 1997–98 to £36,362 million in 1998–99. For the NHS, this means a real terms increase in resources of 2.35 per cent. in 1998–99.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Schools (Capital Investment)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what mechanism will be used to allocate funds for capital investment to(a) local education authority schools and (b) grant-maintained schools; [7254]

  (2) what proportion of capital investment in schools will go to (a) local education authority schools and (b) grant-maintained schools in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99; [7255]

  (3) how much money will be made available for capital investment in (a) local education authority schools and (b) grant-maintained schools in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99. [7256]

  Mr. Byers
  Under plans originally announced by the previous Administration last December, central government support for schools capital investment in 1997–98 has been set at £396 million for local authority county and controlled schools, £145 million for grant-maintained schools, and £104.2 million for voluntary aided schools. Their plans for 1998–99 were £363 million for local authority county and controlled schools, £141 million for grant-maintained schools, and £102 million for voluntary aided schools.

  Taking account of estimated local authority capital receipts and revenue and governors' contributions to voluntary aided schools, we would expect some £672 million to be devoted to projects at county and voluntary controlled schools, £145 million in grant-maintained schools and £117 million in voluntary aided schools in 1997–98, and on the same basis some £656 million in county and voluntary controlled schools, £141 million in grant-maintained schools and £115 million for voluntary aided schools in 1998–99.

  As to the allocation mechanism, in the financial year 1997–98, it is for the relevant local authority to determine capital programmes in county and voluntary controlled schools, and for the Funding Agency for Schools to
  302
  allocate capital to grant-maintained schools. For voluntary aided schools, the Department pays grant of up to 85 per cent. on capital and repair projects.

  On 2 July, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that a further £83 million will be made available for schools capital work in 1997–98, and £250 million for 1998–99. Guidance on the allocation will be issued shortly.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if funds released by the abolition of the assisted places scheme will be distributed according to the Barnett Formula. [7566]

  Mr. Byers
  The method of distributing these funds is being considered but they will be allocated across the United Kingdom.

  LEAs (Inspections)
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the timetable for the inspection of local education authorities outlined in the Education Bill; how the local education authorities will be chosen; how many are to be inspected; and on what basis they will be reviewed. [7565]

  Mr. Byers
  As announced in the White Paper "Excellence in Schools", the programme of LEA inspections under the 1997 Education Act will begin in January 1998. The inspections will be led by OFSTED assisted by the Audit Commission. Announcements about the selection of LEAs and the framework of inspection, will be made in the autumn.

  Lifelong Learning
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to publish his White Paper on Lifelong Learning. [7572]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment plans to publish his White Paper on Lifelong Learning in the autumn.

  New Deal
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the estimated cost to public funds per capita, for each of the options, over their six months on the New Deal. [8212]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Average costs will be determined by the detailed contracting process which will take place in the autumn.

  Mr. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many private sector employers have indicated their willingness to participate in the New Deal scheme. [8210]

  Mr. Smith
  Following the seminar at No. 11 Downing St., 30 of the country's top companies have expressed their wish to be involved. We have also received, and continue to receive, expressions of interest from other employers, both small and large.
  303
  There will be a major campaign to win the commitment of the business community. At national level, we are creating an Advisory Task Force, chaired by Sir Peter Davis, to carry out a national effort to win support for New Deal from the top 500 companies.

  At regional level in England, ES and Government Offices will hold a series of events—including conferences, roadshows and visits to employers' to win support, and each ES district will work with local partners to contact local firms to gain their commitment.

  Similar campaigns will run in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will ensure that(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department refuse requests from hon. Members to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings relating to interests held by those hon. Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8102]

  Dr. Howells
  The First Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 2850) recognised the value of enabling Members to retain interests outside the House, provided these were properly declared, both in the Register of Members' Interests and on other occasions. Subject to these requirements, and to the rules of the House relating to delegations to Ministers, Members are free to seek meetings with Ministers and officials, who will consider such requests alongside the many other approaches from individuals and organisations concerned to press their own interests or those of others.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what occasions(a) Ministers and (b) officials have refused to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings with hon. Members to discuss matters relating to interests registered by those hon. Members under categories 1, 2, 3 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8105]

  Dr. Howells
  The First Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 2850) made it clear, that, when Members are meeting Ministers or others on topics in which they have an interest, the onus is on the Member to declare that interest not the Minister to know (paragraph 63 of Cm 2850). It is not practicable for Ministers and officials, amongst their other duties, to vet requests for meetings against the Register of Members' Interests. Should evidence of non-declaration emerge, or contravention of the Resolution of the House relating to delegations to Ministers, the matter would be brought to the attention of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) on what dates since 1 May(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have attended meetings with organisations representing (i) commercial and (ii) non-commercial interests organised by commercial lobbying firms; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings; [8104]
  304
  (2) on what dates since 1 May (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have met commercial lobbyists to discuss matters relating to the business of his Department; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings. [8103]

  Dr. Howells
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn),Official Report, 2 June 1997, column 99, Ministers and officials in the Department receive deputations from many groups who are concerned to press their own interests or those of their clients, which Ministers and officials take due care to consider within the wider public interest and Government policy. As it is not practicable to distinguish particular groups as lobbyists, the Department cannot keep a register of such meetings.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans he has to stop the sale of playing fields; and if he will make a statement; [8000]

  (2) if he will make a statement on current guidelines and standards relating to school playing fields; [8001]

  (3) what plans he has to review current guidelines on the provision of school playing field facilities; and if he will make a statement. [8002]

  Mr. Byers
  We intend to make sure that those playing fields which schools and their local communities need are not sold in future. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Culture, Media and Sport are discussing this as a matter of urgency. We are looking at a wide range of options to ensure that all school pupils will have access to proper sports facilities.

  The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996 set out statutory minimum areas of grassed playing field, or equivalent sports facilities, for all state schools with pupils aged 8 years or older.

  My Department has published guidance on the size of school grounds in Building Bulletin 82 "Area Guidelines for Schools".

  A new Building Bulletin, "School Grounds—a guide to good practice", which is in preparation now for publication this Autumn, will include detailed, practical advice on playing fields.

  Employment Service
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if there will be any increase in staffing levels at the Employment Service to implement (i) The New Deal and (ii) The Gateway. [8203]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  305
  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mrs. Teresa Gorman, dated 17 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your question about staffing levels in the Employment Service as a result of implementing the New Deal. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency. This reply refers to the New Deal including the "Gateway" process for young people which we see as an integral part of the New Deal programme rather than as a separate entity.
  For the New Deal to operate successfully it is clear that there will need to be additional staff in Jobcentres to support each of the elements and options of the programme. We are in the process of assessing how these activities will be delivered together with their associated staffing requirements. The net impact on staffing in Jobcentres will need to take into account other factors such as changing levels of unemployment.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Physical Education Teachers
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to introduce flexible contracts for teachers of physical education; and if he will make a statement. [8003]

  Mr. Byers
  It is for school governing bodies to negotiate contracts of employment with teachers of physical education. My right hon. Friend has no plans to change the statutory conditions of employment of those teachers.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to apply his policy of fair funding of education to the county of Hereford and Worcester. [7826]

  Mr. Byers
  We are reviewing the education SSA methodology on which the distribution of revenue support grant to local education authorities will be based in 1998–99. Consultative meetings between central and local government representatives are taking place over the summer leading up to the compilation of a report on options for possible SSA changes in the autumn.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what additional amount would need to be spent(a) by each local education authority and (b) in total if the rate at which grants for education support and training are payable changed from 60 per cent. to 50 per cent. without change in his Department's planned expenditure for 1998-99; and if he will make a statement. [8886]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 July 1997]: Plans for 1998–99 GEST programme and its funding have yet to be finalised. The following table shows the increase in each LEA's contribution for the 1997–98 programme if grants currently paid at 60 per cent. were paid at 50 per cent. and the DfEE's contribution remained the same.
  306

  GEST 1997–98 Comparison of 60 per cent. grant rate with 50 per cent. grant rate

  Local education authority

  LEA's additional contribution £000s

  City of London

  6.6

  Caraden

  179.2

  Greenwich

  272.4

  Hackney

  272.7

  Hammersmith

  130.4

  Islington

  286.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  108.6

  Lambeth

  212.6

  Lewisham

  339.8

  Southwark

  314.9

  Tower Hamlets

  373.4

  Wandsworth

  253.5

  Westminster

  147.1

  Barking

  212.6

  Barnet

  188.1

  Bexley

  197.2

  Brent

  257.3

  Bromley

  185.1

  Croydon

  266.6

  Ealing

  276.9

  Enfield

  348.8

  Haringey

  299.6

  Harrow

  157.9

  Havering

  196.6

  Hillingdon

  164.5

  Hounslow

  240.9

  Kingston upon Thames

  103.0

  Merton

  185.8

  Newham

  355.6

  Redbridge

  221.8

  Richmond upon Thames

  129.4

  Sutton

  146.7

  Waltham Forest

  276.5

  Birmingham

  1,158.3

  Coventry

  477.3

  Dudley

  316.4

  Sandwell

  359.5

  Solihull

  229.9

  Walsall

  372.6

  Wolverhampton

  382.1

  Knowsley

  212.7

  Liverpool

  683.2

  St. Helens

  194.8

  Sefton

  238.2

  Wirral

  408.0

  Bolton

  334.3

  Bury

  191.2

  Manchester

  588.1

  Oldham

  262.4

  Rochdale

  251.6

  Salford

  249.2

  Stockport

  303.2

  Tameside

  248.1

  Trafford

  224.5

  Wigan

  383.9

  Barnsley

  308.3

  Doncaster

  361.2

  Rotherham

  302.7

  Sheffield

  514.0

  Bradford

  642.6

  Calderdale

  197.9

  Kirklees

  514.4

  Leeds

  877.3

  Wakefield

  388.3

  Gateshead

  225.7

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  368.5

  North Tyneside

  280.4

  South Tyneside

  188.3

  Sunderland

  310.5

  Isles of Scilly

  10.4

  307

  GEST 1997–98 Comparison of 60 per cent. grant rate with 50 per cent. grant rate

  Local education authority

  LEA's additional contribution £000s

  Bath and North-east Somerset

  93.7

  City of Bristol

  350.9

  North-west Somerset

  206.5

  South Gloucestershire

  301.1

  Hartlepool

  144.9

  Middlesbrough

  181.4

  Redcar and Cleveland

  205.9

  Stockton on Tees

  223.9

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  351.4

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  359.1

  North-east Lincolnshire

  181.4

  North Lincolnshire

  179.5

  North Yorkshire

  647.6

  York

  227.4

  Bedfordshire

  455.9

  Luton

  191.3

  Buckinghamshire

  479.6

  Milton Keynes

  228.1

  Derbyshire

  863.5

  Derby

  203.2

  Dorset

  347.7

  Poole

  103.9

  Bournemouth

  121.2

  Durham

  652.0

  Darlington

  105.8

  East Sussex

  438.5

  Brighton and Hove

  203.2

  Hampshire

  1,126.3

  Portsmouth

  147.7

  Southampton

  184.2

  Leicestershire

  547.2

  Leicester

  309.2

  Rutland

  32.0

  Staffordshire

  875.1

  Stoke on Trent

  323.9

  Wiltshire

  378.7

  Swindon (Thamesdown)

  190.8

  Berkshire

  722.4

  Cambridgeshire

  678.6

  Cheshire

  1,086.5

  Cornwall

  520.4

  Cumbria

  550.7

  Devon

  1,118.1

  Essex

  1,131.9

  Gloucestershire

  445.8

  Hereford and Worcester

  676.1

  Hertfordshire

  1,012.2

  Isle of Wight

  177.2

  Kent

  1,362.9

  Lancashire

  1,624.9

  Lincolnshire

  531.4

  Norfolk

  818.3

  Northamptonshire

  626.9

  Northumberland

  358.4

  Nottinghamshire

  997.3

  Oxfordshire

  613.8

  Shropshire

  453.4

  Somerset

  491.9

  Suffolk

  673.1

  Surrey

  724.7

  Warwickshire

  506.5

  West Sussex

  678.9

  England

  51,578.1

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the level in constant prices of education spending per school pupil 308
  in (a) England and (b) each English LEA for (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–00 assuming that all of the additional funding allocated to education in the Budget is spent on education. [8584]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 July 1997]: For 1997–98, net Education Standard Spending (ESS) for England equates to £2,382 per pupil. In 1998–99, at constant prices, this will rise to £2,499. Allocations for each LEA in the form of Standard Spending Assessments for 1988–89 will be made in the Autumn. Figures for 1999–00 will be determined nearer the time. ESS is not prescriptive: LEAs are free to spend more or less, in the light of their own view of priorities.

  Schools (Windfall Tax)
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) when the criteria for qualifying for help from the funds for schools set aside from the windfall tax will be produced; [8018]

  (2) what proposals he has to give areas with a larger percentage of old school buildings priority when the funds for schools from the windfall tax are distributed. [8019]

  Mr. Byers
  We shall shortly be writing to Schools, Local Education Authorities, the Funding Agency for Schools and the representatives of Voluntary Aided Schools with details of how New Deal for Schools capital will be distributed.

  Income Support
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many claimants had their income support reduced in each of the first two quarters of 1996–97 for non-attendance or failure to complete (i) jobplan workshops, (ii) restart courses, (iii) workwise and worklink and (iv) 1–2–1; [7730]

  (2) how many claimants had income support reduced for (a) two weeks and (b) four weeks for non-attendance or failure to complete project work in the first two quarters of 1996–97. [7729]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 17 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about how many claimants had their Income Support reduced in each of the first two quarters of 1996–97 for non-attendance or failure to complete (i) Jobplan Workshops, (ii) Restart Courses, (iii) Workwise and Worklink and (iv) 1–2–1, and how many claimants had Income Support reduced for (a) two weeks and (b) four weeks for non attendance or failure to complete Project Work in the first two quarters of 1996–97. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Unfortunately, the information is not available in the form you require. It may help if I explain that decisions on Income Support for non attendance on or failure to complete Project Work are based on opinions given by Employment Service adjudication officers. In the period April 1996 to September 1996. Employment Service adjudication officers gave 43 opinions which may have led to a reduction in the amount of Income Support payable. The information

  309
  available does not show whether this would have been for two weeks or four weeks. Not all adverse opinions will necessarily have resulted in a reduction of Income Support.
  Information on the number of claimants whose Income Support was reduced during the same period for non attendance on or failure to complete Jobplan Workshops, Restart Courses, Workwise, Worklink, and 1–2–1 was not collated centrally and unfortunately can not therefore be provided.
  I hope this helps to clarify the situation.

  School Performance Tables
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his Department's assessment of the(a) advantages and (b) disadvantages of league tables for public examination results; and what assessment he has made of the utility to parents of data contained in these reports. [8438]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Performance tables of examination results inform the debate on standards and focus attention on the areas where action is needed. Most parents are aware that the information is available and find it valuable when making decisions. But they need to have a fuller picture. Secondary tables this November will show how schools have improved over time. We aim to include value-added measurements the following year.

  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the advantages of taking account of secondary school intake in school performance tables. [8440]

  Ms. Morris
  Secondary school performance tables need to show the progress pupils have made, from their different starting points, as well as success in public examinations. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority have reported that it is possible to measure value added in schools. I have asked them to take forward this work with the aim of including such measures in secondary tables in 1998. We shall consult fully on this.

  Further Education (Mentally Ill People)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when his departmental officials last met representatives of the Further Education Funding Council regarding the provision of further education services to patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. [8504]

  Dr. Howells
  Officials have not held any meetings with FEFC officers on this issue, but there has been contact with FEFC, by telephone and correspondence, on this matter.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that further education services are available to patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983; and if he will make a statement. [8503]

  Dr. Howells
  Section 60 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 debars the Further Education Funding Council from funding the education of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. The Government has no plans for amending the legislation in this area.

  Excluded Pupils
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will ensure that pupils permanently excluded from particular schools have places at other schools. [8439]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Local education authorities have a statutory duty to arrange suitable education for children of compulsory school age who are out of school by reason of exclusion or otherwise.

  Departmental Publications
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost of producing the White Paper "Excellence in Schools"; and how many copies have been printed. [8639]

  Mr. Byers
  The cost of printing the White Paper was met by the publishers, The Stationery Office. The Department met the cost of design, photography and typesetting which amounted to some £78,700 including VAT. Sixty thousand copies have been printed but I understand that a reprint of a further 1,500 copies has now been put in hand by The Stationery Office.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost of producing the video accompanying the White Paper, "Excellence in Schools"; and how many copies have been produced. [8646]

  Mr. Byers
  The cost of producing the video and reproducing 30,000 copies, 28,000 of which will be distributed in September to all schools in England, is expected to cost £131,300 including VAT.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many organisations have been sent a copy of the White Paper, "Excellence in Schools". [8637]

  Mr. Byers
  The White Paper has been sent to all schools, with separate copies to headteachers and chairs of governing bodies, all Further Education institutions, all local education authorities, all MPs and a wide range of other interested organisations and individuals.

  School Premises Regulations
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to re-introduce the School Premises Regulations; and when the Regulations will be introduced to cover three to five-year-olds within the new proposals for early years education. [8649]

  Mr. Byers
  There are already school premises regulations in place: currently these are the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996, which replaced the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981 last September.

  The Regulations set minimum standards for school premises and facilities, and apply to all state sector schools, including those with pupils aged from three to five years.

  Workskill Pilot Schemes
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made
  311
  of the current workskill pilot schemes in respect of their contribution towards education and training opportunities for unemployed adults. [8640]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is too early to make an assessment of the existing Workskill pilots at this stage. They have been operating in four areas since April this year. The pilots will be fully evaluated to provide us with valuable information on the extent to which allowing people to study on benefits affects their chances of gaining and remaining in employment. The first evaluation findings are expected to be available in early 1998.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the lowest hourly rate paid for full-time employment that has been advertised in a jobcentre over the last 12 months. [8641]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 17 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct in reply to your question about the lowest hourly rate paid for full time employment that has been advertised in a Jobcentre over the last 12 months. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  I regret that I am unable to provide the information you have requested. The Employment Service does not collect statistical information on the wage rates on offer for vacancies advertised in Jobcentres.
  I am sorry I cannot be more helpful.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the number of(a) headteachers, (b) deputy headteachers and (c) other teachers taking (i) premature retirement and (ii) normal age retirement in the academic years 1996–96 and 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [8734]

  Mr. Byers
  The information requested is available for financial rather than academic years and, before 1996–97, such information on Heads and Deputy Heads is readily available only in relation to premature retirements. The following table shows the available information.

  Heads

  Deputy heads

  Others

  Total

  Age (1996–97)

  283

  162

  4,005

  4,450

  Premature (1996–97)

  1,283

  1,089

  13,627

  15,999

  Premature (1995–96)

  992

  944

  11,119

  13,055

  1. The total number of normal age retirements in 1995–96 was 4,497.

  2. The figures for others include all other members of the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme.

  Foundation Schools
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what circumstances it is his policy in 312
  cases where a majority of parents wish an existing county school to become a foundation school, to support their wishes. [8647]

  Mr. Byers
  The White Paper "Excellence in Schools" set out our plans for introducing a new framework of community, aided and foundation schools to replace the existing categories of schools. Chapter 7 proposes that, in order to minimise disruption for schools, the necessary legislation should be framed in terms of a set of assumptions that schools in an existing category will generally move to a specified new category. But the governing body will be able to choose a different legal category if they wish, and parental ballots will be available as a mechanism for parents to express their views.

  Private Schools
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to paragraph 10, of page 10 of the White Paper, "Excellence in Schools", what is the statistical basis for the statement in respect of the Government's reliance on private schools to provide elite entry to universities and the professions. [8773]

  Mr. Byers
  Unlike today, there was no systemic national collection of statistics on the entry to universities in the 19th century. However the view that most historians of education take of the position of higher education in England at the turn of the century would support the statement in the White Paper. For example, V. H. H. Green in The Universities (Penguin, 1969) on page 125 states that, "Oxford and Cambridge still remained in 1900 the principal finishing schools of the upper and middle classes, recruiting most of their undergraduates from the independent public schools".

  Project Work
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many contracts for Project Work have been awarded to date in the Dudley and Sandwell Employment Service area; and if he will make a statement; [8793]

  (2) who is responsible for awarding Project Work contracts in the Dudley and Sandwell area; [8794]

  (3) what outputs have been achieved to date by the Project Work pilot in Dudley and Sandwell. [8795]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 16 July 1997]: Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Ian Pearson, dated 17 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your questions about the current status of Project Work contracts in the Dudley and Sandwell Employment Service area, who is responsible for awarding the contracts, and what outputs have been achieved to date by the pilot.
  It may be helpful if I first give some background to the Project Work pilots. Project Work provides jobsearch help and practical work experience for very long-term unemployed people (2 years + and aged between 18 and 50), with the aim of helping them into work.

  313
  The pilots have two phases. Following their Restart interview, participants enter a period of structured jobsearch help, during which they are offered a series of interviews with Employment Service advisers, and are made aware of a wide range of programmes designed to help people get work. If participants remain unemployed for 3 months they are required to attend a 13-week period of work experience of benefit to the local community. The 13-week period normally involves 18 hours of work experience and 3 hours of jobsearch each week.
  In answer to the specific questions you asked about the pilots in Dudley and Sandwell, four contracts have been awarded to operate the work experience element; two have been awarded to the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV), one to the Black Country Employment Training Association, and one to Dudley Chamber Training. The contracts were awarded during week commencing 14 July 1997 by the Regional Resources Manager for the Employment Service West Midlands Region.
  Outputs to date relating to the Dudley and Sandwell Project Work pilot cover only the period of intensive jobsearch help, which began on 24 February 1997. Outputs up to and including 10 July 1997 are as follows:

  Clients interviewed:

  2,396

  Clients leaving the register:

  781

  of whom:

  179 left to go into employment

  79 left to go into Training for Work

  271 left as a direct result of adviser action

  134 left for other reasons

  118 transferred to other benefits.

  In addition, 61 participants have started on Work Trials, 57 have started on Jobclub, and 62 applications have been received for the Workstart subsidy.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many part-time students in higher education have to contribute to all or part of their tuition fees. [8720]

  Dr. Howells
  Data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency for the academic year 1996–97 showed that 234,300, that is some 60 per cent., of the 384,600 part-time student enrolments for which the source of fees were known received no financial backing, and so fees were met by the students concerned. Over 30 per cent. of the remaining enrolments were paid by employers or other organisations and in just over 5 per cent. of cases no fee was paid.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to encourage students from poorer homes to enter higher education. [8717]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government recognises that participation in higher education by students from poorer homes is closely related to educational achievement up to 18 years of age. The policies set out in our White Paper "Excellence in Schools" should greatly improve the educational opportunities for all children. In developing our policy to widen participation among students from poorer backgrounds, we shall consider carefully the recommendations of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, which is expected to report shortly.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much his Department spends on biking press releases to(a) hon. Members and (b) other individuals or groups, each time his Department issues a press release; how many such press releases were issued by his Department (i) in the period 1 May to 1 July and (ii) in the period 1 January to 1 March; and if he will review his Department's use of couriers to deliver press releases and investigate the possibility of using fax or e-mail. [8823]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department's press releases are made available to hon. Members and to the media via the Central Office of Information's News Distribution Service (NDS).

  NDS's delivery mechanisms include a newswire service which, among others, supplies press releases to the Parliamentary Online Information Service (POLIS) which can be accessed by all MPs and Lords. Other methods include a van service to all national media, fax retrieval system and a widely accessed Web site on the internet.

  These mechanisms are used either singly or in combination to ensure the most cost-effective methods are used to reach the media and to suit the nature of the documents e.g. whether press releases are despatched on their own, or accompanied by reports, consultation documents etc; no separate costing is available for the van delivery service alone.

  My Department issued 57 press releases between 1 January and 1 March and 86 press releases between 1 May and 1 July.

  My Media Relations Division and COI keep a watching brief on new developments to ensure the most cost-effective delivery mechanisms are used at all times.

  Access Funds
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what resources will be available for access funds for students in further and higher education institutions in England in 1997–98; and when he proposes to issue new guidance on the use of the funds. [9801]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department is making available £27.733 million for Access Funds for students in further and higher education in England for the academic year 1997–98. The total sum is being allocated between the two Funding Councils for England as follows:

  £ million

  (i) Higher Education Funding Council for England to be allocated as follows:

  21.693

  Undergraduate Fund

  15.953

  Postgraduate Fund

  5.40

  Further Education Fund

  0.34

  (ii) Further Education Funding Council

  6.04

  Total

  27.733

  315
  The Department will shortly be writing to the two Funding Councils with guidance to be given to institutions about allocation and use of the Funds for 1997–98.

  Education (Student Loans) Act 1990
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place in the Library a copy of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990, showing the proposed amendments contained in the new Education (Student Loans) Bill 1997. [9802]

  Mr. Byers
  For the assistance of Members, I have today placed in the Library a copy of a consolidation of the 1990 Act, showing the proposed amendments.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what occasions(a) Ministers and (b) officials have refused to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings with hon. Members to discuss matters relating to interests registered by those Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8073]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The First Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 2850) made it clear that, when Members are meeting Ministers or others on topics in which they have an interest, the onus is on the Member to declare that interest, not the Minister to know (paragraph 63 of Cm 2850). It is not practicable for Ministers and officials, amongst their other duties, to vet requests for meetings against the Register of Members' Interests. Should evidence of non-declaration emerge, or contravention of the Resolution of the House relating to delegations to Ministers, the matter would be brought to the attention of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will ensure that(a) Ministers and (b) officials in her Department refuse requests from hon. Members to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings relating to interests held by those Member under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8070]

  Mr. Murphy
  The First Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 2850) recognised the value of enabling Members to retain interests outside the House, provided these were properly declared, both in the Register of Members' Interests and on other occasions. Subject to these requirements, and to the rules of the House relating to delegations to Ministers, Members are free to seek meetings with Ministers and officials, who will consider such requests alongside the many other approaches from individuals and organisations concerned to press their own interest or those of others.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) on what dates since 1 May(a) Ministers and (b) officials in her Department have met
  316
  commercial lobbyists to discuss matters relating to the business of her Department; and if she will introduce a register of such meetings; [8071]

  (2) on what dates since 1 May (a) Ministers and (b) officials in her Department have attended meetings with organisations representing (i) commercial and (ii) non-commercial interests organised by commercial lobbying firms; and if she will introduce a register of such meetings. [8072]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in response to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn),Official Report, 2 June 1997, column 99, Ministers and officials receive deputations from many groups who are concerned to press their own interests or those of their clients, which Ministers and officials take due care to consider within the wider public interest and Government policy. As it is not practicable to distinguish particular groups as lobbyists, the Departments cannot keep a register of such meetings.

  Voluntary Sports Clubs
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the estimated cost of granting mandatory rate relief to voluntary sports clubs in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [8008]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The estimated cost of granting mandatory rate relief to sports and recreation facilities in Northern Ireland in terms of rate revenue forgone is approximately £1.3 million in the year 1997–98.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what Government proposals exist to harmonise rate relief for voluntary sports clubs in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [8007]

  Mr. Murphy
  Rate relief for voluntary sports clubs is harmonised throughout Northern Ireland by virtue of the provisions set out in Article 31 of the 1977 Rates (NI) Order as amended by the Article 3 of the 1979 Rates (NI) Amendment Order.

  Judicial Reviews
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) on how many occasions since 1994–95 legislation has been introduced by the department(a) to remove effects of judicial review decisions and (b) to implement them; [7840]

  (2) how many decisions by her Department were challenged by way of judicial review in each Parliamentary session since 1994–95; and if she will list in how many cases (a) the Department's decision was upheld, (b) the court found for the applicant, (c) the Department submitted to the judgment and (d) the Department appealed successfully against the judicial review decision. [7868]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This information is not readily available in the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments as no central record is kept of applications for judicial reviews.

  Sean Quinn Glass Factory
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her oral answer to the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) of 9 July,Official Report, column 927, on what date the decision was taken to agree to award industrial development grant to the Sean Quinn Group; and which Minister took the decision. [8466]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: The decision was taken on 17 April 1997 by the then Minister for Economy and Agriculture.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date the contract to give industrial development grant to the Sean Quinn Group was signed. [8467]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: On 1 May 1997.

  Ordnance Survey
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland in 1997–98. [9804]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  For 1997–98, the following performance targets have been set for OSNI:

  Output
  To complete the digital conversion programme by 1999–2000 financial year by converting 1,700 large scale map sheets to digital format.
  To survey 50,000 survey units.
  To update the digital topographic database with 24,000 survey units of change.

  Quality of Service
  To complete 95 per cent. of specific customer requests for up to 10 surveyed units of change within three working days of customer request.
  To dispatch within seven working days 96 per cent. of customers' orders for small and large scale basic format maps.

  Efficiency
  To reduce unit costs so that the weighted mean percentage reduction of selected representative activities is 2 per cent.

  Financial
  To recover from the sale of goods and services 28 per cent. of the total costs incurred by the Agency.

  Tradeable Services Projects
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the controls on the levels of selective financial assistance that can be made available to tradeable services projects in Northern Ireland. [9805]

  Mr. Ingram
  The controls are the same as for manufacturing projects, except that the ceiling on percentage contribution does not apply. This change allows for the different financial profile of tradable services projects which normally do not involve the substantial expenditure on capital items that is typical of manufacturing projects.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Desmond Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to publish details of the targets for the Child Support Agency; and if she will make a statement. [9837]

  Mr. Worthington
  The Child Support Agency will publish its 1997–98 Business Plan and Strategic Plan 1997–2000 today. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  The targets that I have set for the Child Support Agency for 1997–98 are set out below.
  £11.2 million of maintenance to be collected, or arranged for direct payment from absent parents with care.1
  98 per cent. of payments made to parents with care to be made within 10 working days of receipt from the absent parent.
  The cash value of all assessments checked in the year to be correct in at least 85 per cent. of cases.
  Where a client is dissatisfied with a child support officer's decision and requests a review, 60 per cent. to be cleared within 13 weeks and 95 per cent. to be cleared in 26 weeks.
  70 per cent. of new maintenance applications to be cleared within 26 weeks and as at 31 March 1998 no more than 1 per cent. of maintenance applications received by the Agency to be over
  12 months old.2
  To manage the Agency's resource so as to deliver its Business Plan within the gross allocation as adjusted during the course of the year; this includes the administration of the Belfast CSAC.

  The targets in the Business Plan represent a sizeable challenge to the Agency and provide a firm basis for taking the business forward. The targets include measures of accuracy and of the time taken to provide services. This underlines the Agency's continuing focus on quality and client services in 1997–98.
  1This target includes cases where maintenance is paid direct by the absent parent to the parent with care.
  2For this target, applications include all cases received via the Social Security Agency or from private clients.

  Health and Social Services Estates Agency
  Mr. Desmond Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Estates Agency. [9838]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The targets below have been set for the Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Estates Agency for 1997–98. The targets are in line with the Government's policy of seeking to improve the service provided to clients in terms of both quality and value for money. I am satisfied that the targets present a demanding challenge for the Agency. They are as follows:-

  Delivery of services
  Provide the Agency's services in accordance with the requirements of the Service Level Agreements agreed with clients.
  Develop the management process for the Retained Estate in support of the HSS-E by March 1998.
  Provide HSS-E with a Defects Centre in relation to the HPSS Estate.
  Investigate and clear 60 per cent. of all adverse incidents within six months of notification of Health Estates.

  319
  Provide support and advice to the HSS-E on environmental and energy issues and establish an annual environmental award for best environmental practice within the HPSS estate.
  Review Firecode in the light of the impending Places of Work Regulations and deliver to the HSS-E the annual Fire Report on the HPSS estate by March 1998.
  Complete for HSS Trust clients nine Outline Business Cases of total estimated capital value £29.15 million.
  Complete planning and design team briefing for one scheme, estimated capital value £1.3 million.
  Complete tender process and move to construction stage five schemes of estimated capital value £99.44 million.
  Project Manage to completion on site 13 schemes of estimated total capital value £12.57 million.
  Complete design and/or achieve Practical Completion in respect of 15 schemes (value £4 million), these to include feasibility studies and Planning Supervision in compliance with CDM Regulations.
  Arrange for the Completion of Defects Certificates to be issued for 85 per cent. of all schemes completed in the previous year. Issue Final Certificates after the agreement on Final Account of 60 per cent. of outstanding contracts.
  Provide lead Clerks of Works Inspection Services on Craigavon Hospital, Causeway Hospital, Altnagelvin Hospital and the Royal Group of Hospitals on projects valued at £98 million.
  Complete 85 per cent. of periodic specialist equipment tests by their programmed date and remainder within six weeks of that date. Complete 75 per cent. of specialist and diagnostic equipment acceptance tests, equipment evaluations and other tests within six weeks of receipt of request and the remainder within 10 weeks.
  Complete Electricity At Work Regulation compliance surveys and issue recommendations for one Trust and two Hospital Sites.
  Provide High Voltage, Low Voltage and Medical Gas Pressure Systems Authorising Engineer services to 23 locations.

  Efficiency of service
  Achieve an in-house 5 per cent. efficiency saving.
  Complete the implementation of an enhanced management information and project costing system which will permit greater control of resources against client service needs.

  Financial management and performance
  Manage the Agency's resources so as to deliver its Business Plan within the gross budget allocation ad adjusted during the course of the year.
  Ensure that the Agency's management accounting and information systems are adequate to support the preparation of auditable accounts for 1997–98, thereby ensuring the issue of an Accounts Direction by the Department of Finance and Personnel.

  A copy of the targets is being placed in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions(a) Ministers and (b) officials have refused to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings with hon. Members to discuss matters relating to interests registered by those hon. Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8109]
  320
  Dr. Reid
  The First Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 2850) made it clear that, when Members are meeting Ministers or others on topics in which they have an interest, the onus is on the Member to declare that interest not the Minister to know (paragraph 63 of Cm 2850). It is not practicable for Ministers and officials, amongst their other duties, to vet requests for meetings against the Register of Members' Interests.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department refuse requests from hon. Members to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings relating to interests held by those hon. Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8106]

  Dr. Reid
  The First Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 2850) recognised the value of enabling Members to retain interests outside the House, provided these were properly declared, both in the Register of Members' Interests and on other occasions. Subject to these requirements, and to the rules of the House relating to delegations to Ministers, Members are free to seek meetings with Ministers and officials, who will consider such requests alongside the many other approaches from individuals and organisations concerned to press their own interests or those of others.

  Procurement Executive
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the administrative costs of his Department's Procurement Executive at Abbey Wood are(a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of the defence budget in the current financial year. [8215]

  Mr. Spellar
  The internal operating cost budget (i.e. excluding extramural research, non-Abbey Wood capital works and equipment procurement expenditure) of the Procurement Executive at Abbey Wood and elsewhere is some £325 million or 1.5 per cent. of the Defence budget in the current financial year.

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the administrative costs of his Department(a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of the defence budget. [8130]

  Dr. Reid
  The defence budget for 1997–98 is £21.822 billion, which reflects a reduction of over 25 per cent. in real terms over the past 10 years. Within this, the Ministry of Defence does not distinguish between costs incurred in delivering its objectives and costs incurred in administering the delivery of those objectives. Responsibility for expenditure on all elements of defence operating costs, which include the costs of administration as well as those of delivering most aspects of military capability, is delegated to thirteen Top Level Budget holders. Planned expenditure by them for 1997–98 is £16,382 million, or 75.1 per cent. of the defence budget.

  Operational Effectiveness
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's definition of operational effectiveness. [7827]
  321
  Dr. Reid
  Operational effectiveness is defined differently according to the context. At the highest level it is the ability of the UK's forces successfully to carry out their missions. At the operational level, it is evaluated by measuring operational capabilities against those of potential adversaries in particular sets of circumstances.

  Casual Employees
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to eliminate the category of casual employee. [7925]

  Mr. Spellar
  No. Recruitment to posts in the Civil Service is governed by the Civil Service Recruitment Code which permits the recruitment of staff on permanent, short term or casual contracts. This depends on the nature of the employment offered. Where a job is clearly temporary, or there is genuine uncertainty about work requirements, casual appointments for periods of up to 12 months are permitted.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on what dates since 1 May(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have attended meetings with organisations representing (i) commercial and (ii) non-commercial interests organised by commercial lobbying firms; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings. [8108]

  (2) on what dates since 1 May (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have met commercial lobbyists to discuss matters relating to the business of his Department; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings. [8107]

  Dr. Reid
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained on 2 June 1997 in response to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn),Official Report, column 99, Ministers and officials in the Department receive deputations from many groups who are concerned to press their own interests or those of their clients, which Ministers and officials take due care to consider within the wider public interest and Government policy. As it is not practicable to distinguish particular groups as lobbyists, the Department cannot keep a register of such meetings.

  Offset Obligations
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what offset obligations have been made over the last 10 years by(a) year and (b) company; how compliance with them has been monitored; and what proportion of the obligations have been fulfilled to date. [8665]

  Mr. Spellar
  Over the past ten years, 42 industrial participation agreements have been recorded as follows:

  Year

  Company

  1987

  CAE Electronics

  Evans and Sutherland

  1988

  Westinghouse

  Boeing Helicopters

  Cummins

  322

  Year

  Company

  1989

  Sperry-Marine

  1990

  McDonnell Douglas

  1991

  —

  E-Systems

  Hughes Aircraft

  Raytheon

  SAAB

  1992

  Westinghouse

  1993

  —

  CAE Electronics

  Lockheed Martin

  1994

  Texas Instruments

  Alliant Tech Systems

  Boeing Helicopters

  CAE Electronics

  Computing Devices (Canada)

  Hughes Danbury

  ITT Avionics

  Loral

  McDonnell Douglas (2)

  Parker Bertea

  1995

  TAAS

  BMW Rolls-Royce

  Boeing Defence and Space Group

  Boeing NA Inc.

  Bristol Aerospace

  ETC

  Lockheed Martin (2)

  Lockheed Martin Federal Systems

  Longbow Int.

  Rockwell Int.

  Sextant Avionique

  Smiths Ind. Aerospace

  1996

  Telephonics Corp.

  Bell Textron

  Eurocopter

  1997

  BAe-Matra

  Companies with industrial participation obligations are required every six months to reports detailing the work placed in the UK. A 100 per cent. audit of these reports is carried out to ensure that obligations are fully met.

  To date, 11 of the agreements have been concluded successfully. Those remaining are the more recent ones and they are on course for successful completion.

  Foreign Military Personnel (Training)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, columns 87–88, in which years students from Libya attended military training courses in the United Kingdom; how many students were involved; and what were their ranks and the subject matter of their courses. [8767]

  Dr Reid
  Further examination of Departmental records indicates that no training has been provided to Libya in the past ten years. Both Libya and Iran were regrettably included in error in my previous answer of 16 June,Official Report, columns 87–88, as both countries had requested training which was not in fact provided. I am grateful to the hon. Member for providing this opportunity to set the record straight.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spends on biking press releases to(a) hon. Members and (b) other individuals or groups, each time his Department issues a press release; how many such press releases were issued by his Department (i) in the period 1 May to 1 July and (ii) in the period 1 January to 1 March; and if he will review his Department's use of couriers to deliver press releases and investigate the possibility of using fax or e-mail. [8822]

  Mr. Spellar
  Delivery of Press Notices to hon. Members and to the media is undertaken on our behalf via the Central Office of Information's News Distribution Service (NDS). My Department issued 27 press releases during the period 1 May to 1 July 1997, and 13 during the period 1 January to 1 March 1997.

  NDS's delivery mechanisms include a newswire service which, among others, supplies press releases to the Parliamentary Online Information Service (POLIS), hand deliveries, fax and postal deliveries, online databases, and a widely accessed Web site on the Internet.

  The mechanisms employed are used either singly or in combination to reach target audiences in the most cost-effective way, and to suit the nature of the documents.

  My Department and the COI keep a watching brief on new developments to ensure the most cost-effective delivery mechanisms are used.

  Harrier Jet Crash, Kirkcudbrightshire
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the recovery and clean-up operation following the recent crash of a Harrier jet near Gelston, Kirkcudbrightshire. [8716]

  Mr. Spellar
  The extra costs incurred by my Department in recovering the aircraft and during the environmental clean-up operation are estimated to be in the order of £53,000. This figure does not include the cost of any claims received as a result of the accident.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the avoidance sites for operational low flying in Low Flying Area 20T which lie within the Galloway and Upper Nithsdale constituency; [8718]

  (2) if he will list the avoidance sites for low flying in Low Flying Area 16 which lie within the Galloway and Upper Nithsdale constituency. [8719]

  Mr. Spellar
  No. The Government has to strike a balance between providing information on how the UK Low Flying System operates and retaining the freedom to manage an essentially dynamic system efficiently. I am therefore withholding the information requested under exemption 7b of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he proposes to give a further 21-year assurance to United States forces at Royal Air Force Menwith Hill in respect of site availability. [9130]

  Dr. Reid
  The US authorities have not sought any renewal of the previous assurances. Their use of the site continues under general arrangements between the two Governments concerning the stationing of forces.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date in 1997 the assurance given in 1976 to United States forces in respect of the making available of Royal Air Force Menwith Hill to United States forces expires. [9131]

  Dr. Reid
  The assurance, which was given in order to facilitate US funding commitments, covered the period up to 30 May 1997. It was not, nor was it ever envisaged to be, any form of renewable lease.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 June,Official Report, column 63, relating to the Atomic Weapons Establishment site at Llanishen, how long he estimates it will take to decontaminate the site. [9111]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is never possible at the outset of such a process to give a reliable estimate of how long it will take, because the extent of decontamination work must depend upon precisely what is encountered. During the process of decommissioning and decontaminating the Llanishen site, Land Quality Statements will be produced which will determine what measures are required to render the site fit for subsequent use. Given these circumstances we would not expect the process to be completed in less than five years.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what representations he has received about the commission to be paid to Mr. Mark McCormack in connection with the Millennium Experience. [6464]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have received a number of representations following reports in the press that International Management Group's commission for raising sponsorship of £150 million would be in the order of £27 to £30 million. In fact, if IMG reach the target set by the New Millennium Experience Company, they will receive in the order of £9 million, a substantial discount on their normal commission.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what estimate he has made of the cost of tickets for the Millennium Experience. [6467]

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how much visitors will be charged to attend the Greenwich Exhibition. [8022]
  325
  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company have advised that it is too early to produce a detailed ticketing structure for an event taking place in the year 2000. However, they have clearly stated that the price will be competitive in relation to other comparable attractions.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will set out the remit and the salary and bonuses package of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) with regard to the promotion of the Millennium Dome project. [6128]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 3 July 1997]: The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is a member of the Millennium Commission. None of the Commissioners received remuneration for their position, other than out-of-pocket expenses.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how many staff are involved in the Millennium Dome project; and what are the (i) designation and (ii) salary and bonuses of the principal staff involved in the project. [6131]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 3 July 1997]: The New Millennium Experience Company—the operating company for the Millennium Experience at Greenwich—currently has 40 staff, ranging from the Chief Executive through to IT and administrative staff. The details of senior staff remuneration packages will be published in the accounts of the New Millennium Experience Company in the usual way.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) what is the total budget for the Greenwich Exhibition; [8023]

  (2) how much of the Greenwich Exhibition's budget will be financed through national lottery money; how much will be raised through corporate sponsorship; and how much will be generated through ticket sales. [8024]

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what estimate he has made of the commission to be paid to Mr. Mark McCormack in connection with the Millennium Experience. [6465]

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what estimate he has made of the total cost of Millennium Experience; and if he will indicate the sources from which the money is to be raised. [6475]

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if payments to Mark McCormack in respect of the Millennium Experience will be in ratio to the amount of sponsorship raised if this sum fails to reach £150 million. [6904]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer my hon. Friend, the right hon. Member and hon. Members to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) today.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is the maximum amount of public money not including that from national lottery sources that will be deployed on the Millennium Experience. [6899]

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how much public money the Government intends to spend on the Millennium Exhibition at Greenwich. [8031]
  326
  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 7 July 1997]: The only taxpayers' money to be spent on the Millennium Experience is that which is already committed to English Partnerships to prepare the site. The total budget to prepare the site is £130 million. All other public support will come from the Lottery.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what advice he has sought from the London Fire Brigade in respect of the materials identified for construction of the Millennium Dome; and if he will make a statement. [6905]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 7 July 1997/: The New Millennium Experience Company Ltd. have worked closely with the London Fire Brigade to ensure that the design and construction of the Dome is safe and they will continue to do so. The first priority of all those involved in the Millennium Experience must be to ensure public safety.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how much money Lord Rogers is being paid for his work on the dome at Greenwich. [8033]

  Mr. Mandelson
  This is commercially confidential information. The New Millennium Experience Company will publish full accounts in due course.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what companies are planning to stage displays in the dome at Greenwich. [8025]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience at Greenwich will not be a trade show. Sponsorship arrangements will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how many jobs will be created in the course of building the dome at Greenwich. [8029]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience is expected to create 2,000 new jobs during the construction, and a further 5,000 during the life of the project.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how much money the Millennium Commission needs to raise from the private sector to help stage the exhibition at Greenwich. [8030]

  Mr. Mandelson
  This is the responsibility of the New Millennium Experience Company. NMEC aims to raise £175 million from the private sector in sponsorship.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how much public money to date has been spent on the Millennium exhibition at Greenwich. [8044]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: The only taxpayers' money to be spent on the project is that which is already committed to English Partnerships to prepare the site for regeneration. To date £44 million has been spent on the site.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on the demonstrations and displays that will be held inside the dome at Greenwich. [8045]
  327
  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: It is our aim to make the contents of the Dome a truly exciting experience, appealing to all sections of the UK population as well as to visitors from overseas. The New Millennium Experience Company—the operating company for the Greenwich project—is putting together a first class creative team. Their ideas will crystallise over the coming months.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio when he expects to reply to the question from the hon. Member for Hertsmere of 2 July, relating to the Millennium Experience. [9017]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have replied to three of the hon. Member's questions today. The one question still outstanding will be answered as soon as possible.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio who the shareholders are in the company established in respect of the Millennium Experience. [9311]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I am sole shareholder in the New Millennium Experience Company.

  Mark McCormack
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) what fee Mark McCormack of International Management Group will receive from the Millennium Commission; [8026]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the provisions of the contract which he recently signed with Mr. McCormack of International Management Group to raise money for the Millennium Exhibition at Greenwich. [8027]

  Mr. Mandelson
  None. His contract is with the New Millennium Experience Company. The fees paid to Mark McCormack's International Management Group (IMG) will be on a sliding scale of 4 per cent. to 15 per cent. of the sponsorship raised, reflecting the fact that their task will become more difficult as the sponsorship total rises. All IMG's fees will be success related and they will bear all their own costs: i.e. no sponsorship, no fee.

  Jenny Page
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what salary Jenny Page is being paid as chief executive of Millennium Central. [8032]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Miss Page's remuneration package includes a salary of £150,000 p.a., a pension of 15 per cent. and a bonus of up to 30 per cent. dependent on completing the term of the contract and subject to meeting performance targets set by the Board of the operating company, which is now called the New Millennium Experience Company.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Corruption
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list for the review of the Law Commission proposal for reform of the law on corruption(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the review. [8257]
  328
  Mr. Hoon
  The Law Commission issued consultation paper No. 145 "Legislating the Criminal Code—Corruption" on 18 March 1997. The closing date for responses was 30 June 1997. Work began on the project in May 1996 and the Law Commission expects to produce a report by June 1998. The cost of the project to date is not available.

  Legal Aid (Transaction Audit)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the 10 transaction criteria questions in audits of legal aid firms which most often result in non-compliance; and what proportion of firms fail to comply with each. [8118]

  Mr. Hoon
  This information is not available and could be derived only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many auditors the Legal Aid Board currently employs to carry out transaction criteria audits on legal aid firms; what was the estimated cost of employing(a) these auditors and (b) all Board staff concerned with franchising, including auditors and liaison managers in 1996–97; and what are the projected costs for 1997–98. [7908]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Legal Aid Board currently employs the full-time equivalent of 39.38 quality Auditors to carry out franchise related duties, including transaction criteria audits, with a current annual budget of approximately £600,000. In 1996–97, the cost of all aspects of franchising to the Legal Aid Board was approximately £4,000,000.

  Planned expenditure for the maintenance and expansion of franchising in 1997–98 is £5,000,000.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many instances the results of transaction criteria audits on legal aid firms have led to quality concerns being registered against the firm. [8119]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Legal Aid Board uses transaction criteria as the process measure of service delivery in a specific case or proceeding type, and would use evidence of systematic omissions of information recorded, advice given, or steps taken, to raise quality concerns with the organisation, with a view to improving service provision. Since 1 April 1995 (when a new system was installed to provide details of all non-compliancies) 86 major (d) non-compliancies (this is where the organisation is not able to comply with one of number of mandatory franchise requirements) have been recorded as a result of transaction criteria audits.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many transaction audits have been conducted for each of the Legal Aid Board's franchise categories; what is(a) the average number of files read and (b) the average number of person hours spent in respect of each audit; in how many instances the raw data have revealed a compliance rate below the minimum compliance rate established by the Legal Aid Board; and in how many instances the compliance rate has fallen below the established minima once the appropriate statistical significance test has been applied. [7905]
  329
  Mr. Hoon
  (a) The Legal Aid Board has informed me that during the financial year 1996–97, the relevant information was as follows:

  Franchise category

  Audits conducted

  Average number of files audited

  Consumer and general conduct

  300

  2.3

  Crime

  958

  5.2

  Debt

  266

  2.8

  Employment

  235

  2.7

  Housing

  382

  3.2

  Immigration

  55

  3.0

  Matrimonial and family

  1,498

  5.1

  Personal injury

  1,279

  4.5

  Welfare benefits

  95

  2.7

  (b) The average length of time spent auditing case files against the transaction criteria was 9.6 hours per audit. This was the time taken to conduct the actual transaction criteria audit only, and did not include selection of files, recording results, producing reports, providing feedback to the organisation, or any other time which is associated with the audit.

  In 691 audits, the average compliance rate of the sample of case files was found to fall below the standard compliance for that franchise category.

  Following the application of the statistical technique used during the transaction criteria audit, 70 audits were found to have a compliance range which the upper confidence interval fell below the standard compliance rate for that franchise category.

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what occasions(a) Ministers and (b) officials have refused to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings with hon. Members to discuss matters relating to interests registered by those Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8081]

  Mr. Hoon
  The first report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 2850) made it clear that when Members are meeting Ministers or others on topics on which they have an interest, the onus is on the Member to declare that interest not the Minister to know (paragraph 63 of Cm 2850). It is not practicable for Ministers and officials, amongst their other duties, to vet requests for meetings against the Register of Members' Interests. Should evidence of non-declaration, or contravention of the Resolution of the House relating to delegations to Ministers emerge the matter would be brought to the attention of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will ensure that(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department refuse requests from hon. Members to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings relating to interests held by those Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8078]

  Mr. Hoon
  The first report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 2850) recognised the value of enabling members to retain interests outside the House,330
  provided that these were properly declared, both in the Register of Members' Interests and on other occasions. Subject to these requirements, and to the rules of the House relating to delegations to Ministers, Members are free to seek meetings with Ministers and officials, who will consider such requests alongside the many other approaches from individuals and organisations concerned to press their own interests and those of others.

  Civil Justice and Legal Aid (Review)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will give for the Review of Civil Justice and Legal Aid Reforms(a) the expected completion date and (b) the cost of conducting the Review. [8232]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor has asked Sir Peter Middleton to produce a preliminary report by the end of September. Any further work will depend on the terms of that preliminary report. The Review is expected to cost around £75,000 to the end of September.

  Gazumping
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to outlaw the practice known as gazumping; and if he will make a statement. [7996]

  Mr. Hoon
  Work has now begun across a number of Government Departments co-operating together which will, amongst other things, look closely at the problem of gazumping and will lead to detailed proposals which will be in the interests of everybody involved in the sale and purchase of homes. A ministerial task group will steer the work to ensure that it is carried through efficiently and effectively.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) on what dates since 1 May(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have met commercial lobbyists to discuss matters relating to the business of his Department; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings; [8079]

  (2) on what dates since 1 May (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have attended meetings with organisations representing (i) commercial and (ii) non-commercial interests organised by commercial lobbying firms; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings. [8080]

  Mr. Hoon
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in response to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)Official Report, 2 June 1997 column 99, Ministers and officials in the Department receive deputations from many groups who are concerned to press their own interests of those of their clients, which Ministers and officials take due care to consider within the wider public interest and Government policy. As it is not practicable to distinguish particular groups as lobbyists, the Department can not keep a register of such meetings.

  Keighley Magistrates Court
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when building work will begin on the new magistrates court house in Keighley. [7851]

  Mr. Hoon
  The provision of a new magistrates court in Keighley is in our Private Finance Initiative (Public/Private Partnership) building programme but I cannot say, at this time, when building work will commence.

  Wills
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to introduce regulations to govern the qualifications and registration of those persons practising the writing of wills. [7873]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government has no current intention to regulate the practice of will-writing. We are aware that there have been complaints about some firms providing will-writing services and are keeping the matter under review.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if it is his policy that the Crown Prosecution Service shall have rights of audience in Court. [7304]

  Mr. Hoon
  Barristers and solicitors in the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have full rights of audience in the magistrates' courts where the vast majority of criminal cases are dealt with. The Government is addressing the issue of whether it would be in the interests of justice to extend rights of audience to include CPS lawyers. The Government is considering the existing statutory procedures in this area.

  Court Fees
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to extend automatic exemption from the requirements to pay fees(a) in (i) county court and (ii) High Court proceedings to litigants in receipt of (1) income-based jobseeker's allowance, (2) family credit and (3) disability working allowance and (b) in family proceedings to litigants in receipt of (x) family credit and (y) disability working allowance; and if he will make a statement. [9154]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor has announced his intention to review the structure of civil court fees. As part of that review, he intends to examine the basis on which remissions are granted and to consider whether it would be appropriate for other categories of benefit to give rise to an automatic exemption from the liability to pay court fees. In Family Proceedings exemption from fees is already granted automatically to those in receipt of family credit as well as those in receipt of income support or of advice and assistance under the Green Form scheme. Other forms of benefit are in practice taken into account by court staff, to whom the day-to-day exercise of the Lord Chancellor's power to reduce or remit fees is delegated.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Members' Interests
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what occasions(a) Ministers and (b) officials have refused to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings with hon. Members to discuss matters relating to interests registered by those Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8069]

  Dr. David Clark
  The First Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 2850) made it clear that, when Members are meeting Ministers or others on topics in which they have an interest, the onus is on the Member to declare that interest not the Minister to know [paragraph 63 of Cm 2850]. It is not practicable for Ministers and officials, amongst their other duties, to vet requests for meetings against the Register of Members' Interests.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will ensure that(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department refuse requests from hon. Members to (i) arrange and (ii) attend meetings relating to interests held by those Members under categories 1, 2, 3, 4(b), 8 and 9 in the Register of Members' Interests. [8066]

  Dr. Clark
  The First Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 2850) recognised the value of enabling Ministers to retain interests outside the House, provided these were properly declared, both in the Register of Members' Interests and on other occasions. Subject to these requirements, and to the rules of the House relating to delegations to Ministers, Members are free to seek meetings with Ministers and officials, who will consider such requests alongside the many other approaches from individuals and organisations concerned to press their own interests or those of others.

  Commercial Lobbyists
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) on what dates since 1 May(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have met commercial lobbyists to discuss matters relating to the business of his Department; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings; [8067]

  (2) on what dates since 1 May (a) Ministers and
  (b) officials in his Department have attended meetings with organisations representing (i) commercial and (ii) non-commercial interests organised by commercial lobbying firms; and if he will introduce a register of such meetings. [8068]

  Dr. David Clark
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in response to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) 2 June, column 99, Ministers and officials in the Department receive deputations from many groups who are concerned to press their own interests or those of their clients, which Ministers and officials take due care to consider within the wider public interest and Government policy. As it is not practicable to distinguish particular groups as lobbyists, the Department cannot keep a register of such meetings.

  Freedom of Information
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he intends to publish the White Paper on Freedom of Information; and if he will make a statement. [8908]

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to publish his White Paper on Freedom of Information. [9088]

  Dr. David Clark
  I hope to publish the White Paper on Freedom of Information later this year.

  Yorkshire
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which areas of Yorkshire are in the ownership of the Duchy. [6981]

  Dr. David Clark
  [holding answer 16 July 1997]: The Duchy of Lancaster has approximately 18,125 acres of land in Yorkshire in its possession. These include areas of Pontefract, Pickering, Goathland, Cloughton, Scalby and
  334
  Tickhill which are ancient inheritances and mainly consist of farmland and woodland. The Duchy also owns property in Harrogate and Knaresborough.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much his Department spends on biking press releases to(a) hon. Members and (b) other individuals or groups, each time his Department issues a press release; how many such press releases were issued by his Department (i) in the period 1 May to 1 July and (ii) in the period 1 January to 1 March; and if he will review his Department's use of couriers to deliver press releases and investigate the possibility of using fax or e-mail. [8825]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Cabinet Office does not use couriers to bike press notices to hon. Members or to individuals or groups.

  The Department issued 40 press releases in the period from 1 May to 1 July 1997 and 16 press releases from 1 January to 1 March.

  My Department distributes press notices electronically, by fax and by post to ensure that they reach the media on time while ensuring value for money for the taxpayer.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prison Remands: Number
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there has been any recent reduction in the number of people remanded in custody.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the remand population currently stands at 12,100, compared with an average figure in 1996 of 11,600, 11,400 in 1995, and 12,357 in 1994. As a percentage of the total prison population, however, the remand population has declined from 25 per cent. in 1994, to 22 per cent. in 1995, to 21 per cent. in 1996, to 20 per cent. earlier this year.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am very glad to hear of that percentage decline in the remand population. Can the noble Lord provide some advice on the latest figures in the Home Office statistics for 1995? They show that only 48 per cent. of those remanded in custody were sentenced to immediate custody. Does the noble Lord agree that if the up-to-date figures are anything like those for 1995, the number of people remanded in custody is rather large and could be reduced to the great benefit of the Prison Service?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely pertinent point. Apart from the matters to which he has referred, the keys are at least two. The use of bail in appropriate cases is extremely important and delay is also important. The statistic that the noble Lord has given may not tell the whole story. It is well known that some courts do not sentence convicted defendants to prison, bearing in mind that they have already served a certain amount of time on remand while awaiting sentence. That is not entirely an illuminating figure. However, I agree entirely with the general thrust of the noble Lord's question. The policy of the Home Office is to attempt to reduce the number as well as the percentage of those who are on remand in prison.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House whether the figures that he has given are for Great Britain or whether he is following what appears to be the normal practice of Home Office Ministers in giving figures simply for England and Wales but without saying so? The Question is not so limited.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. I have provided England and Wales figures which I believe has been the custom and convention in your Lordships' House. I meant no disrespect to any person incarcerated in a Scottish prison.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that to get a balanced picture of the situation one needs to know the length of time served on remand? Can the Minister give the average length of time which, linked with the numbers, gives the broad picture?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am able to give those figures. During 1996 the average time spent in custody by untried male prisoners was 53 days. That was a reduction from the 1995 average of 56 days. In respect of untried female prisoners, the 1996 figure was 41 days which represents a fall from the previous year's figure of 45 days. Unsentenced convicted males in 1996 spent an average of 34 days in custody—of course, their situation is quite different—and in respect of females, the figure was 31 days. That seems to have been generally consistent as an average since 1992.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, strikes a great echo in my mind? The noble Lord was one of the most notable of the permanent secretaries with whom I was associated in my ministerial career nearly 30 years ago. One of the noble Lord's minor contributions, with his passion for accuracy, was to write, in green ink, in the Answers to Parliamentary Questions, "in England and Wales".
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I share the view which is generally held in the Home Office about the quality of the noble Lord's service as permanent secretary. I am always a little cautious about correspondence that I carry on in green ink. It is often underlined in red several times and consigned to an appropriate dustbin.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, is my noble friend able to inform the House how many of those currently in custody on remand are women and whether the Government have any preliminary reaction to today's shocking report from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons about the women currently in the prison system?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in 1996, 55,600 untried males were received into Prison Service establishments. In the same year, 3,340 untried females were received. That represented a rise of 16 per cent. Any rise in female as well as male incarceration is something that should trouble us all, but it is for the courts to deal with offenders or accused in the way they believe is appropriate. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has issued guidance to magistrates about delay and the prudent use of bail. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is concentrating

1077
keenly on the avoidance of the blemishes that might be prevented if bail conditions were more firmly set in appropriate cases.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, the Minister has identified delay as one of the reasons for the increase in the remand population. Can he inform the House whether fast-track proposals for senior offenders are likely to follow on the back of those for juvenile offenders?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I entirely agree that delay is a blemish on our system. Sometimes it is manipulated by defendants. The Home Secretary has these matters keenly in mind and intends to make an announcement soon. One of the questions under active consideration is the particular conditions of bail. For example, unfortunately, much delay arises because defendants do not consult their lawyers and are therefore able to be provided with a facile excuse for further delay. That matter is being keenly examined at the moment in the Home Office.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree, perhaps drawing on his own experience, that there are occasions when the only factor in mitigation is time spent on remand, and that in those cases it would be no kindness for bail to be granted because there would then be no mitigation at all?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, drawing on my own experience, I always used to try for a little better mitigation than that, frequently before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, when he was sitting as a puisne judge on the Wales and Chester circuit. I did not always succeed. However, the point made by the noble and learned Lord is one that I made earlier. Sometimes, prison is not the ultimate sentencing outcome for the very reason which the noble and learned Lord specified; namely, that a substantial period of imprisonment has already been served. Nevertheless, in our view it is important that bail should be used when it is consistent with public security.

Helms-Burton Act: UK Trade with Cuba
3.10 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider the arrangements between the European Union and the United States concerning the Helms-Burton Act will be satisfactory for United Kingdom trading interests with Cuba.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are working closely with our EU partners to achieve an outcome to the current negotiations which will prove to be satisfactory not only for the UK's trading interests with Cuba but also more widely.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, what the Minister has said sounds rather general, so is he satisfied that the new arrangements will enable European companies to trade without any impediment whatsoever? Furthermore, have any representations been made in Washington by Her Majesty's ambassador there to the US Government about the general iniquities of this extra-territorial legislation?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, neither we nor our predecessors hesitated to condemn the claims for extra-territorial jurisdiction which emerged from this legislation, of which we disapprove very strongly indeed. We believe that the liberalisation of international trade is crucial. We believe that this legislation stands in the way of that objective and we shall use our best endeavours with our European partners and others to ensure that there can be some reasonable measure of satisfaction for our companies, for this country's interests and for European interests by dealing with this in the most effective way. It is interesting that only today President Clinton has ordered a suspension of the law suits under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act for another six months. I think that our representations are having an effect.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, what has been the direct effect of the representations that have been made? Have we been making such representations to the Government of Cuba also so that they are aware of how much this country is interested in using trade as a means of achieving development for a country such as Cuba which has a very long way to go to give its people any real standard of living?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Baroness has touched on a very important point. Of course, we have not hesitated to let Cuba know of our interest in this matter but, equally, we have not hesitated to let Cuba know of breaches of human rights in that country which must also be addressed. Some balance must be applied in such matters and we are seeking to do that. I am sure that the noble Baroness, who is well advised and well aware of these points, will appreciate that in seeking to arrive at a sensitive and proper compromise with the United States on this issue we have to apply some degree of delicacy and tact. Equally, we are letting the United States and Cuba know precisely where we stand on these matters.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, on the question of extra-territoriality, may I ask for a similar assurance that the Government have made representations and continue to make representations about the extra-territorial aspects of the D'Amato-Gilman legislation and Iran?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is so, but it is not a novel feature of United States trade policy. When I was last a Minister—a long time ago now—we had problems affecting the aviation and shipping businesses. People in those businesses from the United Kingdom and other places were threatened with criminal

1079
prosecution and triple damages claims. This is not the way to achieve what the United States has proclaimed that it wishes to achieve, which is a proper liberalisation of world trade while ensuring that the competence of the World Trade Organisation's dispute resolution procedures are properly observed.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, what is the United States position when questioned about other potential aspects of extra-territorial legislation which is being proposed, for example, towards Burma?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is another issue. The question of Burma is very difficult and I do not think that it will be helpful if I embark on a general debate on such matters now. If the noble Viscount wishes to table a Question on Burma in connection with this matter, I should be very happy to answer it.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Minister's responses at the Dispatch Box today, but does he agree that policy towards Cuba should now be based on engagement and dialogue rather than the prohibitive extra-territorial application of the Helms-Burton Act; and, if so, what specific steps (in addition to the welcome steps which the Minister has announced today) does he believe can be taken with his European colleagues?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, obtaining a measure of real unity on this matter with regard to Europe would obviously reinforce our position. We are seeking to achieve agreement on that front. On the question of constructive "engagement and dialogue", to use the noble Lord's term, we are anxious to promote agreement on that basis. It is quite difficult to do so in the light of the Helms-Burton Act, but we shall go on trying.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, am I not right in remembering that when the Helms-Burton Act first came into effect, the European Union (under the leadership of Commissioner Brittan) was all for pressing for extreme results in the World Trade Organisation, but that after President Clinton's softening of the blows by executive action there was a certain retreat in the European Union to see what could be done by negotiation? Is the time coming when it will be necessary to turn up the pressure again to its original level or is it the Government's opinion that the President's recent executive concession will make that still unnecessary?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, we shall continue to seek to persuade and influence the United States, and in particular Congress, to adopt a rather different posture on these matters. The President is not in an easy position and I very much welcome his intervention, to which I referred earlier, which was announced only today. That is a constructive move. The trouble is that there is a real difference of opinion within the United States. We shall continue to express our attitude and that of our colleagues in Europe to ensure that the most liberal terms of trade can be applied and that proper trade can be resumed with Cuba.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of any evidence that restrictions on trade with Cuba over the past 30 years or so have had any liberalising effects in South Cuba?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should have to ponder that question and, as it goes back over 30 years to when I was a mere infant, perhaps I had better avoid it today.

Teacher Training Curricula
3.17 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
How and when they intend to introduce the initial teacher training curricula that were approved by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on 26th June.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, as our White Paper, Excellence in Schools, made clear, improving the skills of our new primary teachers in English and mathematics is critical to raising pupil achievement in the key areas of literacy and numeracy and achieving our literacy and numeracy targets. All initial training providers will be required to introduce the new training curricula for all courses from September 1998. I am delighted that a number of major providers have committed themselves to introducing the curricula from this September. Their experiences will set a standard of best practice for the system.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Would she agree that any curriculum is only as good as its delivery, both by those responsible for teaching it and to those who are going to be? And, if so, which body will she be charging with the task of monitoring the ability and willingness of teacher trainers to instruct their trainees, the future teachers, in these new curricula?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, of course, I agree that, if it is to be effective, the curriculum will depend on the way in which it is delivered, who delivers it and how well it is delivered. We have already written to institutions making clear the new requirements that they must meet, and we shall issue a formal departmental circular confirming those requirements.
All training provision will continue to be subject to rigorous inspection by Ofsted, which will ensure that providers meet the new requirements. The White Paper makes clear that firm action will be taken where provision fails to meet the new standards.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, as the poor quality of much of our initial teaching training over the past 30 years or so starts to be generally recognised by the public, would the Government reconsider the proposal to allow mothers, whose children have grown up but who in their day achieved good degrees or good

1081
A-levels, to teach in our schools, perhaps after the very briefest of teacher training courses outwith the existing teacher training institutions?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Lord suggests that the quality of teacher training has been inadequate for a long time. I must remind your Lordships' House that the noble Lord's party was in government for 18 years and perhaps took rather a long time to rectify some of those problems. The new Government are doing so immediately.
The noble Lord asked a question about the training of mothers who wish to return or take up a job in teaching. It is just as important that women, even if experienced as mothers, should receive proper training to be teachers as it is for any young person who wishes to join the profession.
Lord Parry: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that there are two further dimensions in relation to the question asked by the noble Lord opposite? First, some of the best and most experienced teachers in the land have been bought early out of service in order to solve financial problems which have existed over a number of years. They now provide a pool of people who might well come into service in giving voluntary assistance with, for example, reading problems. But it is highly dangerous to suggest that we might inject into our professional teaching service a group of people who are not subject to the controls and disciplines which exist in the rest of the system.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I share my noble friend's regret that qualified and experienced teachers have been forced into early retirement in some parts of the country as a result of shortage of funding.
As regards the second part of my noble friend's question, it would be extremely desirable if some of those teachers were available to be recruited back into the profession; and if they are not available, that they might do some voluntary work. But of course it is important that all teachers in our schools are trained properly for the job in hand.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness's reply and much in the Government's initiatives. However, perhaps I may underline the worries expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, about how those matters will be implemented. Is the noble Baroness prepared to come back to the House in two years' time to report on how successful those initiatives have been? The Ofsted inspections may not be sufficient and may need to be considered in greater detail.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, would like to table either a Starred Question or an Unstarred Question or, indeed, a Motion for debate, of course, we should be delighted to answer him.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I admire the elegance of the noble Baroness in many ways, but
1082
this is a serious question which the Minister should be prepared to answer. Surely the Minister is prepared to report on an initiative.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have just given what I hoped was a helpful answer. I said that if the noble Lord wishes at any time to raise the matter of how successful is initial teacher training for primary teachers, particularly with respect to the preparation of teaching English and mathematics, the Government will be delighted to provide all the information that they have available.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, in view of the lengthy article in the Scotsman recently, deploring, to my utter surprise, the present standard of school teaching north of the Border, has she considered commending the new teacher training procedures to her right honourable friend Mr. Dewar?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as the noble Lord acknowledges, teacher training is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I shall ask him to write to the noble Lord about the arrangements. However, I am sure that he would permit me to say that, while we do not always go about things in the same way north and south of the Border, there is absolutely no difference in our commitment to raising standards in education.

Leghold Traps: EU Fur Import Ban
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking in the Council of Ministers to secure the implementation of EU Regulation 3254/91 banning the import of furs into the European Union from countries which still sanction the use of the leghold trap.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government remain committed to ending the use of leghold traps. We shall continue to resist adoption of the framework agreement on humane trapping standards because it does not go far enough in banning the use of leghold traps. If the agreement is rejected by the Council of Ministers next week, we shall press the Commission to bring forward the necessary measures to implement the fur import ban as soon as possible.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Yes, of course I welcome that reply as far as it goes. But is it not a fact that at the meeting next Tuesday of the Council of Foreign Ministers our own Foreign Secretary will have an opportunity to vote out that inadequate alleged agreement in relation to allegedly more humane methods of trapping animals by the leg to restrain and kill them? Is the Minister not aware that the Environment Council and the European Parliament previously rejected that framework agreement out of hand? Can we please ask that the British Government

1083
vote boldly at next Tuesday's meeting and that we insist that EU Regulation 3254/91 is implemented without further delay?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The weaknesses in the agreement that is to be considered at the General Council next week is that, far from prohibiting leghold traps, it risks giving an international seal of approval to padded leghold traps and drowning leghold traps. The Government believe strongly that that agreement must not be accepted next week. If no further satisfactory agreement is reached under the terms to which my noble friend referred, the Government believe that there should be an implementation of the ban.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, what confidence do the Government have that a European Union ban will accelerate significantly the phasing out of those traps in view of the fact that non-European markets are also being exploited?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is a difficult area. The Commission has produced a certification system which would require that all fur imports from countries that had implemented the ban were accompanied by an appropriate certificate. It is sometimes difficult to police legislation, but as with domestic legislation, where there is a strong moral case, that must be done.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the noble Baroness enlighten the House as to whether this regulation is to be made by unanimity, in which case, of course, we would have a veto, or whether it is to be made by qualified majority vote? If it is the latter, what hope is she able to hold out of Her Majesty's Government carrying the day?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is always difficult to predict the exact line that a vote will take. We are aware of concerns. Perhaps I ought not to give that information to your Lordships. It is quite clear that if a majority vote is against implementing the agreement and the agreement is not to go ahead, we need to influence people to ensure initially that we seek to achieve a proper agreement with the countries concerned.
I think I did say, "if a majority voted against the agreement". I apologise. I failed to express myself properly. If we fail to achieve a vote against implementing the agreement, obviously we will wish to take the matter further. If we are successful in preventing an agreement going ahead which is unacceptable, we will then have to use the argument that we are prepared to face in detail the issue of the World Trade Organisation being threatened by Canada and—
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is it not a fact that, even if the framework agreement for this allegedly more humane system of trapping were to be approved, it still would not include the United States of America, which has the largest number of sinners in this field of any
1084
country? Therefore, even the Trade Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, would have no grounds then for refusing to operate the import ban against furs coming from the United States. Will the Minister bear that in mind?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I shall ensure that the concerns raised by my noble friend will be borne in mind. It is the case that the USA Federal Government are unwilling to sign the agreement or enter into a legally-binding agreement because of the constitutional difficulties as regards the rights of individual states. However, the concerns raised by my noble friend are, of course, important and ought to apply to the states.

Business
3.31 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for intervening in the normal course of business. However, I should like to record our gratitude to the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms for telling us recently about the date for the beginning of the current Summer Recess. Perhaps I may ask the Lord Privy Seal whether we might not be favoured with a further piece of information as soon as possible, as the end of term is approaching. The piece of information that I believe the House would like to hear is whether the government business managers could give us some indication of the date of our return.
As your Lordships know, this House proceeds by agreement. I hope that the government business managers will agree that the relations between the usual channels since the election have been both constructive and—I hope that they feel as I do—agreeable. In particular, we have ensured, and will continue to ensure, that we deliver Bills within the agreed timetable.
Further, I wonder whether the government business managers will also agree that our ability to help with the smooth running of business depends on more than just good will and mutual esteem, important though those two qualities are. In particular, I hope that they will further agree that it also depends on a legislative programme which is not overloaded and which preserves a balance of substantial Bills beginning in this House as well as in another place. Therefore, I wonder whether the Lord Privy Seal will accept that, on this side of the House, we look forward to the business managers in this House being able to persuade their government colleagues of the importance of that balance.
I have to say in particular that the House would not take kindly to being asked to sit on into August this time next year, or indeed to indulge in a long spill-over period, simply because of the Government's failure to plan business adequately. I am sure that this marker is otiose, but I trust that your Lordships would welcome a reassurance from the Lord Privy Seal on the point, so that we are perfectly clear as to the basis of any negotiations which may take place in the coming 12 months.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, one of the interesting aspects about the usual channels, as I always understood them, is the fact that they flow not only in this Chamber but also down the Corridor and back again. Moreover, I always understood the usual channels to be deep and, on the- whole, fairly impenetrable. I am not prepared to see the usual channels being discussed across the Dispatch Boxes of this House without any notice whatever being given to the Government. If the noble Viscount has legitimate points to raise—and he clearly has—naturally, in their usual spirit of conciliation, the Government will do their best to deal with them.
However, with the greatest respect to the noble Viscount, for him to get up and, so to speak, fire a shotgun in a scatter way at the usual channels who were sitting here very peacefully and quietly in total ignorance of the fact that they were about to be aimed at, is, if I may say so, a little strong. As regards keeping the House sitting until August next year, I am reliably informed that the noble Viscount's noble friend Lord Denham once kept the House sitting until August 12th—a date which, no doubt, is of much more importance to that side of the House than it is to my noble friends on this side. I shall do my very best to ensure that this House will have recessed by August 12th next year, so that pursuits which are no doubt keenly followed can be pursued.
So far as concerns the remainder of the noble Viscount's remarks, I should point out that there will be a number of Bills starting in this House. We shall announce those Bills in due course which will be starting their passage in this House. I have great hopes that the Bills which will start in this Chamber will be sufficiently important so that this House will be pleased that they do so. However, I do not intend to start wrangling about the issue again.
As to when the House goes into Recess, we shall be in a position to announce that date shortly. However, I do not believe that I can do so today. I am sorry, I meant to refer to the date when the House returns after the Recess; of course, I appreciate that we all know when we are going down. Indeed, I hope to be in a position shortly to announce when the House comes back in October. Finally, I can only say to the noble Viscount that I hope this is not the way in which the usual channels will be expected to work in the future.

Parliamentary Privilege: Joint Committee
3.37 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Your Lordships may recall that in a Written Answer on 9th June I told the House that, in the Government's judgment, the time was now ripe for a general review of parliamentary privilege. Three related considerations led us to that conclusion. The first is our declared intention to modernise Parliament, which has already borne fruit in the setting up of the Select Committee in
1086
another place with a wide-ranging remit to recommend reforms of its practices and procedures. As part of the modernisation initiative, it is surely right that there should now be a fundamental reappraisal of the kind of legal immunities which Parliament and its Members should enjoy at the end of the 20th century and the start of the 21st.
Secondly, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has announced proposals for taking forward a general reform of the corruption statutes, which will include clarifying the law on bribery of Members of both Houses of Parliament in their parliamentary capacity. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the considerable implications which this will have for parliamentary privilege need to be examined very carefully before any legislation on the subject is introduced.
Thirdly, as your Lordships are aware, there have been several instances in recent years in which there have been difficulties in marking the frontier between Parliament and the courts. Your Lordships will doubtless recall the debates in this House last year on an amendment to the Defamation Bill, which allowed Members of either House, whose conduct was in issue in defamation cases, to wave the protection of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights if they chose to do so. On that occasion, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, called for a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the serious constitutional issues raised by the amendment—a call that was supported by many other noble Lords including, I am glad to say, the then Leader of the Opposition.
That issue—and, of course, others—would fall within the scope of the comprehensive review that the Government now propose. As questions of parliamentary privilege affect both Houses, it is clearly appropriate that any review should be conducted by a Joint Committee of both Houses. The Government hope that it might be possible to complete the review by early next year.
Moved, That this House do concur with the Commons in their Message of Thursday last, that it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to review parliamentary privilege and to make recommendations thereon.—(Lord Richard.)
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the whole House should be extremely grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for this announcement in pursuance of his Written Answer of 9th June. We on this side of the House warmly welcome the proposal. If nothing else, the debates on the Defamation Bill in the previous Parliament showed the importance of this procedure. There was clearly a need to examine the workings of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights in the light of developments that have occurred particularly in the latter decades of the past 300 years.
The privileges of Parliament and its Members have become a legitimate subject for debate. Nevertheless, the privilege of Parliament should be dear to all Members of both Houses. It is therefore entirely appropriate that, as both Houses are affected, both

1087
should examine the issue. The Joint Committee of both Houses that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal suggests would seem to be an entirely appropriate mechanism. Having said that, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal can tell us whether the Joint Committee's remit will be as broad as possible. Clearly, this is a subject with many ramifications going right to the roots of our system of parliamentary government. I hope that the tradition of committees, particularly of this House, to give riding instructions which are not too specific—if I may put it that way—but which are broad in their effect will be appropriate in this case.
Can the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal also assure the House—I am sure he will be able to do so—that there will be adequate representation on the committee from this House, particularly in view of the considerable breadth of experience available here which could give a helpful slant to the committee's deliberations over and above the interests that this House may have compared to another place? Can the noble Lord give any guidance as to the Government's thinking on the chairmanship of the committee? If he is not in a position to do so, I quite accept that this may he a matter to be discussed at a later date.
We on this side of the House greatly welcome the measure. Indeed, it would be odd if we did not, because, as the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal knows, this was a measure and a proceeding which I strongly advocated during the course of the previous Parliament. It would therefore be perverse to do anything except commend the Government for their action.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, we are wholly content with what is proposed. We think it appropriate to proceed by means of a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. I take it that there will be the normal consultation as regards membership from your Lordships' House. If the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has anything to say, not about the name but in what direction he would expect the chairmanship to lie, we shall be interested to hear what he has to say. We remember with a certain ironic amusement the great fuss which was made as regards getting the Defamation Act on to the statute book. That was a classic example of a squib which blew up in a direction that was not intended.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the European dimension of this matter be borne in mind? I venture to address the usual channels on both sides of the House as there is a degree of unanimity on the attitude they take towards such matters. It is clear to a number of people—certainly to me—that the area within which parliamentary privilege operates in both Houses is progressively diminishing with the incursion by the European Commission and others on the undoubted rights and privileges we enjoy in this country. I hope therefore that the European dimension will be taken quite seriously into account by both sides. As an earnest of my good intentions, I offer my services if these are necessary.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I very much welcome the proposal. The essential feature in the
1088
constitution, the Bill of Rights, is now in a state of confusion. As the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal says, a particularly serious feature is that the situation now allows the courts and Parliament to come into collision. That has been carefully avoided for the past 150 years. I entirely agree, for the reasons given, that a Joint Select Committee is the appropriate organ now.
I ask two questions. The first concerns the Scottish dimension. Contemporaneously with the English Bill of Rights there was a Scottish claim of rights. Its status is not entirely clear at the moment. Moreover, it is in different terms from the Bill of Rights. The Scottish claim of rights asserts freedom of debate in Parliament but does not, as the English measure does, make proceedings in Parliament inadmissible in a court of law. That is certainly a matter that will require investigation, all the more so in view of current proposals to establish a Scottish parliament.
My question to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal is: will the terms of reference be wide enough to embrace the Scottish implications? Even if it is decided finally that it should be a matter for a Scottish parliament, it can hardly be other than an advantage that the matter should be considered by the Joint Select Committee.
My second question relates to another matter to which the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal adverted; namely, the Home Office initiative. Last December the Home Office issued a consultative document on the question of bribery of Members of Parliament. As the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal indicated, the present Home Secretary has recently taken that up. But surely it would be highly undesirable to have two inquiries going on simultaneously with overlapping terms of reference. I hope that in spite of what I trust is a provisional view the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal will be able to assure your Lordships that the Joint Select Committee will now have exclusive cognisance and that the Home Office will hand over any material it has accumulated.
My final point is a personal one. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has disclaimed any credit for what is now proposed. But in fact what is now proposed is what he originally advocated at the time of discussion on the Defamation Bill. He is now a senior member of the Cabinet. I hope that he will allow us to say that we consider ourselves in his debt.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I add my strong welcome for this initiative as someone who participated in the debates in May 1996. It is timely and important. I shall not rehearse the arguments then made and defeated. However, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal one question about what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred to as the European dimension, but in a rather different direction.
In 1991 Mr. Demicoli, a journalist, was fined in Malta by the House of Representatives for describing a Minister as a clown in his satirical periodical. The European Court of Human Rights found that the use of the contempt procedure in Malta by its parliament had breached the European Convention on Human Rights. It left open the important question, which would apply to our Parliament, as to whether the use of the ancient

1089
contempt procedure satisfied the requirements of a fair trial by proper judicial procedure. Will the terms of reference of the Joint Committee be wide enough to encompass our obligations under Article 6 of the convention in that context?
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, following the changes to our ancient rights of privilege as Members of Parliament last year as a result of the amendment to the Defamation Bill, I am aware of concern expressed by Commonwealth parliamentarians—many of whose parliamentary systems are based on our own—about the implications of the changes as regards their privileges as members of parliament in their countries. While I am sure that it would not be right for us to defer to any outside considerations in determining any future system of parliamentary privilege for our Parliament in Westminster, perhaps the Joint Committee will bear in mind any knock-on Commonwealth implication. In its deliberations, perhaps it will consult with the Commonwealth regarding those implications.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal bear in mind that my generation of Peers joined your Lordships' House at a time when no one told us anything? I knew nothing then, and I have learnt nothing since.
Will the noble Lord ensure that the committee has a partly didactic purpose so that it can tell some of us what parliamentary privilege is and what privileges we have? I have listened to people talk on the subject for the past decade. None of it has borne any resemblance to the reality that I have experienced. It would be nice to know what parliamentary privilege is so that we can decide whether it is a privilege that we want or one that we need to reform.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. Perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that I disclaim paternity for this progeny. It is always a great satisfaction, having expressed one's views, when, purely coincidentally, some months afterwards, other people seem to share those views. Perhaps that is my situation today.
I seek to answer the questions posed. A number of noble Lords referred to the terms of reference of the committee. They will be deliberately wide. The objective of the exercise is to have a general review of parliamentary privilege for many of the reasons that I gave earlier. The terms will be wide enough to cover the two points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I am sure that the European aspect in both the forms raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester and by my noble friend Lord Bruce will be within the terms of reference of the committee. I am sure that if the committee finds it helpful, it will consider the Commonwealth situation, as called for by my noble friend Lord Monkswell. I am sure that it will have in mind the knock-on effect, if I may so put it, of what occurs here in relation to other legislatures which have based themselves on the Westminster platform.
1090
Perhaps I may say this to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. There will indeed be adequate representation from this House. I am not in a position today to give any guidance as to the chairmanship. It is being considered quietly and discreetly, as I think the noble Viscount knows, by the usual channels. When the usual channels reach the stage that they can bring forth, no doubt they will do so.
Finally, perhaps I may say the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I hope that we shall all learn a lot from the committee. It is an important but slightly arcane subject. I hope that the Joint Committee will be able to shed some light on these perhaps not over-illuminated parts of our constitution. I commend the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Education (Schools) Bill
3.57 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Transitional arrangements for existing assisted places]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert—
("() in the case of a pupil with an assisted place at a school providing education for children up to the age of 13 but not beyond. at the end of the school year in which he attains the age of 13; or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have put forward this amendment because it concerns a broken promise. As was said in Committee and at an earlier stage, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Peers believe that a promise was made on behalf of the party now in government that children should be allowed to remain in their preparatory schools until the age of 13.
Noble Lords opposite argued that it is better for a child to move from primary to secondary school at the age of 11 years. The Minister spoke of the advantages of moving to secondary school at that age as most of the children within the maintained sector move at 11. But surely in the end it is the parents who should make that final decision.
The noble Baroness also spoke of the powers of discretion which the Secretary of State has with regard to 11 to 13 year-olds. I do not doubt her sincerity when she assured the House that these powers would be used sympathetically. However, we on this side of the House maintain that it is for parents to make that decision and not the Secretary of State. We feel that we would be failing in our duty as a revising Chamber if we did not put forward this amendment.
A promise was made, and a promise is now to be broken. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the letter which was sent to the chairman of the Association of

1091
Preparatory Schools, referred to at Second Reading and again in Committee last week. It stated:
"If a child has a place at school which runs to 13, then that place is to be honoured"—
a clear indication by the then Opposition spokesman on education, Mr. Peter Kilfoyle. On 15th May 1997 Mrs. Gillan, the Member for Chesham and Amersham, asked the Secretary of State in another place whether he would confirm,
"that only a few weeks before the general election he allowed the new assisted places to go ahead from 1 September".
In his reply the Secretary of State said:
"The hon. Lady is correct. During the general election campaign, I said that children who have been allocated places will be permitted to take them up. We shall legislate within weeks to ensure that schools do not abuse the licence that was given to them to look after the interests of children by agreeing to places for 1998 or 1999 onwards. The hallmark of this Government will be to put children before dogma. It will be to ensure that the interests of our children come first on every occasion".— [Official Report, Commons, 15/5/97; cols. 182–3.]
If that is not a promise, I do not know what a promise is.
This is a moral issue to which I do not feel the Government have given the full attention it deserves. I hope that the Government, having had time to consider the arguments, will alter their original decision. I do not feel that the moral issue has been addressed properly. A promise was made, and that promise should not be broken. I beg to move the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, this amendment is, word for word, the amendment that I moved a week ago today in Committee. On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in supporting me on this issue, said:
"there is scarcely a cigarette paper's difference between the noble Lord and myself".—[Official Report, 10/7/97; col. 784.]
The noble Lord is far better qualified that I am to know the dimensions of a cigarette paper. It may well be that on this particular point our views have converged. However, I feel it necessary to start by saying that, to the extent that they have converged on this particular point, they do so from almost completely opposite directions.
We have consistently opposed the assisted places scheme. We have opposed its extension; indeed, the very recent extension of the scheme which in effect is the subject of this amendment I myself opposed vigorously earlier this year. Almost the last words I spoke in this House before the general election were spoken in very reluctant acceptance of the clause that gave effect to it on the basis that commitments had already been given and we accepted that they had to be honoured.
However, at that time I asked how those commitments could have been given apparently a month before discussion on the Bill that would make provision for such commitments to be made. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has complained several times that he has not received answers to his questions. Neither then, nor since, have I received an answer from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, or any of his colleagues to that particular point.
1092
In Committee I set out the background to this issue fairly fully and set out my views. I do not intend to take the time of the House today in going over the same ground. It would not greatly profit us. I understand, and I think I accept, that the Minister does not wish to see a blanket provision of this nature on the face of the Bill. She has given her reasons—one being fear of possible abuse. I wonder whether in replying she might say rather more about what she has in mind in terms of that abuse. Although it was not the intention, the impression could have been given at Committee stage of a suggestion that all preparatory schools in this position will seek to exploit their position, perhaps against the best interests of the pupils and perhaps without even advising parents of what might be a better option.
As I said then, I accept that in most cases it will be a better option for children transferring to the state sector to do so at age 11 where that is the normal transfer age. However, I stressed last week, and the noble Baroness has just done so again today, that that decision belongs with the parents concerned and not with the Government.
What I sought last week, and seek again, is that what I termed the spirit of the Kilfoyle letter should be honoured—in other words, the Government when exercising their discretion should start with what might be called the presumption of innocence, the presumption in favour of those pupils and parents who find themselves in the position to which the Kilfoyle letter referred. That is what we seek today. The Minister moved some way towards that position last week. If she is able to take a few more steps towards that today, I shall certainly listen with interest. I have absolutely no wish to extend either the life or the operation of this scheme one day longer than is necessary.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if I may paraphrase Nell Gwyn, I am a Liberal Democrat cigarette paper. It is a well-known principle that changes in educational policy, good or bad, are brought in with respect to commitments to existing students. That is a good and important principle. It is very rarely broken. I recall it being broken once, by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in her first week in office. The noble Baroness was persuaded to think better of it. For the first time, and possibly for the last, I urge the Government to follow the example of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it may be helpful to the House if I start by addressing the participation of preparatory schools in the assisted places scheme before turning to address the detail of the amendment before us.
As I explained in Committee, the admission of free-standing preparatory schools into the assisted places scheme formed part of the previous Government's expansion policy. The first phase of the expansion led to the creation of nearly 5,000 new entry places in senior schools, some in integral junior departments for children below the age of 11 with effect from September 1996. But it was only under the second phase of the expansion that preparatory schools were invited to bid to join the scheme.

1093
Some 70 free-standing preparatory schools in England were notified as recently as February 1997 that they would be admitted to the scheme from September 1997. There are already a dozen preparatory schools in Scotland in the scheme, but there are none in Wales. In total, there could be some 400 pupils in preparatory schools which take pupils up to the age of 13 in the scheme from September 1997. I hope that that clarifies the position so far as the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, are concerned.
There are at present no pupils yet admitted to nine-to-13 preparatory schools in England and Wales under the scheme. So we are talking about very recent developments, all of which have taken place in the knowledge that the Labour Party's clear policy was firmly established on the phasing out of the scheme.
As I made clear in Committee, when a child in a preparatory school has been given a clear promise that he or she can keep the place through to the age of 13 in the belief that the new Government had given such an undertaking, we shall honour that commitment. In Committee, I set out why this commitment is being met through the use of the discretionary power rather than an express provision in the Bill. However, I appreciate that this remains a matter of concern to some noble Lords opposite. Therefore I want to go a little further to address those concerns so that noble Lords opposite will, I hope, feel able to accept that there is nothing between us in substance.
When introducing his amendment in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, sought an assurance that the presumption would be that pupils in preparatory schools would be able to continue with their assisted place through to age 13 if their parents wished them to do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, also expressed the view that the decision should ultimately rest with parents; and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has just repeated that view. Both those points are helpful to me in dealing with the concerns raised. I hope that I shall now be able to provide the assurances sought.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, cited a number of examples of children who had received assurances that they would be able to keep their place. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, queried whether a commitment given in the light of the letter from Peter Kilfoyle would meet the conditions for the exercise of the discretion. The presumption will be that any parent who has accepted an assisted place running through to age 13 in a free-standing preparatory school on the basis of the Kilfoyle letter will have that place honoured. I can confirm that in such circumstances the commitment will be honoured through the use of the discretionary power.
Noble Lords opposite seem to believe that all preparatory schools will have made offers of places through to the age of 13 on the understanding that these would be honoured. If it can be demonstrated that the offers were made on the strength of the Kilfoyle letter, then, yes, we shall exercise discretion so that those pupils will be able to keep their places through to the age of 13. Our policy will be to accede to applications
1094
for discretion in circumstances such as those, although, of course, we shall still have to examine the facts of each case.
Perhaps I may give the undertaking that noble Lords opposite have sought that there will be a presumption that support will be extended in the circumstances I have just described. Subject to a check of the commitment given to the parents, and provided the parents want the child to continue through to age 13, then we shall provide support through to age 13.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will accept that I am giving him the assurance which he sought in Committee that the spirit of the Kilfoyle letter is being honoured through the use of the discretionary power. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will also accept that.
My difficulty is that I do not share the certainty of noble Lords opposite over the way that commitments have been given. I believe there may well be cases where parents were not given a clear commitment. I know it to be the case that some schools did not make firm offers of assisted places until after the Bill was published. In those cases, schools should only have made offers through to the age of 11. Others may not have made a clear promise of the duration of the place. That is why we want an arrangement where individual cases can be checked.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, pressed me in Committee and has done so again today on the meaning of "open to abuse". We are in agreement that the right age for children to transfer to state secondary schools is 11. That is the sensible solution for parents and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would also accept that that must be right in the vast majority of cases.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, rightly stressed that parents will have a view about whether transfer at a different age would be better, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I am sure that the vast majority of schools will act honourably and seek to do the right thing by the pupils in their charge. But I am afraid that we cannot rule out the possibility that a school—perhaps giving prominence to its own interests—may not ensure that parents consider all the available options. I am not saying that I in any way believe that they would coerce parents; rather that they might not ensure that parents were in a position to take a balanced view about the opportunities available in the state sector and what might be in the child's best interests long term.
For those reasons, we continue to take the view that the use of the discretionary power which allows the details of individual cases to be checked is the right way forward. I hope that in the light of the further assurances that I have given noble Lords opposite—
Lord Tope: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me for intervening. However, before she sits down I wish to thank her for the statement, which has been extremely helpful. Obviously it is for the movers of the amendment to decide what they do next.

1095
But I believe that the assurances that the Minister has given satisfy me and I would not wish to press the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting the assurances. I hope that, in the light of the further assurances I have given, noble Lords who put the amendment today will accept that our plans address the concerns that they have raised, while also providing a necessary check to ensure that the additional public resources are made available only to honour commitments properly given. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and with the leave of the House, she mentioned children in schools in Scotland on the assisted places scheme. I am sure that she appreciates that the normal time for children to move to secondary education in Scotland is not 11-plus but 12-plus, so that those children will all be involved. The amendment would apply to them all, it seems to me. Does the Minister therefore feel that the discretion would have to be exercised in Scotland for all those pupils when there is no possibility of any other leaving age for them?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I made absolutely clear at the Committee stage that we would exercise the discretion in relation to all those children where the age of transfer from primary to secondary school was higher than the age of 11. If it is the age of 12, of course, we shall exercise our discretion in relation to all those pupils.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are at Report stage and only the mover of the amendment has the right to speak after the Minister.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I have listened with great care to the noble Baroness's words. I do not wish in any way to suggest that I do not believe that she would honour the commitment she makes. She is an honourable person and I am sure that she would. I also heard and understood what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, that he wanted to withdraw his support for the amendment. However, I go back to my original comment: a promise was given and I think that it should be honoured. I do not feel that it has been honoured in the way that it should be. The use is still discretionary, however much and however widely it is looked at. I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply. A promise was made and a promise is now to be broken. I beg leave to ask the opinion of the House.
4.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1 shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 127; Not-Contents, 90.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

James of Holland Park, B.

Ailsa, M.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Aldington, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kenyon, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Kingsland, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Kitchener, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Leigh, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Biddulph, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blaker, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boardman, L.

McConnell, L.

Bowness, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bridges, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Broadbridge, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Monson, L.

Byford, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Cadman, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Caldecote, V.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Moynihan, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Munster, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Newall, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Northesk, E.

Colwyn, L.

Norton, L.

Courtown, E. [Teller.]

O'Cathain, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cranborne, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Perry of Walton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Denbigh E

Prior, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Pym, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Downshire, M.

Rawlings, B.

Drogheda, E.

Renton, L.

Dundee, E.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Romney, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Elles, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sandwich, E.

Flather, B.

Sharples, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gainford, L.

Strafford, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strange, B.

Geddes, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Terrington, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Teviot, L.

Hampden, V.

Thurlow, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Vivian, L.

Hemphill, L.

Weatherill, L.

Holderness, L.

Westbury, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wilcox, B.

Ilchester, E.

Windlesham, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Berkeley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blackstone, B.

Annan, L.

Blease, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

1097

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Judd, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Lestor of Eccles, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Lockwood, B.

Chandos, V.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clancarty, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Mallalieu, B.

David, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Molloy, L.

Desai, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dixon, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donoughue, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Parry, L.

Eatwell, L.

Paul, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Peston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Gallacher, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gilbert, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Graham of Edmonton L

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Serota, B.

Hardie, L.

Sewel, L.

Haskel, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hayman, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Headfort, M.

Stallard, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Howell, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Howie of Troon, L

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hoyle, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hughes, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord

Whaddon, L.

Chancellor]

Whitty, L. [Teller.]

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert ("; or
() in the case of a school which normally provides both primary and secondary education and which has a single school number assigned to it and one participation agreement, on completion of his secondary education at that school.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not dwell too much on the detail of the amendment, which was discussed quite considerably in Committee. It concerns schools that make no distinction between their junior and senior sections. They are one school. The staff serve in both schools; the children play in the same school team, belong to the same orchestra and the same choirs and eat in the same dining hall.
In schools of that kind, which are enlarged—the independent day schools of England, mainly the former direct grant schools—the only pupils who would leave that school at age 11 would, under the present Bill, be in the assisted places. Pupils holding assisted places would have to leave at age 11. They would be the only children leaving that school.
Let me point out that, by 1997, there will be only 179 pupils in the category considered by this amendment. The cost to the state of keeping those pupils and not disrupting their education would be around £500,000, diminishing considerably year by year. The cost to the state of those pupils would be approximately the cost of refurbishing the Lord Chancellor's apartments; in other words, a minor cost in the bill of the state.
I accept totally what the noble Baroness said very convincingly at Second Reading. I agree with her that the Government have a different philosophy of education from that which we hold on these Benches. I accept the commitment put in the manifesto and that the Government have every right to implement their philosophy and get rid of assisted places. I do not object to that. In a democratic society, we accept the results of an election.
The purpose of the amendment is this. It is not the fault of those children who entered all-purpose schools that they have been caught in an ideological battlefield. The battlefield is of our making, not theirs. I repeat, Amendment No. 2 does not affect the Government's desire to fulfil their manifesto commitment. The kind of money that will be spent on those children is not large enough to stop the Government from fulfilling their desire to reduce class sizes. The amendment merely asks the Government to show concern for a small number of pupils—179 in 1997 and reducing rapidly over the next few years. That would cost £500,000 at the most and, in the end, one would be using one's power of paying a lump sum because the administrative costs would be more than the cost of supporting those children.
If the Government are not prepared to give ground on this, they will cause considerable disruption to those children. They will drive them out of the schools which their parents chose; they will drive them out as an isolated minority; surely there is room for compromise in that situation. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, when the Minister replies, will he tell me what one does if one has an assisted place at a school, in a category indicated by my noble friend Lord Pilkington, which is of a religious complexion? Where does one obtain a similar religious education if one cannot continue all the way through the programme?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, explained that he is seeking to extend the entitlement of primary age assisted place holders at schools that provide both primary and secondary education. The noble Lord's intention is to give all such primary aged assisted place holders the right to hold their places until they complete their education—presumably until the age of 18.
Perhaps I may first set out why we will resist the amendment in principle before moving on to say how it falls technically short of its aims. We are honouring our

1099
commitment to those on the scheme. The vast majority of places are at secondary school. By phasing out the scheme over seven years, secondary age assisted pupils will be able to complete their secondary education through to A-levels.
In practice, the amendment would mean an extension of the assisted places scheme far beyond what is reasonable. Providing primary aged pupils with an assisted place, some as young as five, through to age 18 would mean running the scheme for another 13 years. We never said that we would support primary aged assisted places at all-through schools. The noble Lord is wrong also about his numbers. The amendment would cover around 3,000 pupils in England, Wales and Scotland and the total cost of such provision would be £100 million to fund the education of those 3,000 or so assisted place holders through to age 18.
We have made a commitment to the 3,000 or so primary aged assisted place holders to fund their education through to age 11. That will cost in the region of £30 million. That is a generous and appropriate commitment in the circumstances. We estimate that the effect of the amendment could cost an additional £70 million, which is the difference between the two figures I quoted.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, my figure of 179 was pupils under 11 for 1997. Did the noble Lord's figure relate to that? I said that there would be only 179 children in the scheme after 1997 and all of them under 11. My figure of 3,000 relates to a different statistic.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my figure relates to the entrants who came in in 1997 and our estimation is that there are 3,000 primary aged assisted places at all-through schools. Perhaps I may go on to explain why the noble Lord's amendment does not cover all-through schools. However, I want to make the educational point first.
It is not unreasonable to expect primary aged pupils to transfer schools at the age of 11. As we have said, over 500,000 pupils change schools at that age every year, with due allowance to the position in Scotland to which the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, referred and to those places in England and Wales which have middle schools.
Why should assisted place pupils be treated differently? We have faith in the state sector and its ability to provide for able pupils. We promised not to disrupt those pupils' education in the long term. Joining their contemporaries at the age of 11 is the best point for those pupils to enter the maintained sector. Pupils come and go from the independent sector for a number of reasons and there is rather more movement in and out of the sector than the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, suggested at Committee stage. I can see no justification for maintaining an assisted place after the point where it is possible to transfer to the state sector and at such considerable cost to the taxpayer.
1100
I turn to the detail of the amendment. I do not believe that it would completely achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, intends. First, it would have the effect of differentiating between those schools that have one participation agreement and one school number, and those that have one participation agreement that covers more than one school. For example, excluded from the amendment would be Malvern College which has one participation agreement that covers the college and its three feeder preparatory schools, but each school is registered with the department under a separate number. Epsom College has one participation agreement that covers both the college and four feeder preparatory schools, all with separate establishment numbers. I could name others.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has spoken previously about St. Paul's School and Norwich School. As I am sure he is aware, they come within the scope of the amendment because each has a single participation agreement and a single establishment number. But schools like the others I cited would not be covered. The amendment discriminates against those schools with one participation agreement and more than one establishment number. It would randomly exclude certain schools and I do not believe that the noble Lord intended that.
Secondly, preparatory schools that take pupils to age 13 provide both primary and secondary education. They have one participation agreement and one establishment number. It would not be possible for an assisted place pupil at a preparatory school to complete his secondary education at a preparatory school that only provides education to age 13. The wording of the amendment relates to completing education. The amendment would therefore create an entitlement that could not be fulfilled.
Perhaps I can come back to the issue of numbers since I possibly introduced a degree of confusion into the matter myself. The 3,000 pupils whom I mentioned are all those in this scheme under the age of 11 in all-through schools who would be able to continue until age 18 if the amendment were agreed to. That is the significant figure with which we should be concerned and that is the cost with which we should be concerned. Therefore, both for reasons of principle and because of the defects of the amendment and the unfairness it would introduce, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I did not hear him answer my question in relation to people who chose to see their education through to age 18 in a religious establishment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg the pardon of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. There are a wide variety of religious schools in the state sector and I cannot think of any circumstances in which it would not be possible for those who leave the assisted places scheme and return to the state sector to obtain religious education.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, perhaps I can enlighten the Minister. Claremont Fan Court School is

1101
a Christian Science school which sees pupils through from eight to 18. Perhaps he can tell me where that exists in the state sector.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if it does have assisted places then I agree that there could be a problem. In that case I am quite sure that the Secretary of State would use his discretionary powers under the Bill most sympathetically.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I begin with the technicalities which of course are the problem of the Government. If they want to accept the principle of the amendment the Bill could easily be amended on Third Reading.
As to the point raised, Malvern does not fall within my category. The schools are separate. I was thinking definitely of schools which are on the same site, the traditional day schools. The amendment is designed to include them. Malvern has preparatory schools which are geographically separate from the school. I feel content that the amendment would still cover most of the schools with which I am concerned.
We could argue about the figures, but I will not burden the House now. We can perhaps exchange letters. The fact is that the numbers will be very limited as they will decrease throughout. I still feel that it is wrong to move only a small group of children from school at the age of 11 when they have been fully participating in the school. At Malvern they are actually physically away from the school which is not the same position as exists at St. Paul's, Whitgift or Norwich. Compassion is being betrayed in the Bill in the interests of ideology. I feel that the Government could give way without serious burden on their finances. I cannot accept the Government's assurance and I shall therefore ask the opinion of the House.
4.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 92.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Davidson, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Attlee, E.

Drogheda, E.

Bowness, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gainford, L.

Brentford, V.

Greenway, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Butterfield, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Byford, B.

Holderness, L.

Cadman, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kingsland, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnock, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Miller of Hendon, B. [Teller.]

Chelmsford, V.

Milverton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

1102

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Sandwich, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Selborne, E.

Pym, L.

Swinfen, L.

Renton, L.

Tenby, V.

Romney, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L

Runcie, L.

Thurlow, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Vivian, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Jeger, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Judd, L.

Annan, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Berkeley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

McCarthy, L.

Blease, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNally, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carter. L. [Teller.]

Mishcon, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Molloy, L.

Chandos, V.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Parry, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dixon, L.

Richard. L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Donoughue, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Russell, E.

Dubs, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Eatwell, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Serota, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sewel, L.

Gallacher, L.

Shepherd, L.

Geraint, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Gilbert, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strafford, E.

Grey, E.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hanworth, V.

Taverne, L.

Hardie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tope, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Howell, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hoyle, L.

Whitty, L. [Teller.]

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Chancellor.]

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

European Convergence Criteria: Deficit Assessment
4.50 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, Her Majesty's Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report July 1997.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in a sense this debate is the fault of the Labour Party. The Section 5 amendment to the European Communities Act was put forward by Andrew Smith, MP, from the then Opposition Front Bench. Its purpose was to make clear the importance we attached to a full interpretation of Article 2 of the Maastricht Treaty. Article 2 of the treaty sets out the Community's objectives which include a balanced development of economic activities and sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment. The amendment also strengthens government accountability to Parliament.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, the then Lord Advocate, clarified the implications of the amendment. During the Third Reading of the Bill in the Lords, he explained that it requires the Government to secure parliamentary approval of a report under Section 5 before the information can be submitted to the Council or Commission for the purposes of Articles 103 and 104c of the Maastricht Treaty. These articles relate to multilateral surveillance and the excessive deficits procedure respectively.
The Financial Statement and Budget Report—the Red Book—published earlier this month provides an appropriate assessment. It describes the Government's tax and spending plans and develops a comprehensive set of policies which meet the broad economic, social and environmental assessment required by Section 5. This framework of new policies begins the task of equipping Britain for our long-term future. Taken together these policies will allow us to tackle the UK economy's fundamental past weaknesses: repeated cycles of boom and bust, inadequate levels of investment and high unemployment.
More specifically, the Chancellor announced policies designed to: improve the underlying rate of growth and employment by creating economic stability and improving the environment for long-term investment; modernise the welfare state so it provides an effective way of supporting people back into work rather than trapping them in poverty; ensure high quality public services are delivered in the most effective way; develop a fair tax system; and ensure that economic development takes place in a way which is consistent with high standards of environmental protection.
In order to create the conditions for economic stability, the Budget contained measures for long-term fiscal stability. This followed the earlier announcement of giving the Bank operational responsibility for setting interest rates, which removed the perception that monetary policy decisions are driven by short-term political factors. The Chancellor has set out clear rules which ensure a historic break from the short-termism and expediency that have characterised the recent fiscal policies of our country. As with our monetary policy, our fiscal policy will be the more credible for being open and accountable.
Ensuring economic stability will create a healthy climate for investment. The Chancellor also announced specific measures to encourage investment in business,
1104
people and infrastructure. For example, corporation tax was cut by 2 per cent. from 1st April 1997 producing generally the lowest small companies' rate in the EU.
By sending information from the Red Book to the Commission and the Council the Government are participating in multilateral surveillance of economic policies and performance across the European Union. This is sensible. Sharing this information helps promote the adoption of sound policies. An excellent example of taking a positive and co-operative approach is the Chancellor's initiative to increase the job creating potential of the European Union's economies: Getting Europe to Work. The Chancellor's action plan for Europe involves the ECOFIN Council focusing on how to use best practice to cut unemployment across the Community. By evaluating new ideas and projects we can learn how best to combat high and unacceptable levels of unemployment in Europe and by playing a proactive role Britain can lead the debate on the economy.
Turning more specifically to Section 5, this approval of the FSBR as the "report" allows us fully to participate in multilateral surveillance. Under this procedure the broad economic guidelines are drawn up each year and adopted by the Council. They facilitate the surveillance procedure by providing a basis from which economic developments in the member states can be monitored. The Government's central economic objective is high and stable levels of growth and employment. This is fully consistent with the 1997 guidelines. They highlight the need to reduce the Community's rate of unemployment and the need to progress towards price stability and sustainable public finances.
The multilateral surveillance procedure also involves member states submitting convergence programmes to the Commission on their medium-term economic objectives. This is another mechanism whereby information on economic performance can be shared and successful economic policies can be promoted. The Stability and Growth Pact, agreed by member states at the Amsterdam European Council in June, sets out more formally the information which member states should submit in their programmes. This agreement demonstrates the importance that the Community attaches to promoting sound economic policies among its members.
Section 5 also allows us to contribute to the excessive deficit procedure. This procedure maintains pressure on European Union member states to adopt sound public finances. We are of course in the happy position of expecting the relevant deficit and debt ratios to be well within the reference values of 3 per cent. and 60 per cent. respectively. Moreover, as the Red Book makes clear, the Chancellor's deficit reduction plan ensures the sustainability of the fiscal position.
It is important that all member states manage to achieve sound public finances. Stable public finances are a key requirement for long-term economic stability. The Government have made clear in the Red Book that their fiscal policy will be guided by rules which ensure that borrowing is kept under firm control. Without this stability, and the confidence of future stability,

1105
businesses cannot plan effectively for the long term; and the environment to promote investment, productivity and growth is damaged.
I have already talked about the Government's central economic objective and the importance of stability in this respect. However, I also said that economic development needs to take place in a way that is consistent with high standards of environmental protection. We are committed to explore the scope for using the tax system to deliver environmental objectives by increasing the incentives to reduce environmental damage in combination with other mechanisms such as regulation. The Budget began this process by increasing road fuel duties by 6 per cent. in real terms as a means to reduce CO2 emissions. I also spoke of the need to ensure high quality public services and to develop a tax system which is fair and seen to be fair.
We need to target spending in priority areas and ensure public resources are being spent efficiently. Within the unchanged control total, the Chancellor announced an extra £1.2 billion for the NHS and £1 billion for schools, allocated from part of the reserve to meet our priorities in these areas. A comprehensive spending review is also under way. This will examine every item of spending to ensure that it contributes to the Government's objectives as effectively and efficiently as possible.
On taxation, the Government are committed to a system which reflects the principles of fairness, rewarding work and encouraging savings and investment. These principles were set out clearly in the Budget and it was in this context that the Government kept to their commitment to cut the rate of VAT on fuel to 5 per cent.
These policies I have spoken of today are set out in the Red Book and are an essential foundation if Britain's full potential is to be realised.
Turning to Europe, we shall have most influence resolving the economic problems which face Europe if we play our full part in European Union discussions. Sensible policies in the rest of Europe will foster higher European growth and employment and a larger and more buoyant market for the UK's exports. Approving the FSBR, as the report under Section 5 provides, and participating in the EU surveillance procedures is one way in which we can influence Europe's economic agenda in this direction. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, Her Majesty's Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report July 1997.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
5 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I have looked at previous debates under this section and they seem to be slightly odd occasions. They are partly a review of economic policy and partly a review of progress under the Maastricht Treaty. But it is a suitable kind of debate for these matters in which there are few speakers and not an overwhelmingly large audience. So I shall be very brief.
1106
As regards the Maastricht criteria, it seems clear that the Government will not fail to meet them. These criteria are the least of their difficulties. They present much greater difficulties for our German and French partners. But the criteria are not the most important factors. They are guidelines but they have acquired a rather spurious symbolic significance because the real question is whether the future members of monetary union can sustain low inflation. If one looks at the prospects for sustaining low inflation, the UK may have slightly greater difficulties.
I find it very hard to assess the Budget judgment. Many people have firm views that it was too mild, that it has not been tough enough or that it has gone too far. Frankly, I do not know. I fear that whatever the Chancellor might have done in the Budget, a great deal of the strain of containing inflation would still have fallen on interest rates. Inevitably in present circumstances that is so. I suspect that we will keep the inflation targets and that we will be able to contain it. Nevertheless, that is one of the crucial factors that needs watching.
Our real problem about joining monetary union is the exchange rate. I am not sure that there is much that one can do about it. However, it is quite clear that whatever one's views are generally about monetary union, we cannot possibly join at an exchange rate of 3 deutschmarks to the pound. Perhaps there is something that we could do: we could announce that we will rejoin the new, much more liberal exchange rate mechanism when it is possible to do so at a central rate of 2.5 deutschmarks to the pound. In effect that means that as soon as the pound has fallen, as in due course it no doubt will, to a relationship of £2,875 to the mark. That will bring us just within the permitted 15 per cent. range, with a central rate of 2.50 marks.
The last thing we can do is to follow the central recommendation of the CBI and declare ourselves at an early stage as being in favour of the principle of joining monetary union—that is if monetary union starts, as I expect it will. I do not know whether it will start on time or not. We suffer from the instability of the pound and from its recent high rise. We would gain enormously from the stability of being in the monetary union. We would probably gain a measure of stability in the period before we join monetary union if we were "pre-ins" and if we were part of the exchange rate mechanism. I cannot firmly forecast, but I suspect that if we announce that that is our intention, it would of itself have a favourable effect on the pound and our exporters might face a rather more attractive prospect than they do at the moment.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in opening this debate in February my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said:
"This is an annual debate. The cast does not seem to vary".—[Official Report, 19/2/97; col. 757.]
It does not seem to be quite a year since 19th February, but the cast has varied and so indeed has the director of the play.

1107
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said that this debate is rather a curious affair. Last time it was longer and more complicated than some previous debates because that day there had been what those who were sitting on these Benches saw as a marginal disagreement on the question of the European currency between my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary. That gave those who were then in Opposition a good opportunity to make pointed remarks at our expense, and very effectively they did so.
I have been told that this Motion is purely formal. However, my friends in both Houses have failed to see the necessity for this recent emergency Budget. It would seem that Her Majesty's Government's assessment which is contained in the Financial Statement and Budget report can be summed up as, "Aren't we clever. We have got there". Her Majesty's Government can reasonably look at the convergence criteria and appreciate that this country is virtually the only one that has got there.
However, the recurrent theme throughout the report demonstrates that since 1992 or so the economy has gone ever upward. Even this Government are forced to admit that the former Conservative Government left the country in a very strong economic position. That emphasises that the recession of the late 1980s presented many problems but that a remarkable recovery has been effected, particularly in the past year, with consumer spending growth at 3.5 to 4.5 per cent. since last autumn and with an inflation forecast of 2.4 per cent., although that, as the report says rather ominously, may rise temporarily in 1998. In addition, the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement for 1996–97 was £23.1 billion, which is £3.3 billion less than the £26.4 billion forecast, with a PSBR of £4 billion in the first two months of 1997–98 compared with £6.2 billion for the same period last year.
All this comes from the fact that the previous Government left the public finances in good shape, as I have said. The effect of just one factor—higher than expected corporation tax yields from higher profits—cuts an extra £2.1 billion off the PSBR forecast for this year.
The Chancellor prepared the ground for a tax-raising Budget this summer by introducing five new assumptions on which to base his forecasts of the public finances. These assumptions have a direct impact on the Government's forecast of the PSBR, pushing it up by £3.25 billion in 1998–99 and by £4 billion in 1999–2000. These assumptions are at best speculative.
There was of course no financial need for the emergency Budget at all except to demonstrate the way in which the new Government keep their electoral promises. They introduced only 17 new taxes as they did not wish to exceed in one go the figure of 22 new taxes which they accused the Conservatives of bringing in in five years.
But what the Minister has said is true. The Government can go to the European Commission and with confidence give an assurance that their assessment of the medium-term economic and budgetary position shows that it is healthy. At the same time the
1108
Government must make hay while the sun shines and, mixing my metaphors horribly, while they are still in the honeymoon period. The Government's crest would seem to be best seen as a cloud no bigger than a man's hand. Who, for instance, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has said, is going to welcome this country flirting with a single currency with the franc at 10.20 to the pound and the deutschmark at over three?
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, spoke of a more buoyant export market. He is perhaps an optimist, bearing in mind the figures which manufacturers and exporters already view with dismay. They will pile this Pelion onto the Ossa of increased costs which must arise as a result of the introduction of the Social Chapter. Even now manufacturers can have little confidence in their ability to make their goods cheaply or to sell them when they have made them. Add to this the temporary increased inflation forecast—which may well be more than temporary when these factors are borne in mind—and we have a potential wrecker of the current healthy economy.
Today we can approve the assessment. When we come to the same debate next year it may not be so easy if the Government maintain the fiscal policy that they have introduced in this emergency Budget.
5.10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I note that both of them did what I did and referred back to the preceding debate on 19th February of this year. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that not only are the personnel different but that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in winding up the preceding debate said:
"I look forward to a repeat performance with us in exactly the same positions next year".—[Official Report, 19/2/97; col. 771.]
A few things have changed since then.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, one cannot always be right—usually, but not always.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that recognition on the part of the noble Lord. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, that although it was originally the Labour Party's idea to have these debates, they started off rather grandly as an overview of economic policy and attitudes towards Europe but they degenerated.
I do not claim to have anything like the expertise of my noble friend Lord Eatwell who participated in the debate earlier this year to such effect. I remind the House—I do not need to remind the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, because he knows—that my noble friend was able to expose great differences between Mr. Malcolm Rifkind and Mr. Kenneth Clarke on the very day of the debate about entry into European monetary union. That has been scarcely referred to in this debate, but we are determined that the debate on European monetary union should continue and that it should be intelligent and well informed.

1109
This very day the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech at Chatham House in which he referred to the need to make the right decisions for Britain and to have an open and intelligent debate on the single currency. He said that British business would be affected whether or not Britain joined the first wave. He said that in the context of a very serious report that my noble friend Lord Currie produced for The Economist intelligence unit which goes into the pros and cons of EMU. I commend that report to your Lordships as deserving careful study. It has been republished in summary form by the Treasury. It is now free, compared with the original price of £195—or even £395.
I contrast the view of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there should be open and intelligent debate with the views of almost all the candidates for the Conservative leadership, notably the successful candidate, Mr. William Hague. He appeared to close down the debate by saying that not only was he against the single currency on principle—which he had said on many occasions—but that as leader he would rule out as his party's policy anything other than to say that it was against EMU. That is not just cutting himself out of the debate; it appears to be cutting his entire party out of the debate. I find that regrettable.
The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, made a number of points about the criteria for EMU and the obstacles in the way of our entry into it. I recognise that these are serious points. He has said that the fiscal criteria are not the most significant factors and that inflation—which I am glad to see he believes is containable—is more important. He is quite right to refer to the exchange rate as a serious problem. I do not believe that he is right to say that we should consider rejoining the exchange rate mechanism, even less committing ourselves in advance to rejoining it at any particular point, whether it is at 2.50 deutschmarks or not. We have never set a target exchange rate, and it would be dangerous to do so.
I recognise that there is a danger in having too high a level of sterling. We recognise the difficulties for industry. But we expect exports and manufacturing output to continue to grow and to benefit from expanding home and overseas markets. That has been the theme of our Budget.
To respond to the particular question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, about entry into the exchange rate mechanism, we look not so much for any particular exchange rate but for price stability and, without prejudice to the objective, to support the Government's economic policy, including targets for growth and employment. We define price stability by an inflation target which the Chancellor confirmed in his Budget, but we do not believe that it is right to adopt a target for the exchange rate itself.
Both noble Lords have done this debate the honour of treating it seriously and I am grateful to them for the points that they made. The Red Book sets out the arrangements that we have made to ensure the financial stability and sound public finances needed to underpin a stronger and more robust economy. The Government have made these long-term commitments to achieve
1110
their central economic objective. That is why they support European Union level procedures which promote these economic policies in other member states. It is in the interests of all member states that the European economies are dynamic and successful. That is why the Government support the procedures in which Section 5 allows them to participate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
The Bill was brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Birmingham Hospitals
5.17 p.m.
Lord Howell Lord Howell asked Her Majesty's Government what is the future of the Birmingham hospitals.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of the future of Birmingham hospitals, a subject shrouded in mystery and accompanied by chaos. I am especially appreciative tonight of the presence of my noble friend Lady Jay who will reply to this debate.
Birmingham is an important city. It has some fine hospitals and an excellent medical school at the university. It also has large-scale deprivation among its citizens which imposes great strains upon hospital services. Undoubtedly, it is not receiving fair and adequate funding to meet its needs. My main concern tonight is that there is no overall strategic authority to direct the thinking and decision making that is vital to the future of the service. There is no meaningful public consultation before decisions are taken, or not taken, and there is little involvement of the general practitioner in what planning there is.
The trust system is failing because there is no such overall authority. Trust competes against trust. The purchasing authority, Birmingham Health Authority, controls the funds but does not have the authority for any hospital development programme. A classic example of all this confusion has recently come to my notice and caused me to initiate this debate. I informed my noble friend of the circumstances. I know that she has made inquiries, which I much appreciate. The document that I obtained was a set of minutes of a meeting held on 19th February this year of the Birmingham Health Authority Consultants' Committee which was attended by Mr. Brian Stoten, chairman of the health authority. These include the statement that Mr. Stoten and his colleagues at the authority would be happy to see one or two hospitals in the whole of Birmingham. The implications of such thinking would be calamitous for the whole of Birmingham. It would mean the closure of several hospitals and the services that they provide for the public. I immediately faxed my concern to Mr. Stoten and to my noble friend. Mr. Stoten responded immediately, saying that he had been misquoted and that he had written

1111
to Mr. David Farrer, the chairman of the consultants' committee, pointing out that what they had been discussing was the need to rationalise scarce medical resources and the concentration required for patient tertiary and secondary care services. Mr. Stoten also sent me a copy of the reply that he had received, dated 9th June this year, from Mr. Farrer, saying that after consulting his notes he agreed that their conclusions were that Birmingham required,
"One or Two Specialist centres with intermediate hospitals and primary care satellite units"—
and that that unfortunately had been transcribed as "one or two hospitals". However, Mr. Farrer went on to say:
"personally, I think that with increasing specialisation and reduction in junior staff hours, there is a high likelihood that only one or two hospitals for Birmingham would be viable for the future".
I fully accept those corrections from Mr. Stoten, but there is no doubt that these breathtaking concepts were discussed at that meeting of consultants in his presence. Such thinking could lead to disastrous consequences for the future of the hospital services in Birmingham and this is being conducted without any public awareness or involvement. I have sought this debate to bring the matter to the attention of Birmingham's citizens and I should also like to take this opportunity to comment on some of the proposals which we know to be under consideration.
There is general consent among my parliamentary colleagues that the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, our principal teaching hospital, is in a parlous state and needs to be rebuilt. I would give that a very high priority. However, the trust which controls it also controls Selly Oak Hospital, one of our large and essential district hospitals. The trust wants to demolish both hospitals and to rebuild them as one state-of-the-art hospital. One of the trusts's problems is that it cannot find a site big enough to build such a hospital and provide car parking.
The cost of such an enormous project would be several hundred million pounds. It seems that the trust, the University Hospitals Trust, hopes that the private finance initiative could produce the money. Ministers have properly made it clear that the number of such schemes would be very limited and I cannot conceive that such a gigantic project would ever get off the ground.
I must also make it clear that there would be enormous public opposition to the closure of Selly Oak Hospital, which also includes the recently rebuilt Accident Hospital; nor do I think that any suitable site is available, so it is better to kill off this notion earlier rather than later and concentrate thinking about the rebuilding of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital upon which we can all agree.
The City Hospital which I know very well is also contemplating rebuilding. This would cost another £150 million of private finance money. Having regard to the statement of Ministers, I do not think this has any chance. In this case, I believe it to be unnecessary. City Hospital does magnificent work among the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods. It needs modernisation; some £50 million would work wonders. But any
1112
thoughts of closure, such as the thinking of the consultants' committee suggests, and which I have raised in this Chamber on a previous occasion, would be met with public outrage.
Ten years ago Sir James Ackers, the then chairman of the regional health authority, declared its policy for Birmingham to be for four district general hospitals—City, Selly Oak, Heartlands, and Good Hope. He was right. The only criteria has to be the service such hospitals provide for the public.
The geographical make-up of Birmingham's population demands these four hospitals. The demands upon their medical and acute beds is overwhelming, as I know from personal experience. In spite of all the day surgery and technological advances, there are no empty beds in those four hospitals. At peak times, there is overflowing and chronic shortage. The Birmingham public will believe that anyone contemplating the closure of any of those four acute hospitals has taken leave of his senses.
In his Budget speech the Chancellor drew attention to the financial savings that can be made by a merger of trust administrations. I believe that one simple authority for Birmingham hospitals could produce such savings and provide the strategical authority the city needs. In its absence some trusts are contemplating a merger of administrations, such as between the City Hospital and Sandwell. This would save money and is understandably probably welcome, provided it is absolutely clear that West Bromwich and Sandwell need their hospital and that the west side of Birmingham needs the City Hospital. I hope that my noble friend can give me concrete assurances upon those considerations.
The trust administrations of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and Selly Oak Hospital are already merged, as are those of Heartlands and Solihull. There is no doubt that substantial savings could be made by merging the administrations of City Hospital and Sandwell. So far as Good Hope Hospital is concerned, its natural population extends into Warwickshire and Staffordshire, a population of some 400,000 and growing. There is room for further administrative economy if Good Hope assumed responsibility for the community hospitals of Tamworth and Lichfield which would be a sensible development.
At the moment we have 11 trusts in Birmingham, which shows the expensive nonsense which my noble friends have inherited. These have to be drastically reduced. As I have indicated, I prefer one single strategic authority for Birmingham with four centres of management based on the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and the four general hospitals.
Finally, this leads to the one and only priority consideration: how can our hospitals best serve the needs and the convenience of the Birmingham public? There is not much support for the concept of a mega-hospital, even if enough land and financial resources were available, which they are not, so we need to rationalise our hospital services at the acute general hospitals that we now have established.
An example of what can be achieved can be seen from the astonishing figures that I have been given this week for the Heartlands and Solihull Hospitals, which are now administered by one trust. Solihull Hospital is now taking 23,000 more patients than a year ago. Heartlands is up by 55,000. Incidentally, their accident and emergency admissions are up 12 per cent. Last week when I inquired—mid-summer—they had the same patient load as they normally expect in mid-winter. The other Birmingham hospitals are subject to similar pressures. Every bed is full, illustrating the absurdity of any further district hospital closures.
City Hospital and Sandwell have scope for some very sensible rationalisation, especially in the departments of vascular surgery and cardiology.
Birmingham has some great strengths which need to be built upon. These are high quality hospitals, an excellent university and a fine medical school which must be urgently expanded. Sadly, as I stated, the main teaching hospital is totally sub-standard and must be rebuilt.
An example of the world standard research being undertaken at the university, about which I have personal knowledge, is the Institute of Cancer Research which now has a staff of seven professors and 200 researchers in residence. Professors David Kerr and Alan Rickinson are working as a team to develop new cancer treatments from an understanding of the science underlying causes of cancer. They are leading the world in terms of gene therapy, using viruses to treat cancer.
Birmingham has the largest liver transplant team in Europe, led by Professor Paul McMaster, and is considered an international centre of excellence. Birmingham is also developing a team for neuroscience, bringing together surgeons, physicians and scientists to combat neurological illness.
In fact, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital is a referral pathway, not just for Birmingham but for the region and the country. Its standard of excellence cannot be tied to just one district general hospital. That hospital, Selly Oak, should have the same relationship with it as do the Heartlands, the City, Good Hope and other hospitals in the region.
Birmingham requires leadership—a strategic authority to make and implement decisions. I know that health action zones—I hope I have their title right—are being created to deal with such situations. I ask my noble friend whether we can please have one created for Birmingham. As a leading administrator said to me very recently—this week in fact—Birmingham has spent so long arguing about what should be done that nothing has been done. It is time for a change, which is why my noble friend sits on the Front Bench carrying all our hopes and good will.
5.32 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps I may say how very pleased I am to be in the Chamber this evening, not least to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Howell. Your Lordships will be aware of the immense contribution which the noble Lord has made as a
1114
distinguished and effective Member of Her Majesty's Government. If my memory serves me right, he was given the unenviable position as Minister for the elements and to the joy of the general public, he only had to say, "Let there be rain", and there was, and there was an end to the drought; and when we were heavily snowbound, he only had to say, "Let there be a thaw", and there was. As someone who comes from a farming community, I have to say that we were greatly indebted.
But more seriously, the noble Lord did and continues to do an immense amount of good in promoting sport. Locally, he has probably done more than almost any other individual to promote Birmingham. Marrying those two together, I think I can say that the vast majority of us shared his acute disappointment when his sophisticated and energetic bid for the Olympic Games suddenly failed. This evening, in his customary forthright manner, we have heard in this debate his determination that the NHS in its turn should not fail his proud city and its people.
On 6th December 1994 we had a debate with a very similar title, but the situation today is not the same; it is altogether different. In that debate, your Lordships recognised the recent, very unhappy past of the South Birmingham Health Authority and its unresolved deficits. We also recognise the interest and investigation undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee and the department's reply. But that was in 1994 and so much has happened since then.
At one time there used to be five health authorities for Birmingham guided and steered by a regional health authority. The regional health authority was abolished and the five authorities reduced to one. The new, or rather newish, Birmingham Health Authority, is the largest in England and its purpose, among other things is to give strategic direction in consultation with the local people.
It also has a duty to live within its means, and I should like to congratulate it on achieving that. That is no mean feat when there have been so many changes with which to contend and it had to start its work from such crumbling foundations. It had to eradicate a £23 million deficit in three years. That is a huge achievement and I believe that there are lessons here for other large cities in the United Kingdom.
However, Birmingham has not achieved all this by standing still. On the contrary, it has taken some brave decisions, not least in moving the children's services into the old general hospital. Before long these paediatric services will be in place, at a cost of £25 million, and will be in a position to lead the country. Even the great and marvellous Great Ormond Street hospital, with which I know the Minister's mother was closely involved over many years, will need to look out.
The excellence of some of the other clinical services is also unquestioned. The noble Lord has mentioned some of those. The liver, renal and cardiac services have not only a national but an international reputation, and that is without going into the many areas of research and development, for which Birmingham is world famed, and again the noble Lord has mentioned that this

1115
evening. If anyone has any doubts about the delivery of service, then the recent publication of the performance league tables can leave them in no doubt. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, whose very life has been gripped by league tables, must have been thrilled to read the headline in the Birmingham Post: "Best Hospitals in England".
I recognise the noble Lord's fears for the City Hospital. I do not know the detail of the next strategy about to be published, but I would be surprised if, for example, the available places for training medical students, which we know are very important in keeping up standards, were to be reduced. There is a 500 increase in the planned numbers of medical students and they will need clinical experience. Where better to have that than in the City Hospital in Solihull and other local hospitals, albeit the nature of some of the clinical specialist and other services will be changing. That is right and proper if we are to meet the ever-increasing demands of the population and the new developments in technical medical advances.
In our heart of hearts most of us resent change, and never more so than when it is a local and much loved hospital which in our eyes is providing a first-class service. But some changes are inevitable. The merger of the Solihull and Heartlands Hospitals is a case in point. Indeed, it was where the Royal Colleges felt unable to accredit for teaching purposes unless there was a better quality of clinical experience for the medical students.
But mergers do not necessarily mean demolition. I should be very surprised if there were a suggestion that Solihull, with its spanking new A and E department were to be demolished. No doubt the Minister will be able to reassure us about that this evening.
I believe also that there is a limit to the numbers of tertiary centres which can be sustained if we are to maintain or, indeed, improve the quality of care which today is complex, sophisticated and enormously successful. With a population which increasingly seeks redress through the courts, care must be given to ensure that health professionals have the equipment, access to diagnostic testing and access to the skills and expertise among other areas which we know they need in order to provide a first-class service. But we cannot begin to provide everything for everyone in every hospital.
Tonight the noble Lord made a plea for a single strategic authority. A week or so ago, I think, I heard him suggest that Birmingham needs an exercise similar to that performed by Sir Bernard Tomlinson for London or an expert panel similar to the one just set up by the Government under the leadership of the distinguished former president of the Royal College of Physicians, Sir Leslie Turnberg.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the noble Baroness is dealing with this matter. But I made no suggestion that Birmingham should have anything comparable with the Tomlinson Report. It may need it but I doubt it. I certainly have not suggested it.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I stand corrected. I have misunderstood the noble Lord. It was a debate on a Starred Question which we had about 10 days ago. However, I shall have to re-read Hansard.
I am grateful that the noble Lord does not believe that we need something similar to London. I believe that we already have a strategic authority in place in Birmingham. When we look back to the regional health authorities and their abolition, a few of their functions were transferred to the centre but many more were transferred to the new health authorities. Of course, Birmingham, which has a single health authority—indeed, the largest in England—has shown that it does have a grasp, a management grip, to provide not only the ability to control finances but also to procure some first-class services and also to encourage education and research. It has the capability to provide a strategic approach.
If we look back to the history of Birmingham, it will be seen that in the 1980s we had a strategy entitled, "Building a Healthy Birmingham" and that, in the 1990s, it was "Looking Forward" and later, "Moving Ahead". We look forward in the autumn to seeing another strategic document. I am sure that it is necessary because it is being done, but I hope that it is the last one for some time because I believe that the health service has earned itself a reputation of suffering paralysis by analysis. I fear that this may be another case in point, if we go on just providing strategies rather than action.
Finally, I should like to tell the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that I am aware that he is the recipient of the Olympic Order. I hope that he, in turn, will be able to award a similar distinction to the health services in the proud city of Birmingham, for, although they probably have more work to do, I do believe that they are probably Olympic winners.
5.41 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I am very glad to have the opportunity to reply to my noble friend's Question about the future of the Birmingham hospitals. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for her contribution to the debate which was of course extremely authoritative. As so often, my noble friend has drawn attention to a major issue in this important city which he has represented so ably in both Houses of Parliament over many years. I should like to thank him in this context for his courtesy in discussing the debate with me and letting me know what points he planned to raise.
Naturally I share my noble friend's frustration about the recent lack of strategy in organising and developing healthcare. That has been one of the most destructive outcomes of the National Health Service internal market and is one of the main reasons why this Government will replace it. It has led to the kinds of local administrative excesses which my noble friend vividly described in Birmingham and in many other places.
Birmingham has, nonetheless, a well-deserved reputation for improving its health services, as the noble Baroness described, and has a reputation for outstanding

1117
medical science. My noble friend rightly mentioned some of the distinguished people who have contributed to that reputation. In the past few weeks, I have had the personal benefit of some extremely useful advice from people like Professor David Kerr, who has been enormously helpful in the Government's new initiatives on cancer.
Today in Birmingham the health authority and the health service managers are also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, described, achieving good results after a very rocky period—results which have been achieved by some innovative action. Birmingham now enjoys some of the lowest waiting times for operations in any city in the country. At University Hospital, which is the largest hospital in the region, no patients have been on the waiting-list for treatment for longer than nine months. I am sure that my noble friend is extremely pleased to acknowledge that performance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, mentioned the impressive performance on the basis of the standards of the league tables, the most recent of which were published just last week. As noble Lords will know, the Government have been critical of the limitations of those league tables and we shall in future introduce measurements of clinical quality, as well as financial and management targets, into the assessments of NHS performance because we feel that they are more relevant to most of the people who use health services. Nonetheless, I am glad to have this opportunity to congratulate Birmingham's hospitals on the great improvement in local standards on the performance measurements which the league tables, as they stand at present, show.
In looking at the particular circumstances of individual hospitals, perhaps I may just recap on the present position. As my noble friend explained and as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said, there are four general hospital trusts in Birmingham; namely, City Hospital in Dudley Road, Good Hope Hospital in Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital in the east of the city (which is merged with Solihull Hospital) and University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust (which combines the Selly Oak and Queen Elizabeth Hospitals). There are also four specialist hospitals: Birmingham Children's Hospital, Birmingham Dental Hospital, Birmingham Women's Hospital and the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital. As well as serving Britain's second city, Birmingham's hospitals are indeed a centre of excellence for the whole of the West Midlands region.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, mentioned, the most recent organisational plan for Birmingham was published three years ago. It recognised the rapid advances in medicine, such as day case surgery, and new technologies which allow patients to leave hospital more quickly after treatment. But that plan confirmed the need for all of these hospitals, while recommending changes in the pattern of services that they offer. As we know, medical techniques continue to develop year on year, and that plan set in train a series of discussions
1118
about the development of individual clinical specialties. Birmingham Health Authority needs to take that into account in planning its services of the future.
On an earlier occasion—and I believe that this was the one to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was referring—my noble friend raised the question of a fresh look at the overall picture of service provision. At that time, in response to an oral question, I did say to my noble friend that obviously the Government will be looking closely at the outcomes of the short-term review of London hospitals that Professor Lesley Turnburg and his expert colleagues are conducting this summer. It was that form of inquiry which I believe my noble friend was anxious to see replicated in Birmingham.
I am happy to confirm today that if we do feel that that is a successful method of reviewing services, it could well be used in developing a strategic approach in other places like Birmingham. I should like to take this opportunity to take note of my noble friend's suggestion about Birmingham becoming a health action zone. That is certainly an idea that I shall take back to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Apart from the distribution of services, the other issue which needs to be faced in Birmingham—and again both speakers referred to this—is the physical state of the hospitals. I am sure that I do not need to elaborate on this to my noble friend, but Birmingham hospitals still have many buildings which are in a very poor condition or unsuitable for modern clinical practice and the situation needs remedying. In recent years Birmingham has reduced the number of small outdated hospitals and concentrated services on the four acute trusts that I mentioned. I am sure that my noble friend is familiar with this, but the old Midland Eye Hospital and Birmingham's skin hospitals have closed, with the services being transferred to City Hospital. Moreover, there have been some new buildings on other Birmingham hospital sites. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, referred to some of them.
Those changes have clearly led to improvements; for example, in the upgraded accident and emergency facilities to which the noble Baroness referred. Next spring will see the transfer of Birmingham Children's Hospital to the substantially refurbished General Hospital site in the city centre. Another example is the concentration of cancer services at a centre of excellence at the Queen Elizabeth site of University Hospital, which will enable full advantage to be taken of the collaborative research facilities at the university.
However, despite this and other investments which have taken place, it is striking—and I am sure that my noble friend knows this very well—that the newest of Birmingham's major hospitals actually opened before the last war. My noble friend will indeed know better than I do that investment in Birmingham hospitals is needed, for, as my noble friend and I agree firmly, there needs to be a proper strategic context to plan such investments.
Birmingham is faced with having to meet the constantly changing challenges of medical science in buildings which are often old and in need of heavy maintenance. Consequently, Birmingham Health

1119
Authority is now seeking views from all stakeholders in the various communities and health services in the city about how it can improve access to services and improve the quality of such services. The health authority wishes to use the process to help it to plan the future direction of hospitals and indeed of hospital development.
I know that that is the main point of my noble friend's concern. I should like to make it absolutely clear that there really is no predetermined view of how those services will change. Bryan Stoten, the chairman of the health authority, to whom my noble friend referred, has said that his authority is committed to working collaboratively to plan strategic change in Birmingham. I know that my noble friend has been worried that Mr. Stoten has a secret agenda for change and, as he said in his speech, that he may have been conducting planning meetings behind closed doors. I reassure my noble friend that I have personally spoken to Mr. Stoten about this matter on several occasions, most recently yesterday evening. I am convinced that he intends there to be an open discussion about the future. There seems to have been some genuine confusion about the status and the content of the meeting in February to which my noble friend referred.
I also wish to emphasise to my noble friend the Government's overall determination to improve openness in the National Health Service. We feel strongly that there must be transparency about decision-making in this vast public service, and proper public consultation, before decisions are finalised. I hope that my noble friend will have been encouraged by the recent announcement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that in future hospital trusts must hold their meetings in public. This is an important change which, I hope he will accept, supports our aim of general openness.
I refer to a few of the proposals in Birmingham which are known and already in the public domain. The noble Lord will know that University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust announced last autumn a series of interdisciplinary clinical service reviews across the trust. In the interim report about six months ago the doctors came out strongly in favour of combining the services
1120
of Selly Oak and Queen Elizabeth hospitals on one site. At the same time City Hospital has begun work on its own site development plan, with a focus on the services required by the people of Birmingham in the next century. Unfortunately, this work was not at a sufficiently advanced stage to have been included in the recent strategic review of PFI schemes undertaken by the Government.
I recognise, of course, that the noble Lord has a particular personal interest in the proposed modernisation of City Hospital, having long been a good friend and a champion of the hospital. I thank him for raising those anxieties here. I look forward to visiting City Hospital again at the beginning of September and seeing the situation for myself. I believe that the eventual reprovision of City Hospital should result in an enhanced service for the residents of Birmingham, taking advantage of improvements in day surgery and shorter lengths of stay. It is too early to answer some of the specific points, for example, how many beds will be required at the new hospital, and how working practices may change. That will be clear only when plans have progressed further, but I can assure my noble friend that the future of City Hospital will be subject to full public discussion and consultation. As a start, my honourable friend in another place, the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Mr. Milburn, is meeting Members of Parliament from Birmingham before the end of this parliamentary Session to discuss these questions and the next stage of the plans.
Everyone with an interest in seeing improved healthcare in Birmingham, including local residents—I stress that—will have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Any final decision on the future size and shape of the new City Hospital and University Hospital in Birmingham and the other two acute trusts will take careful note of the responses during the consultations and the work currently under way in the trusts. I am sure that my noble friend will continue to contribute vigorously to the discussions and to the consultations. I again thank him for raising these issues in your Lordships' House.
House adjourned at eight minutes before six o'clock.

  Law Commission Bills
  Law Commission Bills
  Judges' Duties
  Judges' Duties
  Child Care Vouchers
  Child Care Vouchers
  NHS Waiting List Reduction
  NHS Waiting List Reduction
  Medicines Control Agency
  Medicines Control Agency
  Medicines Commission
  Medicines Commission
  Illicit Beef Exports
  Illicit Beef Exports
  Gyrodactylus Salaris
  Gyrodactylus Salaris
  Agri-environment Schemes
  Agri-environment Schemes
  Beef: Illegal Export Allegations
  Beef: Illegal Export Allegations
  Licences to Shoot Piscivorous Birds
  Licences to Shoot Piscivorous Birds
  Aircraft Navigational Systems: Interference by Electronic Devices
  Aircraft Navigational Systems: Interference by Electronic Devices
  Transport Safety and the Treaty of Rome
  Transport Safety and the Treaty of Rome
  Bus Franchises and Contracts Advertised in the European Journal
  Bus Franchises and Contracts Advertised in the European Journal
  Passenger Bus Service Operators: Qualifications
  Passenger Bus Service Operators: Qualifications
  Devolution White Paper
  Devolution White Paper
  Glasgow: Empty Council Houses
  Glasgow: Empty Council Houses
  Devolution Referendum, Scotland
  Devolution Referendum, Scotland
  Pay Television: Competition
  Pay Television: Competition
  National Lottery
  National Lottery
  Road Accidents in Continental Europe: Settlement of Claims
  Road Accidents in Continental Europe: Settlement of Claims
  Nairobi Cathedral: Police Action
  Nairobi Cathedral: Police Action
  Indonesia: Human Rights
  Indonesia: Human Rights
  Pensions Review
  Pensions Review
  Proportional Voting
  Proportional Voting
  Welsh Assembly Referendum
  Welsh Assembly Referendum
  Isle of Man: Prison Conditions
  Isle of Man: Prison Conditions
  Isle of Man Prison Suicides: Inquiry Report
  Isle of Man Prison Suicides: Inquiry Report
  Isle of Man: Detention of Child Offenders
  Isle of Man: Detention of Child Offenders
  Isle of Man: Age of Criminal Responsibility
  Isle of Man: Age of Criminal Responsibility
  Extensions to Stay in the UK: Applications
  Extensions to Stay in the UK: Applications
  In-country Asylum Applications
  In-country Asylum Applications