Sitting of 3 February 2000

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

  KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 10 February.

  MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 10 February.

  MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 10 February.

  COMHAIRLE NAN EILEAN SIAR (ERISKAY CAUSEWAY) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Married Couples Allowance
    Mr. Tim Collins: What estimate he has made of the average cost of the abolition of the married couples allowance to a couple of working age in a full financial year; and if he will make a statement. [106881]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Let me, first, announce that the Budget date will be Tuesday 21 March.
    The cost to the married couple when, under the previous Government, the allowance was cut from 40p to 15p was £430. The cost of ending it is £197. The children's tax credit, which will replace it, will be worth £400—£8 a week—to families with children. However, in the case of this Government, the 1p cut in the basic rate, the introduction of the working families tax credit and the introduction of the new children's tax credit mean that
    1188
    almost every family with children is better off. The tax burden on the average family will fall to its lowest since 1972.
    Mr. Collins: Why will not the Chancellor admit that the abolition of the married couples allowance is a tax increase, that the abolition of mortgage tax relief is a tax increase, or that ever higher petrol duties are a tax increase? Is it because to admit that would be to admit that he has clearly breached the Prime Minister's assurance that there would be no tax increases at all under a Labour Government?
    Mr. Brown: I will deal with each of the hon. Gentleman's points in turn. However, I should have thought that the first thing he would want to do is welcome the 10p tax rate, which is a Labour tax cut. I should have thought that the second thing he would want to do is welcome the cut in the basic rate of tax, which is a Labour tax cut. I should have thought that the third thing he would want to do is welcome the national insurance cuts that we have introduced—which are worth £3 a week, and are another Labour tax cut—and of course the child tax credit and the working families tax credit, which are tax cuts worth on average £24 a week for the poorest families.
    I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the married couples allowance, because he might want to ask the new shadow Chancellor some questions about that. I have been looking back to the debates of the early 1990s, and the person who introduced the biggest cut in the married couples allowance and piloted it through the House of Commons was the shadow Chancellor himself. He told the House that the allowance had "no on-going justification"; he said that it was the "most anomalous" of allowances. He said:
    "I doubt that the reduction to be made in the first year … could be held to be crucial for those deciding whether they get married."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 22 February 1994; c. 347.]
    If the hon. Gentleman looks back at the 1992 debates on mortgage tax relief, married couples allowance, national insurance or VAT on fuel, he will find that the person who was responsible for the 22 tax rises piloted through the House of Commons was the shadow Chancellor.
    The debate in this country is between fairness, with our children's tax credit, and unfairness. It is because we are creating policies of stability and creating jobs that people are better off.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the married couples allowance did make sense in the early war years, when it was an incentive to get women into the labour market to help the war effort, but that now, with women forming such a large proportion of the working population, it is not really necessary?
    Mr. Brown: It would seem strange to say so, but I agree with the Leader of the Opposition on the matter. He said that if we were to replace married couples allowance, it should go to families with children, to meet the costs that people have as their children grow up. That is why I should have thought that the Opposition would welcome the children's tax credit, which is to be worth £8 a week to almost every family in this country. I should have

    1189
    thought that they would welcome the working families tax credit, which is worth £24 a week. I should have thought that they would welcome the rises in child benefit. That is the dividing line between the parties: we are for fairness to families; they have nothing to say to ordinary families in this country.
    Mr. Michael Portillo: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman what a pleasure it is to be standing here opposite him, and what a pleasure it will be to oppose him? I very much hope that we can have a civilised relationship. I also very much hope that we can have some fun—although I do not think that laughing at himself is the Chancellor's strong suit, but perhaps Conservative Members can make up for that.
    I do hope that we can start our relationship on a straightforward footing, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a reputation for ducking questions. However, does he agree that the burden of taxation in this country is rising faster than in any other industrialised country, as stated by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development? Will he now admit that millions of people are going to be paying more income tax?
    The Chancellor is abolishing the married couples allowance. He is abolishing mortgage interest relief. Income tax for a one-earner couple is therefore going to increase. Is he denying that that is the case? Will he further admit that those on the lowest incomes will face the biggest increases? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Do Labour Members think that fair? Is not Brown's first law of gravity that that which goes up just keeps going up?
    Mr. Brown: I welcome the new shadow Chancellor to his position. I look forward to the debates that we shall have over the next few months. I wish him well in his dealings with his Conservative colleagues in trying to come up with a sensible Conservative economic policy.
    I have worked under four shadow Chancellors since I became Chancellor. The first denied any responsibility for the 22 tax rises, saying that they were all down to his predecessor. The second said that he was at the Department of Social Security at the time, in the early 1990s. The third said that he was not even in the House of Commons—his alibi was that he was not at the scene of the crime. We now have the person who piloted through the 22 tax rises. I think that he will want to take credit for the fact that he piloted through the House of Commons the rise in VAT on fuel, the escalator on fuel, the escalator on tobacco and the cuts in the married couples allowance. [Interruption.] I only make those points because, while the shadow Chancellor was touring the country and recanting, the Conservative party should have been learning from its mistakes. They made an unsustainable tax guarantee in 1992, followed by 22 tax rises.
    Let me read the figures for the tax burden on families with children. When we came to power it was 21.5 per cent. It then fell to 20.9 per cent. and is falling to 20.4 per cent. By next year it will be 18.9 per cent. That is the lowest tax burden for families in this country since 1972, because we know that fairness to ordinary families matters.
    Mr. Portillo: I notice that the Chancellor did not deny that tax for single-earner married couples will increase.
    1190
    That point is proven. I thank him for his words of welcome. Dealing with past Chancellors has sometimes been described as like being savaged by a dead sheep or nuzzled by an old ram. Dealing with the current Chancellor is like being assaulted by Mr. Toad, with the pomposity and self-congratulation that distinguish him. I did not get very far in securing answers from him. He says that he works under shadow Chancellors. Perhaps he does not yet realise that he is here to answer questions because he is meant to be part of the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I intend to.
    I want to be entirely open to see whether we can get some openness from the Chancellor. The next Conservative Government will respect the independence of the Bank of England and will legislate to enhance that independence and increase accountability to Parliament. The next Conservative Government will not repeal the national minimum wage.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Portillo: I now want the Chancellor to answer questions and admit to the House that he is about to put up income tax for millions of people. I am not talking about people with children. I am talking about single-earner married couples with a mortgage. Their income tax is going up.
    Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor is wrong. The tax burden is falling from 37.4 per cent. to 37 per cent. to 36.8 per cent. Those are the figures published in the Red Book and the ones into which the Select Committee inquired. They have been published internationally and are accepted by those who look at such matters. So not only has the burden for the family with children been cut to its lowest since 1972, but the tax burden will be cut next year.
    I welcome the conversion of the Conservative party to Labour party policy on the Bank of England. I welcome, in particular, the shadow Chancellor who opposed the minimum wage so vigorously when he was at the Department of Employment admitting that he was wrong and now agreeing to the minimum wage. Now, will the Conservative party accept our other policies: first, the new deal to get young people back to work, which the Conservatives would still scrap; secondly, our working families tax credit, which is worth £24 a week; thirdly, our children's tax credit and our child care strategy; and fourthly, our commitment to the national health service, which they have never matched in anything they have said?
    May I give one final bit of advice to the shadow Chancellor? If he is looking back on his record and what he might learn from it, is it not amazing that, on his first day as shadow Chancellor, he has repeated the same mistake as the previous Prime Minister, the previous Chancellor and the previous Chief Secretary made when they committed the Conservative party to a politically driven tax guarantee that risks money for the NHS and the maintenance of prudence in this country? It is a tax guarantee that the former Prime Minister now says was "mad", and it puts the NHS at risk. It is a tax commitment that the former Chancellor, Lord Lamont—not noticeably

    1191
    a left-winger on tax issues—says is "irresponsible". I put it to the shadow Chancellor that the Tories should learn from all their mistakes.
    Madam Speaker: Perhaps we could get on with questions and answers now.

    Match Funds
    Mr. Andrew George: What discussions he has had with his colleagues in other Departments about the budget for match funds for the United Kingdom's European objective 1 regions. [106883]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): As part of the current spending review, I and my officials have begun discussions with all Departments on their spending plans, including those departmental programmes from which regions can draw match funding.
    Mr. George: Does the Minister accept that the Government last year signed commitments to Britain's four poorest regions, and that Cornwall will receive £314 million over the next seven years from Europe? The Prime Minister will want and expect a warm welcome when he visits Cornwall tomorrow. In order to be confident that he receives one, can the Chief Secretary assure us that the Government will honour their financial commitments to the UK's four poorest regions?
    Mr. Smith: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's thanks—I take it that is what it was—for the work of the Labour Government, in partnership with those areas, in winning the objective 1 status which, as he said, means a boost of more than £300 million for Cornwall. All departments and Government offices will work closely with the areas to benefit, to ensure that they get the match funding that they need.
    The hon. Gentleman might not be aware of how many sources of match funding there are: the revenue support grant for local authorities; the regional development agencies; business links; the new deal for communities; the Foresight and Smart programmes; the national lottery; loans from the European investment bank; and the voluntary and private sectors. We are committed to making a success of regeneration and growth in those areas. The Government will succeed where the previous Government failed—in the regions which suffered the most.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: The Chief Secretary will be aware that south Yorkshire and the other regions have got objective 1 funding because their gross domestic product per capita sank to below 75 per cent. of the European level—an indictment of the poverty politics of Planet Portillo when the Conservatives were in charge. However, that massive lifeline from Europe—I do not know whether we will see the Conservatives converting to pro-Europeanism as well by the end of Question Time—does need match funding. The money is there, but is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern that departmentalitis is not allowing the money to be made available? Will he look at that matter and crack the whip over other Whitehall Departments? He has indicated the sources of the money. Will he make sure that this money
    1192
    is made available, and that we get the help from Europe that south Yorkshire certainly needs after 20 scandalous years of Tory control?
    Mr. Smith: There is certainly no question of departmentalitis, red tape or anything else standing in the way of the help that those areas need to make a success of objective 1 status. As my hon. Friend recognises, that means a £750 million boost to the local economy of south Yorkshire. The day before yesterday, my right hon. Friends the Minister for Trade and the Minister for Local Government and the Regions met representatives from the area, including hon. Members from the constituencies affected, to ensure that they gain the benefits from the programme that they need and deserve.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): Instead of scrabbling around trying to increase the level of handouts from the EU budget for those regions, why do not the Government tackle the real issue, which is that for every £2 we pay into the EU budget we get £1 back? That is not a good deal for the British taxpayer or for those regions. Why did not the Government tackle that issue at the Berlin summit last year when, for the first time for many years, the entire structure of the EU budget and finances was up for renegotiation? Instead of renegotiating it, the Government accepted a continuance of that unfair mechanism, which is bad news for the British taxpayer and which has failed to release the additional resources for the regions that would otherwise be available from our own budget.
    Mr. Smith: The truth is, of course, that we succeeded in doing what the right hon. Gentleman, and his right hon. and hon. Friends, said was not possible—we fought for and saved the British rebate in Europe. The people living in south Yorkshire, west Wales and the valleys, Cornwall and Merseyside, who will benefit from the European programmes, will remember that the Conservatives are more interested in attacking everything European than they are in securing the benefits of constructive engagement in Europe for those areas of our country.

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Mr. Tom Clarke: How many new claims for working families tax credit have been made since its introduction; and if he will make a statement. [106884]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Up to the end of December 1999, there had been 630,000 awards for the working families tax credit, of which 300,000 were for families who were not in receipt of family credit at the time of the claim. The average gain to working families is £24 a week.
    Mr. Clarke: I thank the Chancellor for that reply and I assure him that many low-paid families in my constituency have benefited greatly from the working families tax credit. Indeed, some low-paid families have seen their incomes rise by more than £30 a week. I wish to encourage the Chancellor, who rightly enjoys an international reputation for challenging child poverty,

    1193
    to continue to address, in his Budget, that challenge to domestic child poverty in constituencies such as mine and in every constituent part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has fought hard on international development issues and on national issues to relieve the plight of those in poverty. He will be interested to know that 130,000 families in Scotland will benefit from the working families tax credit. Some families will get up to £50 a week extra. The Inland Revenue telephone line and the special working families tax credit telephone line have received nearly 2 million calls from people inquiring about the working families tax credit; that is why most people will conclude that it is a worthwhile and necessary innovation.
    In the spirit of conversion from previous mistakes, the Conservatives might remind themselves that the policy that they cannot support in Britain was perfectly acceptable to Ronald Reagan in the United States.
    Mr. David Ruffley: May I draw the Chancellor's attention to the remarks of the Office for National Statistics and the OECD to the effect that his treatment of the working families tax credit as a tax cut is a clear breach of standard accounting rules? When will he stop fiddling the figures?
    Mr. Brown: That is absolutely wrong. In the same way as the Conservatives considered mortgage tax relief, we have considered the working families tax credit. In the same way as these matters are being debated in America and elsewhere, and in the international organisations, they are now the subject of discussion here.
    Conservative Members do not like to admit that they are opposing a £24 a week tax cut for ordinary families. It is about time that, instead of trying to get out of the commitment that they should make to working families, they started supporting the working families tax credit.
    Ms Sally Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the working families tax credit has been important in my constituency not so much in itself but because, even if people get only £1 of it, they can get the child care credit which has transformed the lives of many women in my constituency, who say that they are £60 or £65 a week better off? Will he ensure that when the literature is produced for the working families tax credit, it will make much clearer the benefits of the child care credit? Will he comment on the fact that the Conservative party would destroy that benefit—if their promises are to be believed—thus throwing those women out of work and back on to benefit, damaging their families in the process? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Brown: They do not like hearing it, but Conservative Members are opposed to the measure that is taking more children out of poverty than any other. If only a few children were released from poverty by the working families tax credit, we would all support that; but 800,000 children are being taken out of poverty as a result of this and related measures.
    The number of people claiming the child care benefit has doubled as a result of the publicity, and we will advertise it widely so that it is available for mothers and fathers who have to make the choice between working
    1194
    and staying at home. I should have thought that, with the new evidence that 800,000 children are being taken out of poverty, the Conservative party could support what the Republicans support in America: an earned income tax credit such as we have.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Chancellor talked once again of tax cuts for families, but did he not have a huge Conservative deficit—not least the legacy of the former Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo)—to overcome? The real figures show that tax has risen, but the Chancellor, like his predecessor, likes to choose indirect taxes as the means of increase. Would we not have a more honest debate if the Chancellor restored the index measuring the overall tax burden, including indirect taxes, so we could see whether it is the Chancellor or the former Chief Secretary who increased indirect taxes most?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is obviously very interested in the statistics, so let me tell him that the tax burden on the ordinary family with one child has fallen, and is falling, from 21.5 per cent., to 20.9 per cent., to 20.4 per cent. and to what will be next year the lowest tax burden on ordinary families for 20 years. He should support that.
    The hon. Gentleman is right about the Conservative party: we must unite on that, and remind the country that the current Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen on tax are the very people who, in the Conservative Government after 1992, put VAT on fuel, introduced the escalator, reduced the married couples allowance from 40 per cent. to 15 per cent., introduced the air passenger tax and implemented 22 tax rises: the biggest rises in tax that the country has seen.
    It seems from yesterday's performance, when the shadow Chancellor made his tax guarantee, that he has learned nothing from past mistakes. With all those tax rises behind him, he is not the Conservative party's solution: he is its problem.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the benefits of the working families tax credit in areas such as Liverpool go alongside the benefits of employment opportunities provided by, for example, Government regeneration programmes and the ability of the Merseyside objective 1 area to spend £850 million of European funding, especially on business support? Does he recall that the working families tax credit was opposed in the House not only by the Conservatives but by the Liberal Democrats?
    Mr. Brown: Perhaps the Liberal Democrats need to rethink these matters. In the north-west and Merseyside, nearly 170,000 people will benefit from the working families tax credit. We now have a strategy, through the new deal, to give people new job opportunities, and through the working families tax credit, to make work pay. The child care credit makes it possible for people to work who might not otherwise be able to; and the tax changes that we are making, including the cut in the basic rate of tax, make it possible for work to pay even more for these families. We will, in the Budget, be introducing further measures that make it possible for people in the

    1195
    areas that have been hardest hit by unemployment in the past, because of 20 years of Tory Government, to get the jobs they want.
    Mr. William Ross: How many claims for working families tax credit come from farming families? Would not that number of claims be reduced if the Chancellor and his right hon. Friends drew down the compensatory funds that are available for farming from Europe, owing to the changes in the value of the pound?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I know that substantial numbers of claims have come in the past and still come from farming families. Self-employed people are also eligible for the working families tax credit and there has been a distinct increase in the number of applicants. That is the right of people in any area of this country. In Northern Ireland, 50,000 people are now eligible for, and claiming, the working families tax credit.
    Furthermore, the second biggest group of people claiming investment allowances, which we introduced in 1997, is the farming community. So we are doing what we can, within the resources that we have, to help farming families.
    Mr. Howard Flight: On working families tax credit, the Chancellor clearly believes that he has been brilliant. Can he explain why the working families tax credit has to be paid out to people whom the Inland Revenue know are not eligible? Can he explain why people earning more than £38,000 a year can be eligible to receive it? Can he explain why more than 1 million people have a marginal tax rate of 69 per cent? Can he explain why employers have to spend £100 million on administering the credit? The OECD has made it clear that it should be treated not as a tax cut, but as a social security spending increase, as it is means-tested. The Royal Statistical Society has said that the Chancellor is failing to put the national accounts on a reliable footing. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's skills in creative accounting have misled even himself.
    Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman has any allegations about fraudulent claims for working families tax credit, let him put them to the proper authorities. Every other issue he raises shows how little he understands the working families tax credit. This is a benefit that will be paid through the wage packet because it shows that work pays. I thought that the Conservative party was interested in showing that work paid. It will encourage mothers who otherwise would not be able to work to have the resources, through child care, to do so. I should have thought that the Conservative party would want women to have that freedom. It will increase the number of jobs in the economy, and will benefit the very small businesses in which the hon. Gentleman says he is interested.
    The Government are ensuring that work pays for these people. I should have thought, on the basis of the Conservative party's new analysis of policy, that it would accept that it has been wrong over the working families tax credit, and change its policy.

    Debt Relief
    Mr. Andrew Reed: What steps he is taking to persuade other countries to offer 100 per cent. bilateral debt relief to all countries that qualify for debt relief under the enhanced highly indebted poor countries initiative. [106885]
    Mrs. Betty Williams: What discussions he plans to hold with his counterparts in other G7 countries about measures to write off the debt of the highly indebted poor countries. [106895]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I am delighted that the French Finance Minister announced at the G7 meeting in Tokyo on 22 January that France, too, will provide 100 per cent. debt relief to all countries that qualify for debt relief under the highly indebted poor countries initiative. I have urged my other G7 colleagues and other countries to make similar commitments. I believe that further commitments will be announced in the run-up to the International Monetary Fund meetings in April.
    Yesterday, Mauritania received debt relief—the first country to benefit under the new enhanced initiative. Tomorrow, I believe that Bolivia will receive the debt relief that it is due, and in the next few weeks Uganda will receive its relief. The initiative is working, and I am grateful to all the Churches and community organisations which joined the campaign to make it possible.
    Mr. Reed: I am sure that the House would wish to congratulate the Chancellor on his worldwide moral lead, which has been described as
    "wonderful news and shows welcome vision and leadership".
    Those are not my words, but those of Ann Pettifor, the director of Jubilee 2000. However, countries such as Japan and Germany are still owed large debts that far outweigh the amounts that the United Kingdom has managed to write off. Will my right hon. Friend apply pressure over the next few weeks to ensure that those debts are relieved and that real poverty reduction is felt in the countries that really need it?
    Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend, who leads a House of Commons group that has widely publicised the case for debt relief. The third-world countries need and should have debt relief; that should be no source of division in the House, and I hope that the Conservative Opposition will support our efforts. He is right that debt relief must lead on to poverty relief and economic development. In 1999, the world woke up to its obligations on debt relief; in 2000, we must create a virtuous circle of debt relief, poverty relief and economic development. I shall continue to press other countries. I believe that Norway and Sweden will make announcements similar to our own, and that some other G7 countries are ready to make further announcements. The widely welcomed initiative that Britain took before Christmas had a purpose and has brought results.
    Mrs. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware of widespread support up and down the country for the announcement that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development made

    1197
    before Christmas? I join other hon. Members in congratulating Jubilee 2000 and other organisations on their campaigning techniques. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that he will, in future discussion with G7 countries, make it crystal clear that the heavily indebted poor countries that save money will not invest it in armaments?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has led the campaign on debt relief in her constituency alongside Churches and community organisations. During the past year, we have seen one of the greatest displays of togetherness among religious denominations and non-governmental organisations as they have alerted people in Britain and across the world to the problem. She is right that debt relief must be used for poverty relief. It must not be spent on weapons of war, corruption, bureaucracy or waste. That is why we took our unilateral action.
    My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Development and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have said that we will not extend export credits to 63 of the poorest countries in which export credits would lead to unproductive expenditure, such as spending on military weapons. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives have not supported that measure, and I hope that they will change their minds.
    Mr. William Cash: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer may know, I chair the all-party group on the reduction of third-world debt and have tried to take a constructive interest in the Government's views and to encourage them where possible. He will also know that many millions of people in the UK and the rest of the world have signed the petition on the reduction of third-world debt.
    In December, the Chancellor said that four countries would qualify by January, but have not only three done so? One of those is Mauritania, whose record on, for example, child labour is somewhat indifferent. Why will only three, not four countries qualify? Why has Guyana been demoted after having apparently been given assurances on the internal workings of its economy by an official of the International Monetary Fund? Will the Chancellor look into that question and find out why Guyana has not been give the debt relief that it deserves?
    Mr. Brown: Of course, I will look into the matter. The hon. Gentleman is right; hundreds of thousands of people in the UK have been involved in the campaign. At the Treasury, we have received tens of thousands of letters asking us to take action on the matter—including one that I received before Christmas from my mother. We have been trying to get countries through the initiative as quickly as possible.
    The hon. Gentleman asked why the fourth country—Mozambique—has not yet completed the process, when we had hoped that it would have done so by the end of January. I hope that he will follow these matters closely, because the reason is that Mozambique asked to be given time to formulate its poverty reduction strategy to present to the IMF board and the World Bank. It is not a delay on our part, so he should not criticise us; it was at the country's request.
    1198
    As for other countries, we hope that 11 will be through the process by Easter, and 24 by the end of the year. The speed of progress will depend on the submission of poverty reduction plans. It is critical that we know that the debt relief will go to poverty relief. In the case of Uganda, we have already been promised that the country will halve the pupil-teacher ratio in schools from 100:1 to 50:1. We have also been promised that every child in Uganda will be educated in a classroom in a school building. [Interruption.] I should have thought that the Opposition would be interested in hearing those facts.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Madam Speaker, you will have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeat the claim that he made on 11 January that, in the Government's great, bold manoeuvre, no fewer than 63 countries would be removed from eligibility to benefit from the support for defence exports of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Will he confirm that, during the past 13 years, only one of those 63 countries—Kenya—has been the beneficiary of ECGD support, and that it is unlikely that Vanuatu was high on the list of British Aerospace's prospects? I invite him to acknowledge that his manoeuvre was, at best, empty and, at worst, misleading and disingenuous.
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman does not understand what happened. The reason that we have not given export credits to those countries during the past few years is that we banned them unilaterally two and a half years ago. That is why they are not receiving export credits for their expenditure on arms.
    The hon. Gentleman asks me to answer for everything that happened under the previous Conservative Government. Even with the best will in the world, I cannot do that. I cannot explain all their actions. In January, we extended the list from 40 to 63; again, I should have thought that the Conservative party would support that.

    Energy Taxation
    Mr. Tony Baldry: What recent representations he has received on energy taxation. [106887]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): We have received several representations on energy taxation. In particular, we have listened closely to the views of business and other interested parties on our proposals for the climate change levy. We intend to continue the development of those proposals in an open and consultative way.
    Mr. Baldry: I hope that the Chancellor's mother received a reply to her letter sooner than the average six weeks that most of us have to wait for a reply from the Treasury.
    Is it not correct that, because of the Treasury's divide and rule negotiations over the energy tax, many larger industries have been let off, whereas smaller firms, such as Colegrave Seeds in my constituency, have been disproportionately clobbered? As the firm points out, that is all the more crazy, given that the thousands of flowers produced in its greenhouses reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Will the Government produce a year-on-year

    1199
    estimate of the amount of the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in relation to the tax garnered by the Treasury, or is the measure merely about further tax gathering?
    Mr. Timms: There is no size discrimination in the arrangements. We have made it clear that all the sites covered by the integrated pollution prevention and control directive will be eligible to enter discussions for a negotiated agreement. The rationale for that is strong; those sites are already treated distinctively because of their energy efficiency measures.
    We remain open to the consideration of alternatives for energy-intensive firms exposed to international competition. However, such alternatives would need a clear rationale, to be legally robust and administratively simple and to comply with EU state aid rules. We are confident that, on a conservative estimate, the levy will lead to reductions in emissions of 2 million tonnes of carbon a year and at least as much again as a result of the negotiated agreements.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: On the tax regime for the North sea oil and gas industry, notwithstanding the rise in the oil price over the past year, does my hon. Friend agree that, looking to the future, we shall have smaller fields of oil and gas? They will be marginal fields and production will be more expensive. If we are to continue to attract investment in those fields, given worldwide competition, we need a tax regime that will encourage such investment. Will he agree to keep that tax regime under review, so that we can look forward to another 30 years' production of North sea oil and gas?
    Mr. Timms: We keep those matters under continual review and I met representatives of the North sea industry recently. As my hon. Friend said, the oil price is very buoyant at present and I very much hope that that will be reflected in increased activity in the North sea.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: Now that the Government have mercifully—albeit possibly temporarily—withdrawn their ludicrous pesticides tax on the splendidly rational ground that it would have done nothing to limit the use of pesticides, will the Financial Secretary, after a prolonged period of reflection, promise to get rid of the dreadful energy tax, which still has a massive impact on some firms and will do little or nothing to reduce CO2 emissions?
    Mr. Timms: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. On the pesticides tax, we said in the pre-Budget report that we were working with the British Agrochemicals Association. It has now come forward with proposals for a package of voluntary measures and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that, on that basis, he will not proceed with the introduction of a pesticides tax in the Budget.
    The climate change levy, however, is very widely welcomed. It is important that we meet our Kyoto objectives, and competitor nations are also taking steps to meet them. We all want the problem of climate change to be addressed. We are taking the steps that need to be taken.
    Fiona Mactaggart: On the climate change levy, I know that firms in my constituency have welcomed the level to which the Treasury has been open
    1200
    to considering changes and receiving representations. However, many firms are still concerned about the decision to use integrated pollution prevention and control as a proxy for the tax. British Plasterboard, which is based in my constituency, is not part of the scheme—which is not related to climate change—and it produces a very energy-efficient product. The Treasury constantly saying, "Give us an alternative" is all very well, but does my hon. Friend think that there may be other better measures?
    Mr. Timms: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging the extent to which we have listened and taken careful account of all the representations that have been made to us. She is right that the changes that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in November—they increased the environmental effectiveness of the levy while safeguarding the competitiveness of UK firms—have been widely welcomed. There are number of significant benefits, such as legal certainty, to using integrated pollution prevention and control as the basis for the negotiated agreements. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we remain open to considering alternatives as long as they meet the criteria that I set out a moment ago.

    Inter-bank Transfers
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: If he will introduce legislation to provide for the payment of interest on inter-bank transfers. [106889]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I have no plans to introduce such legislation.
    Mr. Ottaway: Notwithstanding banking practice, there is an important consumer point. It takes at least three days to transfer money from one bank to another. During that time, the owners of the money do not have access to it, they cannot use it and they do not earn interest on it. Under those circumstances, will the Economic Secretary conduct a review to find out where that money has gone and who earns the interest on it?
    Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is right that cheque clearance takes, on average, three days to complete, but he is incorrect to say that there is a disparity between the money going into the account and it being received at the other end. Funds commonly reach the payee's account and attract interest, if appropriate, on the same day that a cheque is presented or an electronic transfer made. The Association of Payment Clearing Services believes that the majority of banks make no profit from the clearing process.

    Economic Growth
    Dr. Rudi Vis: What are his forecasts for United Kingdom economic growth in 2000–01, 2000–02 and 2002–03. [106890]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): Forecasts for growth were set out in the pre-Budget report, and were between 2.25 and 2.75 per cent. for each of the years listed. Through our tough and decisive action, the Government have established the

    1201
    platform of stability necessary to secure stable growth in output and employment. Updated forecasts will be published in the Budget.
    Dr. Vis: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Are those growth rates sufficiently high to pursue the Government's various other goals, such as full employment and an end to child poverty?
    Mr. Smith: The crucial point is that we have more than 750,000 more people in jobs since the general election, thanks to the steps that we have taken to achieve stability, sustained investment and low, stable inflation. That platform of stability, with the new deal and our other measures for investment and regeneration, will enable us steadily to increase employment. We want to move towards full employment so that all our people, who were so cruelly wasted under the Conservatives, can realise their full potential and use their talents and energies.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: Is the Chief Secretary satisfied by the productivity gains since 1997? Will he extrapolate from that performance his productivity predictions for the years in the original question?
    Mr. Smith: No one can be complacent about this country's productivity record, which is due not least to the lack of education, training and investment that we inherited from the previous Government. We continue to press ahead to improve productivity, which is why educational and vocational skills are so important and rising levels of investment are so encouraging.
    We welcome the upturn in output by manufacturing industry in the quarter to November; the annualised rate was 4 per cent., which is the highest for five years. Moreover, we are now seeing the highest ever levels of manufacturing output. It is especially encouraging that improvement is greatest among small firms. There is further to go, but we are making progress.

    Exchange Rate
    Mr. David Taylor: If he will make a statement on the impact of his fiscal policy on the exchange rate of the pound in the last six months. [106891]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The factors affecting the exchange rate are many and complex, so it is not possible to identify the precise impact of fiscal policy. However, as I have just said, the Government's fiscal policy has made an important contribution towards achieving long-term economic stability by locking in sound public finances.
    Mr. Taylor: The Minister knows that sterling has risen to levels last seen in the mid-1980s. Does he share my concern that any fiscal loosening in the March Budget risks driving up the pound even further, accentuating the difficulties experienced by small firms in North-West Leicestershire that export to, or compete with, firms in
    1202
    Europe? What does he say to those who claim that it is safer to invest any fiscal elbow room in better public services rather than further income tax cuts?
    Mr. Smith: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to speculate on the contents of the Budget, any more than he would expect me to speculate on interest or exchange rates. Our message is clear: the programmes that we have put in place for stability, sound public finances, investment and higher skills levels are the best measures to help businesses, including small businesses, to succeed in the global economy.
    The trends for manufacturing industry are encouraging, in the east midlands as elsewhere. Output is higher than ever; exports are rising and, as this month's CBI and British Chambers of Commerce surveys showed, confidence is increasing. It is as a consequence of those measures that in the east midlands employment has gone up and unemployment has gone down since the general election, with youth unemployment down by three quarters and long-term unemployment down by two thirds. That is the confidence that we have in the businesses of the east midlands, and which they are reciprocating through their record on jobs and exports.
    Sir Michael Spicer: As the Minister has implied, when he is answering the right question, interest rates are one of the factors that affect exchange rates. Why has the Chancellor of the Exchequer, according to The Times today, in effect told what is meant to be an independent Monetary Policy Committee to increase interest rates?
    Mr. Smith: That is not what my right hon. Friend told The Times. He told it that we backed the actions of the Monetary Policy Committee and the Bank of England in taking whatever steps are necessary to ensure that we stick to the path of stability, steady growth and sound public finances that is steadily transforming the economic prospects of this country.

    Manufacturing
    Mr. David Kidney: What assessment he has made of the prospects for growth in the United Kingdom's manufacturing sector over the next 12 months. [106897]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): The pre-Budget report forecast is manufacturing output growth of 1½ to 2 per cent. this year.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Recently, Stafford's premier manufacturer, Alstom, announced quite heavy job losses later this year. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that the Budget will be on my birthday, may I ask for a birthday present, namely fiscal measures that are targeted to help those sectors of the economy that are exposed to international competition and hit by the value of the pound?
    Miss Johnson: I am sorry to hear about the difficulties that are being experienced by the company to which my hon. Friend referred. I shall be happy to meet him to talk about them.
    It is a coincidence that the Budget will be introduced on my hon. Friend's birthday. He should draw no conclusions from the fact that the Treasury team does not give birthday presents. However, our best birthday present has been to the country, and it has been the prudence with which we have looked after the economic affairs of the nation, the caution that we have deployed and our policy of sound public finances, leading to the fastest rate of growth in the United Kingdom for five years. Manufacturing output rose by 1.1 per cent. in the three months to November on the previous three months. We have stabilised the economy and ensured that we do not return to the record interest rates that the Opposition allowed to happen when in government. We have avoided a return to the boom-and-bust policies of the Tory years.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Government have talked about the optimistic outlook for manufacturing industry. I am sure that the Minister would agree that the manufacturing base is too small. Do the Government see an expansion of it? What policies will the Government pursue to bring that about, as that will lead to more stable and sustainable economic growth?
    Miss Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for manufacturing industry, which I strongly share. Manufacturing productivity is now up by 6 per cent. on the previous year. That is the strongest growth for five years. These developments augur well for the future. The Conservative Government, in sharp contrast to the present Government, presided over zero growth in productivity from 1995 to 1997. I am sure that he agrees that it is the present Government's policies that are helping to provide the base on which manufacturing and exports will continue to grow.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Is the Minister aware that concern about the future of British manufacturing industry has been expressed by no less a body than the International Monetary Fund, which considers the pound to be 15 to 20 per cent. overvalued? What reply has the Treasury given to the IMF?
    Miss Johnson: The IMF has given the UK Government a glowing report on their management of the economy, on which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would wish to congratulate us, although I did not hear him do so. As I said, manufacturing output has improved. We have on many occasions drawn to the attention of hon. Members an increase of 700,000 jobs across the UK economy. That is supported by strong manufacturing output.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Motions on Social Security Orders.
Procedure motion relating to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill.
TUESDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Armed Forces (Discipline) Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Conclusion of proceedings on the Financial Services and Markets Bill.
THURSDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill.
FRIDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill (First Day).
TUESDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Postal Services Bill.
WEDNESDAY 16 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill (Second Day).
THURSDAY 17 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [5th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 18 FEBRUARY—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 16 February there will be a debate on the 1999 review of telecommunications legislation and radio spectrum policy in European Standing Committee C.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 9 February there will be a debate relating to common strategy on Ukraine in European Standing Committee B, and a debate on state aid to the coal industry in European Standing Committee C. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 9 February 2000:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union documents:13523/2/99, Common Strategy on Ukraine; Unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 1 February 2000, Ukraine Common Strategy Work Plan; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 23-iv and HC 23-vii (1999–2000). [Wednesday 16 February 2000:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European documents:14320/98, 12838/99, 12839/99, 12840/99, 1999 Review of Telecommunications Legislation and Radio Spectrum Policy; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC-23-i and HC 23-vii (1999–2000).]
1206
The House may also like to know that it is the Government's intention that we should rise for Easter at the close of business on Maundy Thursday and return on Tuesday 2 May.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business, an indication of the likely business for the week after, and advance notice of the Easter recess.
The whole House is concerned about events in Northern Ireland, following the completion of the de Chastelain report. Of course, we understand all the sensitivities, but can the right hon. Lady tell the House whether the Secretary of State has any plans to make a statement later today?
Can we expect statements next week from the Home Secretary on Senator Pinochet, and from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on his proposals for the licence fee, some six months after the report of the Davies committee?
Will the Leader of the House undertake to find time for the usual St. David's day debate on Welsh affairs?
Following last night's vote, does the right hon. Lady understand that the Opposition very much regret that their nomination for the House of Commons Commission was rejected, with 16 Parliamentary Private Secretaries voting against a motion in the name of the Deputy Chief Whip? Will she use her best endeavours to resolve the inevitable difficulties that have ensued?
Finally, will the Prime Minister make a statement on Monday on his findings, following his tour of the south-west? May not that give him a welcome opportunity to revise the impression that he has given that he is totally out of touch with countryside issues?
Mrs. Beckett: First, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for some of the announcements that I made, and for giving me the opportunity to clarify the position.
The House will appreciate that discussions are continuing during the day. Given the political situation in Northern Ireland, the business that I have just announced may be subject to some revision. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland expects to come to the House later this evening to make a statement. If that statement has an impact on the handling of business, I shall announce then any necessary changes in the business of the House.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked about Senator Pinochet. Although the application by Amnesty International in Belgium for a judicial review has been rejected by Mr. Justice Kay, Amnesty has renewed its application to the divisional court. In view of those proceedings, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given an undertaking that he will not make a decision on extradition before the hearing of the application, which cannot take place before Monday 7 February. My right hon. Friend has always maintained that he will come to the House to announce the decision as soon as possible.
I note the right hon. Gentleman's wish for a statement on the Davies report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has that in mind and will make an announcement to the House when he can. The Government intend to find time for a debate on Welsh affairs around St. David's day.

1207
I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the later events of yesterday evening. I did not know that 16 PPSs had voted on the matter. They slipped through the net, and the Whips were unable to prevent them from going into the Lobby. That is a stirring tribute to the impression that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has made on his colleagues.
I cannot tell the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire that the Prime Minister will make a statement on Monday, following his visit to the south-west. Any anxieties about the decision that the House made last night can be aired in the normal way.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Question Time is being progressively destroyed by rambling questions from hon. Members and, to be blunt, rambling answers from Ministers? I do not disagree with the content of the answers, but I object to what is happening. We must stop the practice. What can my right hon. Friend do personally to stop it and to bring to the attention of Ministers the need for something to be done?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will know Madam Speaker's strong views on the matter, which she expressed again earlier this week. I am conscious of both aspects of the difficulty to which my hon. Friend refers. Ministers should try to give succinct answers, which are to the point. I am sure that he understands that business questions are a little different. I do not criticise the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) when I say that when Ministers are asked a range of questions, it is difficult not to speak at some length without being accused of not replying to a question.
My hon. Friend is right to say that we are considering a matter of discipline on both sides—hon. Members and Ministers. Both Madam Speaker and I will continue to preach that message.
Mr. Paul Tyler: We welcome the Leader of the House's assurance that, if developments occur, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement later today rather than waiting until tomorrow, when fewer hon. Members will be present.
I want to comment on the countryside crisis. I have read carefully the contributions of the Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative party to the National Farmers Union annual general meeting. Both contain an amazing mixture of complacency and refusal to accept responsibility. Will there be a statement and a debate in Government time on the rural crisis? Today, No. 10 pretends that everything is hunky-dory in the countryside, especially in the south-west. That is nonsense.
Will the Leader of the House assure us that there will be an early statement on the Competition Commission report into supermarket profiteering? Predatory pricing is causing huge difficulties to agriculture and creating more problems than exports.
Mrs. Beckett: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on Northern Ireland.
I have not read all the reports of the NFU annual general meeting, although I know about some of the comments that have been made. I strongly rebut the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister
1208
is complacent. Indeed, he draws attention to the many problems of the countryside, such as lack of transport and schools. However, he also emphasises that those problems have not simply arisen since May 1997 and that the Government are trying to improve matters. I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman an early statement and debate, although he will be conscious, as I am, that that matter is raised often in this slot and I point out to him that Agriculture questions are on Thursday next. I am aware of the Competition Commission report, which is under way, and shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the perhaps few occasions on which the British public can share in the enjoyment of the House is Prime Minister's Question Time? Does she share the concern of many Members that last week's was lost because of the efforts to talk out the business? Will she timetable a debate on procedure so that I and other hon. Members might discuss timetabling in the House, which the Modernisation Committee recommended in one of its earliest reports should be more and better used?
Mrs. Beckett: Certainly I am aware of the concern that is felt when the business of the House gets out of control. My hon. Friend is right to say that the Modernisation Committee made recommendations for the programming of suitable Bills and it proposes to examine where we are on that issue in the near future. He will also know that we debate procedural matters from time to time. I share his regret that last week's Prime Minister's Question Time was lost. He may not know that a Conservative Member who took part in that debate has made it clear on the record that Conservative Members took deliberate action in an effort to draw attention to their concerns about the business that we were debating and that they took that decision deliberately early on Wednesday morning.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: May we have a statement next week on the future of the Government information service? Of the 17 directors of communication who were in place when the Government came to office, only one remains—the 16th having been sacked last week by the Minister for the Cabinet Office. The politicisation of the civil service is a matter in which a free Parliament should take an active interest.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he hears. There is no suggestion whatever that the head of information at the Cabinet Office was sacked. He is leaving to take up a six-month post at the Centre for Management and Policy Studies. When I was President of the Board of Trade, the head of information at the Department of Trade and Industry decided to take early retirement—entirely voluntarily and very much to my regret—for purely personal considerations. [Interruption.] I say to Conservative Members that those personal considerations were serious. It was a great source of regret that she chose to leave, but she did so of her own volition. That is another example of the silliness of making such statements and assumptions.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I listened with interest to the Leader of the House's comments about a possible statement on General Pinochet, next week or

1209
whenever. She will have seen early-day motion 340, on correspondence between the Home Office and the lawyers for General Pinochet:
[That this House notes that on 30th January, the respected Spanish newspaper El Pais published the text of letters exchanged between the Home Office and Augusto Pinochet's lawyers from November 1999 onwards, and that these letters confirm that, despite being under no legal obligation to make such an offer, the Home Office proposed on its own initiative that Augusto Pinochet's medical details be kept secret before they received any such request from his lawyers; further notes that his lawyers informed the Home Office that their client issued them with detailed instructions about the terms under which he would submit to medical examination in November 1999 after he had allegedly suffered a major deterioration rendering him unable to prepare for trial, that, contrary to procedures adopted in previous extradition cases, the Home Office suggested General Pinochet's own British and Chilean doctors could attend his 5th January medical examination, and that the Home Office supplied him in advance with the complete list of questions they asked the independent medical team to ascertain, including queries about his ability to recall events in the 1970s; notes also that apparent loss of memory in this respect is notoriously easy to fake and that the torture offences upon which his extradition is sought occurred in the late 1980s; and therefore calls upon the Home Secretary to request that Augusto Pinochet attend a fresh medical examination at which observers for the governments of Spain, France, Belgium and Switzerland will be allowed to be present.]
The correspondence was published in last Sunday's El Pais. Will she ensure that all correspondence is made public so we can see the truth of the situation in respect of the request or otherwise for medical secrecy to surround General Pinochet's case? Will she also ensure that all the evidence and advice collected by the Crown Prosecution Service, which has been passed to the Spanish Government, is made public so that we can see the strength of the argument in respect of an appeal which would enable Pinochet to be extradited to Spain to face the trial that he so truly deserves?
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I certainly cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance that all the correspondence and evidence is likely to be published. All I can say is that he will know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has done everything he can to keep the House fully informed and gave a commitment to return with further information when he is in a position to do so. I shall certainly draw my hon Friend's request to my right hon. Friend's attention.
Mr. Eric Forth: May we please have, as a matter of urgency, a debate on the European Union's attitude to domestic politics, government and democratic elections in member states, and in particular on whether Her Majesty's Government are minded to support any intervention or interference in the democratic processes of a member state? Perhaps we could also consider whether the Government would be as interested in the domestic politics of a member state were an extreme left-wing party involved, as they apparently
1210
are—perhaps the Leader of the House will give some clarification—when the party concerned is at the opposite end of the spectrum.
I refer to important constitutional matters relating to the European Union. I am sure that the Government will want to take an early opportunity to clarify their view.
Mrs. Beckett: The Government indeed believe that it is important for all EU members to respect the provisions of the treaties. That means that they should be committed to acting against xenophobia and discrimination. Obviously, we share the concerns that other Governments have expressed.
On a lighter note, let me inform the right hon. Gentleman that, having read yesterday's Hansard, I am shocked and dismayed to discover that the views on the EU that he has just expressed are in clear contravention of the stance that he adopted yesterday. [Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has learned since then; but, having taken a different attitude from his at the time when the British people made their choice, I will treat his remarks about Europe with much more scepticism in future.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: May we have a debate on the coal industry? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although a subsidy is available in Europe, there is doubt about whether we can obtain it? Does she realise that only 17 mines remain in Great Britain, and that every one is threatened with closure over the next 12 or 18 months?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the sad position in the mining industry and of my hon. Friend's long and hard work on behalf of the mining community. The same could be said of other Labour Members. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate in the House in the near future, but my hon. Friend will observe that I have announced a debate on state aid to the European coal industry to take place in Standing Committee E. He will know that other hon. Members can take part in that debate.
Mr. David Lepper: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in a few weeks' time, the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species will consider relaxing safeguards on whaling, trade in ivory and other matters? Hon. Members have already expressed concern in parliamentary questions and in early-day motion 342, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor):
[That this House believes that strong international controls on trade in ivory are necessary to protect endangered elephants; acknowledges that the European Union's abstention on a vote to relax the ban on international ivory trade at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in 1997 allowed a limited resumption in ivory trade between three southern African countries and Japan; is concerned that many African and Asian elephant range states have reported an increase in elephant poaching as a result of the lifting of the ivory ban and that there have been a number of large seizures of illegal ivory in recent months; notes Labour's manifesto pledge to 'support protection for the African elephant, and oppose any resumption of

1211
the trade in ivory and elephant skins'; and therefore strongly urges the Government to fully support the restoration of a ban on international trade in ivory at the next CITES Conference of the Parties in April 2000.]
Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging a debate on the meeting, in good time for those representing the United Kingdom to be informed of hon. Members' views?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the concern felt by my hon. Friend and, indeed, many hon. Members on both sides of the House. I fear that I cannot provide time for a special debate on the time scale that he suggests, but he may have an opportunity to alert hon. Members to the meeting during questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions next week.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's successful speech to the National Farmers Union this week, does the Leader of the House think that she could persuade him to make a speech to the House about the countryside? The Prime Minister does not seem to understand that, without a prosperous farming and agriculture industry, we shall not have the beauty and attractiveness of the British countryside.
Mrs. Beckett: I thought it was clear from what my right hon. Friend said yesterday at Prime Minister's Question Time that he is well aware of the problems that have arisen in the countryside, and is also well aware that they did not all start in May 1997.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: Can the Leader of the House tell us when the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will tell the House about his proposals for the BBC's digital licence fee? As she will know, the front page of today's edition of The Sun suggests that the licence fee will be increased by £15 for all subscribers, but the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport has said that there should be no increase. I am sure most hon. Members agree that it is unacceptable for the BBC licence fee to increase by £15. She might also be aware of all the concerns of our constituents. Those who are aged between 60 and 74, who do not benefit from the free licence fee that the Government have announced recently, would find it a complete insult if their licence fee went up by £15.
Mrs. Beckett: I have already said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State anticipates making an announcement about the Davies report; he will make it when he is able to do so. The hon. Lady referred to the claims in The Sun today, which are, I understand, wrong. She drew attention to the concerns of those who are not eligible for the Government's concession on television licences for the over-75s, on which I have yet to hear any Conservative Member congratulate the Government.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on employment among older workers, which just happens to be the title of early-day motion 341, which was tabled yesterday in my name? It has the support of 49 hon. Members from the three main parties:
[That this House observes with regret the lower earnings of workers over the age of 50 and the smaller proportion of workers over the age of 50 who are in
1212
employment, both in comparison with other age groups and historically; notes that the proportion of employees aged over 50 is lowest amongst large public and private sector employers; recognises that many people in their late middle years wish to be usefully employed but are not; welcomes measures taken by Governments in recent years, including the New Deal for 50 plus, and acknowledges that these measures have not had time to yield results; and calls upon the Government and other employers to put more resources into the encouragement and career development of their older employees rather than into enhancements of early retirement benefits as an addition to an active strategy to discourage discrimination against older workers.]
Simply to demonstrate a point, many of the signatories are from the older end and are hard-working, capable and valued Members of the House. It is a great pity that older workers are not so valued in other sectors of employment, particularly many Government Departments.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will, I am sure, be aware that last June the Government launched a code of practice on age diversity in employment and are actively promoting the principles of the code in government. A further large-scale promotion will be launched shortly. The code's impact so far will be evaluated to find out whether further steps need to be taken to tackle age discrimination. Of course, I recognise and endorse her view that, within the great range of Members who are represented in the House, there are many whose years and experience lend weight and value to their contributions.
Dr. Evan Harris: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House—either in a debate, or to make a statement—to confirm a report in the press that, yesterday, he confirmed plans for a new class of after-care wards for elderly patients in an effort to free badly needed acute beds? My constituents cannot understand such sentiments coming from a Secretary of State who has closed a hospital in the constituency of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) and in that of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), and who has closed even more beds in Abingdon. The Government profess to want more beds for elderly care, but they are closing community hospitals.
Mrs. Beckett: Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State continues to make a number of proposals and announcements to modernise and reform the health service so that it delivers a better standard of care. I do not think there is a community in the country that is not attached to its local hospital—whatever its provision and the pattern of that provision—and does not always feel regret and concern when any proposals are made for change. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Secretary of State makes or approves proposals with the wish to see a strong, healthy national health service that survives for the future and to improve that service, contrary to proposals that might come from the Conservative party.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend find Government time for a debate on the protection of public open spaces? May I tell her by way of example of the need for such a debate that the granting

1213
of metropolitan open land status for Field End recreation ground, Roxbourne park and Roxbourne rough is, rightly, of considerable importance to my constituents in South Harrow and Rayners Lane? I therefore ask her to put some pressure on colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to agree to such a debate.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he has been running a strong local campaign on the issue and that there is much interest among his constituents. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for another debate in the Chamber on the matter in the near future, but he may be aware that on, I believe, 2 March there will be a debate in Westminster Hall, where there may be scope for such issues to be aired.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I reinforce what other hon. Members have said by asking the Leader of the House whether she can find time for a debate on rural affairs, so that the Prime Minister could explain to the House what he explained to the NFU annual general meeting, and particularly so that he could explain to my constituent pig farmers—who at this very moment are holding a vigil outside this place—why he is effectively sentencing them to bankruptcy by imposing charges that our European counterparts who import meat into this country do not have to face?
Mrs. Beckett: I was pleased to see in the Leader of the Opposition's remarks to the NFU annual conference an admission that I have not yet heard across the Floor of the Chamber—that agriculture's problems did not start on 1 May 1997. That is certainly true, and it is particularly true for pig farmers. Many of the regulations that they are having to meet—which we know are causing them difficulties, and on which we have given a great deal of assistance and support—were introduced by the previous Government, which the hon. Gentleman supported.
Mr. Alan Simpson: I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 347, on the completion of the biosafety protocol at Montreal:
[That this House welcomes the agreement reached in Montreal last week in respect of the Biosafety Protocol; congratulates the Minister for the Environment on his role in securing the support of European and non-aligned nations for the protocol; and recognises the overriding importance of the precautionary principle and environmental sustainability in all discussions relating to international trade and development.]
Many of the non-governmental organisations returning to the United Kingdom have spoken in glowing terms about the role played by the Minister for the Environment in achieving a remarkable agreement that, for the first time, puts the precautionary principle in human and environmental health alongside trade considerations in international affairs. Could we have a statement on those discussions so that the House may pay its own tributes to the Minister? Could a copy of the protocol also be placed in the Library to support the statement?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he said, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the
1214
Environment had a considerable triumph at the Montreal conference, and I think that the whole House will welcome the fact that we have the first proper substantial international agreement on a biosafety protocol. Although I cannot find time in the near future to discuss the matter again, I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend, who I know will be grateful and will seek to inform the House, as my hon. Friend has requested.
Rev. Martin Smyth: One understands the reasons for delays in a statement, but could the Leader of the House tell us whether the de Chastelain report will be published shortly so that people can see what he said? In the light of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday, there is deep concern that he stand by his position that no one can be in executive government without decommissioning. Mr. Ahern has said the same thing. However, because the First Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), has taken a firm line, he has been criticised for trying to sabotage the agreement. Surely the House stands by democratic process.
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information that he seeks now, but I shall of course ensure that my right hon. Friend is made aware of the questions that he has asked so that he can consider whether he is able to answer them in the statement he expects to make later today. The hon. Gentleman will know that both my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister have been very clear and firm about what is required, and that they—like all hon. Members, I hope—are very anxious to see the peace process continue and strengthen.
Dr. George Turner: With more than 22,000 pensioners in my constituency, I am well aware that the Government have made a good start on helping pensioners, and particularly on dealing with poverty, which is all too common in the pensioner age group. However, does my right hon. Friend accept that the needs of elderly people are varied and that not all of those needs can be met by fiscal measures? Does she agree that there are leisure, education and health issues to be addressed in provision for elderly people? Does she accept that this would be a good time to have a full day's debate, in Government time, on the needs of the elderly, so that not only those issues, but financial ones, can be debated?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for a special debate on the needs of the elderly, although I entirely share my hon. Friend's view—I think that the whole House will—that those needs are varied and are not solely financial. He will know how much the Government are doing, both for the health service and in education, to widen opportunities, not least for the elderly. However, I think that my hon. Friend will know that there are other opportunities which he and other hon. Members can seek, perhaps in Westminster Hall, to find time for those issues. I fear that, at present, I cannot offer him a Government day.
Mr. Peter Brooke: How generous a mesh does the

1215
Government Whips Office use if 16 Parliamentary Private Secretaries could slip through the net last night? In anticipation of our debate next Tuesday on the Armed Forces (Discipline) Bill, how do the Government currently enforce collective responsibility?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that, although the Government prefer people to understand and recognise when collective responsibility applies, the issue that some hon. Members were discussing late last night was a matter for the House. We are all Members of the House.
Mr. Michael J. Foster: Will my right hon. Friend find time in the near future for a debate on low pay, particularly given the recent conversion of the Conservative party to the national minimum wage?
Mrs. Beckett: That conversion is so recent that I have not had an opportunity to explore its strength and depth. I understand from hearsay that the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) has said that the Conservatives no longer propose to repeal the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. That is welcome news, although it is slightly surprising to those of us who have long observed their hostility on the matter. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has told the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Lady agree that we should have an early opportunity to debate the Cabinet Office paper on sharing nature's prosperity? Is she aware that between the summer of 1995 and the end of 1999, 81 per cent. of those prescribed interferon in the Lincolnshire health authority area did not receive treatment? Is she also aware that during the first two years of this Government, the number of policemen in the county of Lincolnshire fell by 49? Are not those good examples of Lincolnshire not sharing in the prosperity of Britain?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may not realise that he slightly confused me by appearing to talk about sharing nature's prosperity.
Mr. Hogg: The nation's.
Mrs. Beckett: I realise that now, but he confused me for a second. He has made some serious comments about concerns in Lincolnshire relating to the health authority and the police. I am aware that Lincolnshire has not always enjoyed the prosperity evident in other parts of the country. There is a great deal of work to be done there. Having been a Member of Parliament for that part of the world, I am well aware of the enormous contribution made to the difficulties of Lincolnshire by the Government of whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member.
Fiona Mactaggart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last night's decision was not merely a rejection by some of us of the judgment of Her Majesty's Opposition in nominating the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to the House of Commons Commission, but an expression of concern
1216
about the way such appointments are made? Will she find time to debate that serious issue, which was prefigured in our discussion on the Braithwaite report?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not wish or intend to be drawn in depth into the subject that was discussed yesterday. My hon. Friend is right—the Braithwaite report raises issues relating to how members of the House of Commons Commission are appointed, as well as how its responsibilities are exercised. However, I am ever mindful that the House, like any other place of business or community, works best when there is mutual tolerance.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Following the right hon. Lady's refusal to grant the debate requested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), does she accept that there is an important issue of accountability at stake? The Foreign Secretary should be sent to the Commons to explain how and why Her Majesty's Government, at the behest of the presidency of the Council of Ministers of the European Union, propose to interfere in the internal democratic affairs of Austria while welcoming into government apologists for terrorism—namely Sinn Fein-IRA.
Mrs. Beckett: I do not propose to follow the hon. Gentleman down either of the two paths that he has raised. I am confident that he would not wish to be thought to be saying anything that in any way confers respectability on a party that has said things which I would hope all hon. Members would find unacceptable and intolerable. Also, I would hope that even Opposition Members would have no wish to do or say anything at this point which will in any way hinder or jeopardise the peace process.
Mr. Mike Hancock: Will the right hon. Lady find Government time for a debate on the tragic plight—now nearly 40 years old—of the nuclear test veterans and their families, and couple that with a statement on the latest situation with regard to the Government's response to military and civilian veterans of the Gulf? That should take place in the near future. If she cannot provide a debate on that, could she ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement to the House about resourcing those two groups, so that they can get further clarification and put their cases through the courts in this country and in Europe?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on these matters in the near future. However, the Government have doubled expenditure on research into the illnesses experienced by Gulf war veterans. Also, these issues can be raised in the context of the defence White Paper. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have a commitment to hold a debate as soon as we are reasonably able to do so and after the Select Committee on Defence has looked at the White Paper. He will find that there is time to raise these issues without a specialist debate in the not-too-distant future.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Bearing in mind the astonishing remarks made by the Prime Minister at the National Farmers Union conference—to the effect that there was no crisis in the countryside and that any trifling problems that farmers had could be dealt with by

1217
embracing the internet—could I ask the right hon. Lady to consider again the many requests that she has had for a debate on rural areas? Would not that give us the opportunity to consider the fate of sub-post offices, such as that in Liverton in my constituency run by Kay Cooper, who runs a successful enterprise, but finds that some 50 per cent. of the turnover of the shop is attributable, directly or indirectly, to the distribution of state benefits? Surely the House ought to have an opportunity to understand the devastating effect on the rural community if the Government's clandestine policy of forcing people to do their transactions through banks comes about. Bearing in mind the requests that she has had today, will the right hon. Lady consider that application for a debate?
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister said that there is a real crisis in the countryside, but that there was much about which to be positive as well. It is by no means the case that my right hon. Friend suggested that there was no crisis, but he drew attention also to the responsibility for that position that lies on the shoulders of Opposition Members. I understand that that does not comfort the hon. Gentleman.
On sub-post offices, the hon. Gentleman may know that we had such a debate—I think only last week—in Westminster Hall. [Interruption.] I apologise to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)—the debate was promoted by the Liberal Democrats. In the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness was able to state that the Government have continuing concern for the fate of rural post offices but wish also to see improvements in the way in which benefits are paid. The Government do not believe that the two issues are incompatible.
The hon. Gentleman will know that I have announced the Second Reading of the Postal Services Bill, and I anticipate that, whatever changes are made, that will take place in the near future. This may give the hon. Gentleman and others an opportunity, and allow my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to repeat his reassurances.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Leader of the House will recall that a fortnight ago I raised the issue of the concern felt in the north-west of England about the fact that Manchester has not been given proper consideration as the site of the national athletics stadium. Since then, I have received a communication from the British Olympic Association that makes the—to me—astonishing assertion that it regards only London as an acceptable venue to be promoted for a future Olympic games bid. Does she share my concern about that? May we have a statement, or a debate in Government time, that would allow hon. Members from all regions to express their dissatisfaction that only London is now considered a worthwhile centre for the Olympic games, should they come back to the United Kingdom?
Mrs. Beckett: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's indignation and accept that it will be shared by hon. Members from many other cities. However, I understand that it is not the British Olympic Association but the International Olympic Committee which has indicated that it wishes to consider only bids from capital cities.
1218
I understand the view that many people will find that unacceptable, but if that is the context of the IOC's considerations, it will create a difficulty for others here.
Mr. Llew Smith: I support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) for a debate on low pay and the minimum wage. I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree that the minimum wage was the most important legislation of this Parliament, but I am sure that she will also recognise that the time is rapidly approaching when the minimum wage will need to be increased dramatically if we are successfully to continue the fight against poverty in communities such as my own in Blaenau Gwent.
Mrs. Beckett: Of course I share my hon. Friend's view that the introduction of the national minimum wage was a step of enormous importance and one of the considerable achievements of the present Government. He will know, however, that it is not the only step. There have been many others, such as the creation of the working families tax credit, which do and will bring benefit to lower-income families. I cannot undertake to find time for another debate on the matter in the near future, but my hon. Friend will have noticed that we have Trade and Industry questions next week, and he may find an opportunity to raise the matter then.
Mr. David Chidgey: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 282:
[That this House congratulates those financial institutions which are continuing to offer free access to cash machines; expresses concern that the LINK cash machine network is considering the introduction of a surcharge of £1 per withdrawal from cash machines when cash machine providers already receive a LINK interchange fee; notes the crucial role played by the free cash machines in promoting financial inclusion in deprived and in rural areas; and therefore urges all financial institutions not to adopt surcharging, due to the adverse effect this will have on the consumer in general and particularly those on low incomes and those living in areas with limited cash machine coverage.]
It stands in my name and has been signed by Members from at least six other parties. Is she aware that members of the Link network, which operates the machines, are attempting to introduce a standard £1 charge per withdrawal? Is she further aware that that will affect drastically the most impoverished and socially excluded members of our community—those who traditionally draw small amounts of money at regular intervals—who will be hit by a charge of £1 per transaction? Will she please impress on the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the need for him to make an urgent statement about what he intends to do to bring that anti-competitive cartel to book?
Mrs. Beckett: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government welcome the decision of the financial institutions which continue to offer that service free of charge. We are concerned about the issues he raises, although it is a matter for the banks to resolve with their customers in the marketplace as an issue of competition. However, he will know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has commissioned a review of banking under

1219
Don Cruickshank. We anticipate that the report will cast some light on those matters and the Government will carefully consider its recommendations.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House ensure that either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor comes to the House at an early opportunity to explain the new underlying thinking on green taxes, in the light of the U-turn on the pesticides tax and given that the climate change levy—as it is called by the Government, although it is an energy tax—is penalising efficient, energy-intensive manufacturing industry in this country?
Mrs. Beckett: We have just had Treasury questions and that was the hon. Gentleman's opportunity to raise that issue.
Mr. Owen Paterson: The replies by the Leader of the House this morning and speeches this week by senior members of the Government show a chronic misunderstanding and grotesque underestimation of the agricultural crisis. I meet farmers every weekend and I ring them from here most days of the week. They do not want subsidies; they want the regulations, costs and conditions imposed on them uniquely by the Government to be lifted. If the Prime Minister can find two days to go to the south-west, cannot he find two hours to discuss the matter in the House?
Mrs. Beckett: We fully accept, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made plain, that there is a deep and painful crisis in agriculture, although I remind the hon. Gentleman again that the Leader of the Opposition told the NFU conference:
"I do not pretend that my Party can wave a magic wand and all the problems will disappear overnight."
The hon. Gentleman claims that the agriculture industry does not want subsidies but wants regulations and costs imposed specifically by the Government to be lifted. All I can say is that my reading of these issues—which come up weekly and include matters such as the pig industry, which he has, quite rightly, often raised in the past—is that most of them were caused by the Conservative party in government.
Mr. Paul Burstow: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Social Security to explain why in January there was a double pension pay-out to about 112,000 pensioners, at a cost of about £10 million? Was that an attempt to compensate for the derisory increase of 75p in the basic state pension, or was it just another Government computer bungle? May we have a statement on why it happened, what is being done to deal with it and what steps are being taken to ensure that such bungles do not occur again?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter, but I remind the hon.
1220
Gentleman that we have Social Security questions on Monday, so he can ask my right hon. Friend himself. Alternatively, he may find an opportunity to raise the issue in the debate on social security motions.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May I reinforce the request from my right hon. and hon. Friends for a ministerial statement on the proposed very large increase in the television licence fee? I am sure that the Government would not want it to be thought that a motivation for that would be to put the cost of a licence beyond the reach of large numbers of electors, who would then be deprived of the spectacle every Wednesday afternoon of the Prime Minister trying to explain why he is reneging on all his election pledges.
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I have already said that the reports are wrong. The Government do not want to deprive people of the opportunity to watch television or indeed to watch Prime Minister's Question Time on a Wednesday. The only people who have deprived them of that spectacle lately have been Conservative Members.
Mr. John Bercow: That really will not do. Further to the opaque and unsatisfactory reply that the Leader of the House gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), will she arrange for time to be made available for a full day's debate to be led by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the Government's plans for the licence fee? Even if he does not intend to impose an increase six times above inflation, would not a full day's debate allow the House to tell him, and him to tell the new Director-General of the BBC, that any smash-and-grab raid on the 20 million licence payers of this country would be wholly unacceptable, especially when concerns persist about programme quality, and inefficiency remains rife in the corporation?
Mrs. Beckett: I have repeatedly made it clear that my right hon. Friend is considering the Davies report. He hopes shortly to be able to come to conclusions and has said, as have I, that he will come to the House to make those conclusions known.
Mr. Allan Rogers: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Intelligence and Security Committee has submitted its annual report to the Government, who have responded. Will she ensure that some Government time is reserved in the near future to debate it in the House?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He is a distinguished member of that Committee. I cannot give him that undertaking at this moment, but I shall of course bear his request in mind.

Points of Order
1.20 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether you have seen the report in today's press that the European Commission has issued a six-week consultation on a proposal to outlaw United Kingdom web addresses in this country. Would you be willing to respond on behalf of the House to that consultation, saying that, under no circumstances, are we prepared to give up our web address of www.parliament.uk.?
Madam Speaker: I have a short answer to that, which is no.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance about the conduct of Treasury questions, which is, of course, a crucial means by which the legislature can hold the Executive to account? Did you notice, Madam Speaker, that, to the considerable regret of my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Paymaster General did not have a single opportunity to answer a question at Treasury questions? We felt considerable sympathy for her. Given that that appears to have been the result of the unexpected absence of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) and of the legendary verbosity of the Chancellor in answering questions, I wonder whether your good offices could ensure that the hon. Lady is not so badly treated in future.
Madam Speaker: I know how popular the hon. Lady is, and I shall do my utmost to see that she has long periods of time at the Dispatch Box at the next Treasury questions.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    ROYAL PARKS (TRADING)
    Mr. Secretary Smith, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Blunkett and Mr. Alan Howarth, presented a Bill to make provision about certain offences under section 2 of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed [Bill 58].

Police
1.21 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2000–01: (HC 169), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.
Madam Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1998–99: Amending Report 2000–01 (HC 170), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.
Mr. Clarke: May I begin by welcoming to his place the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald)? I congratulate him on his promotion. I am sure that his skills as a barrister will strengthen the Home Office Opposition team, and I welcome his contribution to the debate. I am not sure whether he intends to announce any dramatic switch in policy, or make a U-turn of the sort that the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) made in Treasury questions earlier today, but I look forward to some significant shifts in position.
Since I was appointed to my post at the Home Office last July, I have had the opportunity to meet many chief constables, visit many of their forces and speak to officers of all ranks. I intend to visit many more over the next few months. I have been exceptionally impressed with the professionalism and dedication of officers of all ranks in forces throughout the country. It has been genuinely inspirational for me to see the way in which many forces are looking at new and creative ways of reducing crime in their neighbourhoods, and the courage and dedication with which they do their work. I am sure that all hon. Members share my respect, and I think that it is an important moment for us to place on record our appreciation of the work that the police do.
As part of the consultation on the settlement, I have held discussions, both oral and written, with a wide variety of chief constables, police authorities and Members of Parliament. I have received delegations—
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that one of the representations that he received was on behalf of the rural forces, particularly in Lincolnshire, to the effect that the Government should implement the external report received in May 1999, which would give the Lincolnshire authority some £2 million more, or the equivalent of 50 officers? When will the Government implement the report produced by the external consultants, O.R.H Ltd?
Mr. Clarke: I am coming to that in detail in my speech. I confirm that, earlier in my tenure, I met a delegation of representatives from the rural authorities—including my own in Norfolk—which are concerned with sparsity. I know that the role of the Lincolnshire police authority in particular in co-ordinating that group is important. However, the clerk of the Lincolnshire authority has recently made public statements and stepped a bit out of line of the consensus of all the forces in that group. My advice to the group is to stick together in what

1223
they say rather than following individual public relations initiatives. However, the issue is very serious, and I will address it in detail in a moment.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: North Wales police are terribly concerned about the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) because they are losing £1.9 million in grant aid. I do not know what representations the Minister has had from that force, but I am sure that it did not agree to the formula and to the effective shelving of an extremely important report. North Wales police are receiving an effective £1.5 million increase in the standard spending assessment, which implies that they are in some way inefficient. Will the Minister tell us what those inefficiencies are, assuming that he has held conversations with senior officers?
Mr. Clarke: I accept entirely that North Wales police are affected by the sparsity considerations, to which I shall come shortly. The same is true of Lincolnshire and Norfolk. Sixteen forces are working together on that issue, which is a perfectly reasonable one for discussion. I can confirm that there is no comment on efficiency in the settlement published today.
I wish to discuss the Government's spending plans across the board. The Government's overall spending plans for the police over the next three years were announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, following the comprehensive spending review. Under our plans, there will be an extra £1.24 billion for the police service in England and Wales between 1999 and 2002. For 2000–01, the total amount of police authority spending to which the Government are prepared to contribute their share of funding will be £7.35 billion. This amount is known as total standard spending. That represents an increase of £212 million or around 3 per cent. over 1999–2000.
Under our present plans, spending on the police will increase by a further 4 per cent. in 2001–02. Those sums represent a real-terms increase, albeit modest, in police spending, which police forces have welcomed.
Mr. Oliver Heald: I am grateful to the Minister for his kind comments about me.
Has the Minister read the comments of the Association of Police Authorities on the 2000–01 settlement? The association makes it clear that funding from central Government is increasing by just 2.8 per cent. in cash terms, while revenue expenditure will have to increase by more than £300 million just to stand still. Where is the real-terms increase to which the Minister has referred?
Mr. Clarke: I have read those comments and have discussed them at length with the organisations concerned. I shall come to specific points later in my speech, but I shall of course be happy to take further interventions from the hon. Gentleman if I may clarify specific points.
The Government's spending plans take no account of a variety of additional funding arrangements for the police. First, we have announced a new crime fighting fund, part of which will be used to recruit 5,000 police officers over and above the number that forces would otherwise have recruited over the three years from April 2000.
1224
Some £35 million will be allocated to meet costs in 2000–01 under the challenge fund. Additional funding will be available in the next two years. That is new money. All forces have made bids for it, and I pay tribute to the quality of those bids. The results of the process will be announced very soon.
There will be more new money in 2000–01 and 2001–02 to complete our pledge. The House will appreciate, however, that I cannot confirm cash figures ahead of the 2000 spending review. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made a public commitment to provide necessary additional funding to follow his initiative through, and we shall stick to our promise.
Mr. David Davis: The Minister knows that I shall not oversimplify police funding, but I am concerned by what he has said about additional spending. Many complex arithmetical relationships can be found in the formulas contained in the papers for this debate, but the major cause of crime to which chief constables—particularly mine in Humberside—draw attention is drugs. Several police authorities, including Humberside and Merseyside, face particular drugs threats because they have ports that are points of access. Does any of the additional expenditure deal with that problem? Historically, Governments—the present Government and, I am sorry to say, their predecessor—have made false economies by cutting down on Customs, which puts a greater burden on the police. We should put that right.
Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and correct point; I wholly acknowledge it. At this stage, I shall not embark on a general discussion of drugs, although he is right to highlight—as does his chief constable—the fantastic impact of drugs on crime rates. We must be better geared up to hit that problem.
Under the ring-fenced funding for the crime fighting fund for front-line policing to help in our crusade, we asked forces to examine three aspects to which we would give special consideration. The first was the problem of policing in rural areas; we realise that particular factors bear on that—I shall return to them later.
The second was the need to increase the profile of policing—to ensure that the officers appointed were not simply sitting in police stations, but had a visible presence in their communities. The third, which relates to the right hon. Gentleman's point, was the need for police in particular crime hot spots. There is evidence that such hot spots exist in certain areas covered by particular forces—the ports problem described by the right hon. Gentleman is a good example. I cannot recall whether the Humberside bid focused on the policing implications at ports where drugs were coming into the country. However, that was the type of problem that our initiative was intended to address.
Mr. Simon Hughes: My question is about the overall figures. Does the Minister agree that, in real terms—taking inflation into account but without adding the amount for police pensions—there was no increase during the first year of the Labour Government, but a 0.8 per cent. decrease? Does he further agree that, for the second year—the current year—the increase was 0.3 per cent., and that for next year, as he has announced, the increase

1225
will be 0.2 per cent? By the end of next year, there will have been a real-terms reduction over the first three years of the Labour Government of the money allocated to police grants. The crime fighting fund money—£35 million—does not change that fact; I shall return to that point later. Does the Minister agree that the first three years of the Labour Government will have seen a real-terms decrease in Government grant for policing in England and Wales?
Mr. Clarke: It is perfectly reasonable to consider under overall expenditure the points that I am outlining about funding that is additional to the police grant. The crime fighting fund was the first point that I mentioned. It is not possible to consider the resources available to the police without taking into account, for example, the £35 million for 5,000 officers this year.
The hon. Gentleman is correct to note that, during the first two years of the Labour Government, we decided to accept the spending limits that we had inherited; it was part of our policy, we made it public and it was the subject of political disagreement. That policy led to the figure of minus 0.8 per cent. in the first year. As we moved out of that period, from April 1999, we planned to increase the amounts—the increases are those that he described.
Mr. Frank Field: May I take my hon. Friend back to the question put by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis)? The question applies not only to the policing of ports, where there may be drugs problems, but to areas that have suffered significant reductions in the size of their police force. For example, in Merseyside there has been a reduction of almost 500 posts during the past five years—most of that reduction took place under the previous Government. When my hon. Friend distributes the assets from his crime fighting fund, will he pay special attention to the areas that suffered the greatest reduction in their forces over the past five years?
Mr. Clarke: We have done that. That is why the bidding documents asked for detailed information for each force on recruitment patterns and other similar factors. The short answer is that we shall take full account of what has happened in particular forces when we decide on the allocation of the money. As I pointed out, we shall make an announcement on that matter shortly.
I was talking about the crime fighting fund for the 5,000 extra police officers.
Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is it not true that there will be no extra officers, as the Police Federation pointed out? Throughout the country, the number of police officers has been slashed, is being slashed and will continue to fall.
Mr. Clarke: This is a familiar debate. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman, in reading himself into his brief, is fully abreast of the facts.
The fact is that the fund will be used—as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear when he announced it on 30 September—to recruit 5,000 police
1226
officers over and above the number forces would otherwise have recruited over the next three years from April 2000. That is clear.
Mr. Heald: As the Police Federation makes clear in this month's review, the number of police officers will fall by 1,000 over the three-year period. Is that not so?
Mr. Clarke: No, it is not. We seem to be talking at cross purposes. If I can help the hon. Gentleman, I shall do so. Police forces are setting about recruiting and they face all the normal difficulties that arise in trying to find police officers. We are providing funding for an extra 5,000 police officers to be recruited over the next three years. As that process goes on, as in any other profession, people will leave the service for a variety of reasons. Therefore, our conclusions as to how many police officers there will be after one, two, three, five or however many years depend on the interrelationship between the two factors.
We can try to inhibit—we are trying to inhibit in a variety of ways—the number of people who leave the police service. However, it is more important to put money into increasing the number who can be recruited. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the crime fighting fund last September. The decision was to go for 5,000 over and above what would otherwise have been recruited.
As several organisations, including the Police Federation, have done, it is perfectly possible to speculate on the pattern that will emerge over the next two or three years. Therefore, the point of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is a perfectly appropriate one to make. However, I do not accept his figures. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already made clear, there is every reason to believe that our decision will lead to an increase in the number of police officers over the next three years.
Ms Sally Keeble: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the arguments about figures, the ultimate test for the public will be the figures for actual crime? The chief superintendent of Northampton says that
"crime … is reducing and the clear-up rate is increasing which in stark terms means there are less victims and more offenders being dealt with this year."
He attaches the figures to that statement. Crime reduction will ultimately be the public's test of the effectiveness of the Government's policies.
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Crime figures are the key test and crime reduction is our key target. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said to the House shortly before Christmas, we are establishing clear targets for vehicle crime, for burglaries, for violent crime and for drugs offences. Targets will be set for each force in the country, and I hope that we shall shortly be able to give further details on precisely how those targets have worked through, following consultation with the police forces.
I wish to make progress on a few of the other points that I want to emphasise. In particular, I wish to deal with the sparsity factor, a matter that was raised by the right

1227
hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). It is a serious issue that concerns many Members on both sides of the House.
In addition to the crime fighting fund, we have a crime reduction programme. We are pursuing a range of interrelated initiatives to reduce crime and to reduce the fear of crime. Some £400 million over three years is allocated through the crime reduction programme, including £150 million for closed circuit television schemes and £50 million to protect 2 million homes most at risk from burglary.
I announced last month that more than 180 CCTV schemes are to receive £33 million of Government funding as part of the package, which is the largest single allocation of CCTV money to date. So far, almost 220 CCTV projects nationwide have now been awarded £39 million under this initiative, and I know from comments from Members on both sides of the House how welcome CCTV schemes have been in their constituencies.
CCTV plays a crucial role in helping the police tackle crime and disorder and in reducing the fear of crime. It is extra eyes and ears for the police and it will greatly improve the quality of life for local residents and help to regenerate some of our most vulnerable communities. In the next few weeks, we shall publish the new guidelines to spend the balance of the CCTV money and one aspect of those guidelines will give particular encouragement to CCTV schemes covering rural areas. I have seen several positive schemes where those in a central control room can look at pictures from villages up to 20 or 30 miles away and can immediately communicate with the police. They are positive developments, and we want to encourage them in the guidelines.
On other funding initiatives, we are providing £11 million to fund security measures to help reduce crime and fear of crime among low-income pensioners who are most at risk from burglary. We are providing £30 million for targeted policing, £34 million over two years to expand the national DNA database and £50 million in the new radio communications system for the police. All that is new money. With those initiatives we are demonstrating, over and above our commitment to the police grant, our commitment to extra funding that offers support for the police and local agencies, and our determination to tackle crime and disorder in rural and urban areas.
The settlement for 2000–01 also takes into account the Home Secretary's commitment to improve efficiency in the police service during this Parliament. Last year, we set a year-on-year target of 2 per cent. for efficiency improvements in the police service.
Mr. Graham Brady: The Minister mentioned additional funds that are available. I hope that he will also consider the additional costs that need to be taken into account. Greater Manchester police have received a real-terms increase of 0.26 per cent. this year, but that is set against a police pay settlement—which is welcome—of 3.6 per cent.; additional costs for the police national computer of nearly £1 million; and an increase in the national crime squad and National Criminal Intelligence Service levies of 7 per cent. and 26 per cent. respectively. There are massive cost
1228
increases that far outstrip the additional money available. Does that not make it inevitable that the number of police officers will fall even further?
Mr. Clarke: That is certainly not inevitable. Of course costs rise; that is the nature of life, as most hon. Members will know. I need to place on record that the figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted for the NCS and the NCIS are not correct. They are from an earlier bid, and the final precept will be lower. I simply put that on record so that the hon. Gentleman does not inadvertently mislead the House.
Many police forces have written to me to say that they do not support the amount of money going to the NCS and the NCIS, and are worried about the public safety radio communications project, to which I shall turn in a moment. Those are all competing issues, but my view is that investing in the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the national crime squad is an important means of tackling major international organised crime. That includes drugs crime, which the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) mentioned, which needs to be tackled by better intelligence and co-ordination between forces. That merits those increases in investment.
The inspectorate's assessment of the efficiency plans submitted by police forces for 1999–2000 is that the police service is on line to deliver the 2 per cent. efficiency gains required by the comprehensive spending review. Gains will be reinvested in front-line policing, and go some way to answering the point about costs made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). Plans are being developed by police forces and authorities to deliver a further 2 per cent. efficiency gain in 2000–01. We estimate that efficiency gains could total around £440 million over three years.
I turn now to the details of next year's funding settlement. For 2000–01, we propose to set considerable store by stability in the grant system to help police authorities to plan ahead. We shall not therefore make any changes to the method of police grant distribution for 2000–01, so there will be no substantive changes to the operation of the police funding formula for next year. There will limited changes; for example, to accommodate force boundary changes.
The issues that I shall address in explaining that position are as follows: sparsity; the continuation of the old force establishment component in the formula; the cost of the new national radio communications service, a subject that was raised by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West; the cost of police pensions and the cost of security, matters that have been raised with me by several forces. I do not want anyone to think that I am not addressing the issues that hon. Members have raised.
I need first to report on force boundary changes; 1 April will mark a major step in our programme of aligning criminal justice boundaries when we bring the boundaries of the Metropolitan police district into line with those of the 32 London boroughs. That will make co-operation between the criminal justice agencies in Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey much more straightforward and will help our crime reduction partnership approach to be much more effective.
The four forces involved have worked closely with each other and the Home Office to ensure that a smooth transfer of responsibilities can take place in April.

1229
The allocation of money under the funding formula reflects the increased size, and hence policing need, of the three county forces. In the settlement, the Government have also recognised that, in preparing for the change, the three authorities will continue to incur additional costs next year.
The Government will therefore make special payments of grant in 2000–01 totalling £10 million, in recognition of the additional costs resulting from the changes to the Metropolitan police district boundaries. Essex will receive £1.25 million; Hertfordshire will receive £2.75 million; the Metropolitan police will receive £500,000; and Surrey will receive £5.5 million. Those payments are reflected in the grant report.
Sir Sydney Chapman: The Minister has mentioned the variation in allowances because of the changes in the Metropolitan police boundary. He will understand that the Metropolitan police have lost areas in Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey. I understand that he is allowing an additional £500,000 to the Metropolitan police because of the adjustments that have to be made. Does not that figure depend on the numbers of people and the numbers of assets that have been transferred out of London? Will the hon. Gentleman think again about £500,000, which has left many parts of London that remain within the Metropolitan area, especially those nearest the areas affected, with some very difficult problems?
Mr. Clarke: I understand the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman, especially in respect of his constituency. It is in the position that he describes, being near the border. I shall talk about police funding and I shall consider the issue that he has raised, but it is important to pay genuine tribute to the co-operative way in which the Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey forces and the Metropolitan force have worked together in dealing with the difficult managerial issues that have been involved in the transition. It is not only kit that is involved, but people. Difficult issues have arisen and the individuals involved, from chief constables downwards, have used a great deal of creativity to try to minimise the problems that any change will bring so that policing in areas such as that represented by the hon. Gentleman will not be adversely affected.
I fully accept the point that has been made by many that the police funding formula is not sufficiently sophisticated or flexible to respond to the distinct characteristics and responsibilities of the Metropolitan police. It is for that reason that the Met receives a special payment of grant outside the funding formula. In recognition of the Met's specific needs, we have increased the level of the special payment from £151 million in 1998–99 to £176 million in 1999–2000, and to £182 in 2000–01. This is paid as a 100 per cent. Home Office grant and is not charged to London council tax payers. It is an acknowledgement of some of the problems referred to in the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I intervene specifically on London matters. We have seen the appointment of the new Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who has taken over this week. Will the Minister confirm that both the
1230
outgoing and incoming Commissioners have made the strongest representations to Ministers that, at the level at which the Met is funded for the foreseeable future, it is likely that there will be a considerable reduction in the numbers of people who are able to serve it, in both civilian and uniform capacities? The implication is that, if there is a wish to keep up the service, even though the numbers of police officers may be falling, the local authorities that will be precepted to raise money for the Met will see significant increases in the sums that they are asked to pass on to London taxpayers and ratepayers.
Mr. Clarke: I can confirm that both the previous and current Commissioners have been strong and vigorous in making the case for proper funding for the London force, as they properly should. The Government believe that they have taken serious consideration of the representations that they have received, given the figures that I am announcing. The Metropolitan police, along with other forces, are bidding for resources from the crime fighting fund, for example. That, too, will help the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes. Sir John Stevens has already shown outstanding leadership in trying to address these issues. I think that we shall see significant changes, which will be welcome, certainly to all London Members.
The Metropolitan police service needs a reasonable budget increase to prevent significant reductions in police numbers in London. The proposed cash increase is not excessive, at about 2 per cent. above the comparable figure for 1999–2000. About 87 per cent. of MPS funding comes from central Government, with only about 13 per cent. accounted for by council tax. That is below the average of 15.2 per cent. for police authorities in Britain. The MPS is already on target to deliver efficiency savings of more than 2 per cent., which is around £35 million.
Another major development in policing in the next financial year will be the creation of a new police authority in London.
Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the Minister, who has been generous in giving way. Is it right that, by the end of March 2000, the Metropolitan police will be 400 officers under strength? If the hon. Gentleman can confirm that, will he explain why that is?
Mr. Clarke: I cannot confirm at the Dispatch Box the specific figure to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, I can confirm, as I did earlier, that the Metropolitan police force is under serious pressure on numbers. There were substantial reductions during the final period of the Conservative Government—[Interruption.] There were substantial reductions under the last period of the Conservative Government, and the Metropolitan police is now trying to stabilise the position. That is precisely the subject of the conversations to which I referred earlier, between the Commissioner, the force and the Home Office.
Another major development in policing in the next financial year will be the creation of a new police authority in London—the Metropolitan Police Authority. With the arrival of the MPA, arrangements for the policing of London will be brought more closely into line with arrangements elsewhere. As from July, there will be an independent body of 23 members, drawn from the London Assembly, the magistracy and other walks of life,

1231
who will be responsible for securing an efficient and effective police service within the Metropolitan police district.
I look forward to the new Commissioner and police authority working together constructively to build on the existing strengths of the Met and to improve the links with the communities that it serves.
I turn to the main issues that I heard and discussed during representations on the settlement. As I said earlier, five main issues arose: the problems of policing sparsely populated rural areas; the continuation of the old force establishment component in the formula; the costs of the new national radio communications service; the costs of police pensions; and national security policing.
On sparsity, as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham noted in his intervention, we commissioned independent research in 1998 to try to nail once and for all the question of whether extra costs were involved in policing sparsely populated rural areas. The research study was finalised last year. It found that additional costs were, indeed, incurred in policing such areas.
I emphasise that the report was not about police numbers; it was about the costs of policing in rural areas. A copy of the full report and the executive summary was put in the House Library in November and circulated to police authorities and chief constables. The report recommended that the police funding formula be changed to reflect the additional costs—that is, by switching some funding from the metropolitan forces to the shire county forces.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in November that he did not intend to change the funding formula for 2000–01 because of the moratorium on changes to the grant distribution system for local authorities and police authorities, pending a wide-ranging review announced by the Deputy Prime Minister in July 1998.
As I said earlier, I met a number of delegations, including one from all the authorities in sparsely populated areas, and I received individual representations from Members of Parliament, chief constables and police authorities in areas of sparsity. I recognise that my right hon. Friend's decision not to change the funding formula was a disappointment for the forces for which rural sparsity is a significant factor.
As I said to the delegations, I understand and sympathise with their concerns, but I emphasise to the House, as I emphasised at those meetings, that we are considering the position. We will consider the position again fully next year. I think that the force of the argument is well understood.
Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clarke: I am happy to take interventions on this particular point, as I shall not return to it later in my remarks.
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has already given way to me once, and I acknowledge that fact.
In the case of Lincolnshire, the report recommends a change that would increase the number of police men by 50 for the county. Does the Minister accept the principle
1232
of changing the formula to take account of sparsity, or is his hesitation simply due to lack of money? I understand that money is a problem, but I should like to know whether he accepts the principle and the line of the recommendations, and whether his inability to give a commitment today is due essentially to his inability to allocate money for that purpose.
Mr. Clarke: I am unable to give a commitment today because of the moratorium on changes to the grant distribution system for local authorities and police authorities while the review announced by the Deputy Prime Minister is taking place. It is not possible—or not easy, at any rate—to make changes to one aspect without looking across the whole range.
For my part, I believe that the argument of the sparsity report is well made and widely accepted. It was a factual research study, which examined the real costs of policing in sparsely populated rural areas. I am familiar with the matter from my own constituency, which, although not a rural area, is in a rural county. Those issues are well understood.
The issue is the cost of rural policing, not police numbers specifically. I understand, of course, that there are relationships and knock-ons in the way that those factors operate, but the key argument is about the additional costs of rural policing, and that is what the research report addresses.
Mr. Brady: I have no difficulty with giving sparse areas extra resources. However, if I understood the Minister correctly, he suggested that resources should be transferred from metropolitan areas to sparsely populated rural areas. That is a cause for anxiety, especially when the Government's figures show that crime is increasing most rapidly in metropolitan areas.
Mr. Clarke: I did not say that there would be a direct transfer. I was making the obvious point that, in a zero-sum game, increasing resources for a specific area has implications for other areas. Two serious policy considerations weigh against the sparsity argument. First, as the hon. Gentleman said, despite anxiety about crime in rural areas, there is significantly more crime in urban areas, and resources have been focused there. Crime levels are significantly higher in Norwich in my constituency than in the rural parts of the county, despite the fears that exist there.
The second factor is relevant to our debate. Urban forces argue, with justification, that policing densely populated urban areas involves specific costs. It is an example of the interplay of arguments and the reason for not making a move in one direction outside the context of the overall review. That is why my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's review is so important. I did not suggest that there was a specific shift from urban to rural areas, but I acknowledge that there is a debate.
Mr. Christopher Chope: What should police authorities do about council tax payers, in view of the major impact of the review on them? In Dorset, council tax payers pay a higher proportion of the police bill than in any other county or authority in the country. The figure approaches 30 per cent. Does the Minister recommend that the police authority reduce its costs until

1233
the Government issue a fair grant settlement, or should the additional burden be imposed on a population comprised largely of pensioners?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman and I have had previous exchanges about the extreme poverty of the residents of Christchurch and Dorset compared with those in other parts of the country. I shall not repeat those arguments in the context of policing rather than education. This year, Dorset received an increase of 3.2 per cent., which was more than the average for England. I shall not accept his invitation to recommend what precept police authorities should set; that is a matter for them. However, I shall answer his second question: police authorities should try to make efficiency savings of 2 per cent. a year in the way in which we suggest. I have no reason to believe that Dorset does not reduce costs through greater efficiency.
Mr. Llwyd: The Minister has been refreshingly candid. I urge him to implement the sparsity policy next time round. In north Wales, we have lost all outlying small police stations and policing is done from afar. In some months, police do not have petrol for the cars. That is not due to incompetence; the money is simply not there.
Mr. Clarke: As I said earlier, I understand and sympathise with the argument. I make an appeal to hon. Members: sparsity is an important element in the rural crime and policing debate, but it is only an element of it. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) talked about higher police presence in a whole area. Developing better crime reduction partnerships between rural district councils and the police, and giving policing a higher profile, are only partly related to resources. Other issues must be considered. The Government will address them fully as part of our overall strategy on rural matters. I hope that, like the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, other hon. Members will consider rural crime in the round, not only in the context of sparsity and funding.
I want to move on to the second point on which I received representations: the continuation of the old force establishment component in the formula, sometimes called "damping". Police establishment levels were originally included in the formula to provide stability and some continuity with the previous funding system. The Government always intended that those historic manpower levels should be part of the formula only on a temporary, transitional basis, and that they should be removed at whatever rate was compatible with the need for stability in funding.
It remains our intention in due course to get rid of that part of the formula, which accounts for only 10 per cent. of overall funding. However, for reasons that I explained earlier, we are making no formula changes for next year.
Mr. Mark Todd: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the retention of the establishment element in the formula works strongly against a county such as Derbyshire, which has had a low establishment for historical reasons, and that an early change to that formula would be welcomed there?
Mr. Clarke: I entirely recognise my hon. Friend's point, with which I am familiar in respect of not only
1234
Derbyshire, but a number of other forces. He makes his argument forcefully and, as I have suggested, it remains our intention to get rid of that part of the formula in due course. Although it represents only 10 per cent. of overall funding, it operates unjustly, as he described.
Most of the costs of implementing the public safety radio communications service are contained in annual charges for the core service. These will be met by central funding by means of a deduction from total police grant provision. As part of next year's funding settlement, £5 million has been provided from police grant and standard spending assessment provision towards core service costs. It is estimated that the cost will be about £150 million a year at today's prices when the service is fully operational, which will be equivalent to 2 per cent. of police authority budgets. That needs to be set against the expenditure that forces already incur in maintaining their existing radio communications systems. The cost will be reduced by the £50 million subsidy announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last September.
The costs of the public safety radio communications project will also be taken into account in the overall resources provided for the police service in future years. That new digital radio and data service is tremendously important to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the police service. It will provide state-of-the-art, fully digital secure mobile radio communications services and offer users ready access to the police national computer and other computerised databases. The new PSRCP system will ensure that the police have a crime-fighting tool that is at the cutting edge of new technology. That development is difficult but important, and I believe that it will be widely welcomed.
Mr. Heald: For absolute clarity, is the Minister announcing genuinely new money in the third year, over and above the comprehensive spending review, or is the money part of the comprehensive spending review that we already know about?
Mr. Clarke: As the whole House knows, we are undergoing the next comprehensive review and the process will be concluded next June for the next three years.
Mr. John Greenway: Is that June 2000 or June 2001?
Mr. Clarke: With effect from June 2001. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am at risk of misleading the House. I responded to the hon. Gentleman's comment, which was made from a sedentary position. I cannot remember the legal term, but he is briefing his colleague, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, on exactly how to operate. In June 2000, the outcome of the comprehensive spending review will be clear, so we shall know what the position is. It covers the three coming years. In the context of that review, which is taking place, the additional costs arising from the PSRCP will be taken into full consideration as we see where we can make progress. The force as a whole welcomes the service, although aspects of it have been controversial. Generally, it will affect the nature of policing and increase its quality substantially.
Mr. Todd: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. Does he recognise that, with no change in the support given to implement the new service, which he

1235
rightly says is welcome, it has been calculated that a force such as Derbyshire would have to cut the equivalent of about 173 officers to meet the cost, either through the additional revenue cost of the system or through additional contributions to the capital cost from revenue?
Mr. Clarke: I acknowledge that that representation has been made by Derbyshire and appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend makes his point, as he said that those could be the implications "with no change" being made. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already announced changes, such as the extra £50 million to which I referred a moment ago, and there may be other changes further down the line. I am experiencing slight wry amusement as I am new to this game. Whatever forces attacked—the cost of the PSRCP, the sparsity factor or the National Criminal Intelligence Service—they had drawn up a little equation about the cost of one measure versus more bobbies on the beat in each particular locality and ran that argument every time. I appeal to hon. Members to listen to the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who said that, although we should consider police numbers, we should also look at what we are doing to reduce crime. That issue has to run through the whole debate.
The fourth issue on which I received representations was that of police pensions, a difficult and problematic subject. The Government have recognised the increasing costs of police pensions: we increased the proportion of funds to be distributed for pensions from 13.2 per cent. in 1998–99 to 14.5 per cent. in 1999–2000.
The arrangements whereby police pensions costs form part of each police authority's budget are long-standing. They have some merits in ensuring that police forces concern themselves with, for example, the number of unnecessary medical retirements that they permit; but we accept that rising costs are a matter of concern to the police service.
The absence of a funded scheme is not the only or, indeed, the main reason for the increasing costs. That is why we did not advocate a move to a funded scheme in the March 1998 consultation exercise. In the light of the consultation, we have been giving further consideration to the case for a funded scheme. No decision has been made, but a funded scheme is not an easy option, given the extra start-up costs. Those are substantial—around £25 billion—and the money would have to come from somewhere. That is why the focus of the review has been on a more affordable scheme for new entrants, and the improved management of ill-health retirements for current as well as new officers.
Mr. Chope: How many of the 1,642 medical retirements of police officers and the 839 medical retirements of civilians that took place in the last year for which figures are available does the Minister think were unnecessary?
Mr. Clarke: I cannot answer that at the Dispatch Box, but I do not wish to demean the hon. Gentleman's point. There are serious issues relating to the operation of the system and the way in which it has moved forward. I have had a number of discussions with chief constables about the possibility of establishing more effective systems to control such important personnel decisions. I am not
1236
prepared, and would not be prepared in any circumstances, to speculate about how many retirements are reasonable; I do not think that that is the right way in which to proceed. The right way in which to proceed is to introduce a more rigorous method of examining the issues to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Mr. Chope: Can the Minister explain why he is able to assert that some medical retirements are unnecessary?
Mr. Clarke: As I tried to explain earlier, I have discussed the issues with a range of forces and individuals, and have concluded that some of the arrangements—I only say "some"—may not be operated with the fullest rigour in certain areas of the public service. I simply say that; the hon. Gentleman probably understands what I mean.
I also received representations about the costs of security from a number of forces whose members were concerned about the costs of specific matters in their police authority areas. Representations were made to me by, for instance, the Gloucestershire and Norfolk forces. I considered them to be fair and well made, and we will examine the position.
Mr. David Drew: My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. He will not be surprised by my intervening at this point. Does he accept that the problem is not just the overall sum—my chief constable in Gloucestershire says that the allocation there is down on that of the previous year—but the fact that it leads to perceptible difficulties when local communities allege that they are losing out because of the amount that must go into the security budget?
Mr. Clarke: I agree that this is a question of perception. When the delegation in which my hon. Friend participated discussed the matter with me, we talked about the various homes in Gloucestershire of members of the royal family, and I was reminded of similar issues relating to royal family homes in Norfolk. I find that people welcome the idea that members of the royal family are living in the community, but we must try to deal with questions of perception such as this.
The amending report laid before the House corrects the effect of an error that has come to light in the distribution of grant as set out in the 1998–99 report. The distribution of grant under the pensions component of the funding formula is based on projections of expenditure on police pensions by the Government Actuary's Department. Unfortunately, data relating to Derbyshire police was processed incorrectly. The Derbyshire police authority expressed concern about the data at the time, but, despite investigations by the Government Actuary's Department and the Home Office, it was only some time later that the processing error was identified.
The amending report rectifies the error by allocating a further £800,000 to Derbyshire and clawing that sum back from the other authorities. We consulted chief constables and police authorities on the amending report. No representations were received.
The Government are determined to do all they can to reduce crime and the fear of crime. We also want to see more police officers back on the beat. We have a series of measures to address those policy goals. Those measures

1237
and the additional resources that are being provided will help the police to play their key part in tackling crime and disorder, in conjunction with other authorities.
Our aim is to make people feel safer and to ensure that the chance of their becoming a victim of crime is reduced. We have started work on that aim. The funding settlement for the police that has been announced today, along with the other initiatives that are being put in place by the Home Secretary, are providing the police in England and Wales with extra resources to carry out their excellent work in tackling crime and disorder. We are providing a well resourced, well equipped police service, and I commend the reports to the House.
2.10 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: Again, I thank the Minister for his kind words of welcome and I echo his tribute to the professionalism and hard work of the men and women of the police service. Their dedication and commitment mean that they do an invaluable job for our communities throughout the land, in rural and urban areas alike.
I was amused when the Minister talked about the amending report following the error on Derbyshire police pensions. I wondered whether it was another example of problems with the Home Office fax machine. Was it another example of a document going AWOL between the Government Actuary and the Minister's office?
We should not just do what the Minister has just done—talk about serious issues, discussions and meeting people, making the points that Ministers always make—but should look at the background to the debate. A year ago, the position was different: with the Government's having come into office saying how tough they would be on crime, the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), said at the Dispatch Box that it was "sterile and simplistic" to talk about police numbers. He told us that there was no link between detection of crime and police numbers.
A year later, the job of the police has become even more difficult; the number of police officers in England and Wales has gone down yet again—it is 1,000 below the number at the general election—more experienced officers have been leaving the force; it is more and more difficult to attract high-calibre recruits; and the police feel that they have been misled over the 5,000 new officers.
The Home Secretary offered the police the enticing prospect of new officers and reinforcements to fight the battle against crime, but his speech was torn up before the ink was dry on it. The fact is that those are not new officers. Morale in the police service is crumbling, and one can understand why. For six years, crime was falling—and particularly violent crime, which is precisely the sort of crime about which people, and in particular elderly people, worry. Now, violent crime is up by 6.3 per cent., and robberies—one of the most worrying forms of crime—are up by 19 per cent. It was all so predictable: it is common sense.
Mr. Greenway: We predicted it.
Mr. Heald: We did indeed. My hon. Friend, who did such a noble job in the shadow Home Office team before
1238
moving to the world of sport, is assisting me today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said that it was nonsense to pretend that police numbers did not make a difference.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said that what was important was not just the size of the police force but efficiency in every area. No one would disagree that efficiency is important, but more efficient officers means more crimes detected.
Ms Keeble: On the overall crime figures, I understand that, although there have been substantial increases in places such as the Metropolitan police area and some other big cities, in other areas—for example, Northampton—the trends have been different. The graphs are there; the hon. Gentleman is welcome to examine them. Does he not agree that, if we are to beat crime, which is what the public want—they do not want semantics—we will have to understand what is happening and then address the situation? That is exactly what the Government's targeted approach is intended to do. It has shown results.
Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Lady not accept that it is obvious what will happen? If we increase the number of bobbies on the beat, crime will fall. More crime will be detected and the police service will be more effective. To give an example, over the Conservative years, 15,000 more police were employed. In the previous Parliament—1992 to 1997—which is often cited by Labour Members as a period when police numbers fell, the number of bobbies on the beat increased by 2,200. What happened to crime? It fell, year after year after year.
The present Government came into office talking about being tough on crime, but they have not delivered because the number of front-line beat officers has fallen by 900 since they came into office. What has happened? We have had a 19 per cent. increase in robberies, and violent crime is up. It is time for a common-sense revolution.
Ms Keeble: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to agree with that, but I am grateful to him for giving way. Of course, if we had extra, more efficient people, extra work would be done. That goes without saying, but does he not accept that, if we did that, we would also have to put up taxes, which his party opposes? My constituents want a fine balance between the tax burden and effective, efficient public services. Does he not accept that the Government's proposed plans balance the two, look at effective ways in which to target the type of crime that hurts people most and address those needs?
Mr. Heald: Should not the hon. Lady—I ask her rhetorically—direct her question to Ministers? The Opposition are saying that they would find the resources to build the number of police officers back up to the level at which it stood when we left office. That is not something that the Government are saying. That is our guarantee of security to the public.
Ms Keeble: Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr. Heald: The hon. Lady has had two goes. I think I will move on.
Police morale is at an all-time low. A recent survey showed that 70 per cent. of officers would leave the service if they could find a job with the same pay. Why

1239
is that? It is because crime is rising again, criminals are being let out early to reoffend and police numbers have been slashed. That is the background against which we debate the settlement for the coming year.
The Minister mentioned the crime fighting fund. It is right that, in year one, £35 million is available, but the hon. Gentleman has already had bids for £96 million for the first year from hard-pressed police authorities throughout the country. They are asking for double the number of officers that he is prepared to provide in the first year. For the three years as a whole, 8,200 officers have been requested, against a maximum of 5,000.
The Government have to ask themselves this: is it not time to move from the talk phase to the delivery phase? Although it is easy to make the odd joke in these debates—as we have—the fact is that policing is a very serious matter for the public; the fear of crime is one of the most important issues for people throughout the country. It is a tragedy that what was a falling crime rate has been reversed so soon after the general election.
Mr. Charles Clarke: On the hon. Gentleman's point about the delivery phase, does he accept that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the extra 5,000 officers in September? We then went to get bids. We have those bids and will announce a decision shortly, which will mean that more people will start to be recruited from 1 April. That will deliver the numbers to which we referred.
Mr. Heald: I shall simply quote what the Police Federation said—[Interruption.] The Minister laughs at the body that represents the interests of police constables across the country—
Mr. Clarke: It is a trade union.
Mr. Heald: The Minister may recall that a Conservative Government introduced the first laws to protect the rights of association. Although we have had our differences about unions over the years, I certainly would not be so disparaging about an important body representing police officers.
In November, the Police Federation said:
"We doubt the extra £35 million for additional recruiting will enable forces to do more than replace officers who are retiring or leaving the service prematurely. Indeed, we believe that by the end of 2000 there will be fewer police officers and a further reduction in front line services."
In January 2000, in Police Review, the Police Federation went further, stating that it believes that there will another 1,000 fewer officers. In all, that is 2,000 fewer officers. The Minister will not persuade me that that will not make a difference in the fight against crime or that it will help to reverse the trend of crime increasing. As I was saying when he intervened, that is a tragedy.
Police are being asked to accept a Government spending programme that is mean and that leads to cuts in police numbers, withdrawal of specialist services and the closure of police stations—and more of the same is predicted in the year ahead.
1240
It is wrong to set funding levels that are inadequate to maintain authorities' budgets. Let me give an example relevant to someone close to where I am standing—my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who until last night had responsibility for police matters. In North Yorkshire, the increase will be £2.1 million. However, the force needs £3.9 million simply to pay for pensions. In 1999, North Yorkshire lost 50 officers. This year, there will be no recruitment. Next year, only 15 officers will be recruited. There will therefore be a net loss.
Mr. Drew: I am always intrigued by the pensions issue, which has been known about for a long time. I just wonder why Conservative Members, when in government, did not try to do something about it.
Mr. Heald: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we did do something about it, and the result under the Conservative Government was six years of crime reduction. If he compares that with his own Government's miserable record, he will see that—two years after those Conservative plans ended—we now have a tragic situation in which crime is rising again. The Conservative Government were addressing those issues, whereas the current Government are all talk and no delivery.
Last year, the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South predicted that future increases would be "modest". Indeed they are: this year, there is barely a real-terms increase at all. The Association of Police Authorities has said:
"funding from central government will increase by just 2.8 per cent. or £205 million".
whereas authorities need £300 million just to stand still.
The Minister mentioned the new radio system, with which huge costs will be associated. The Association of Police Authorities has said:
"Unless additional funding is made available to finance this new national service, a large part of the cost will inevitably have to be met from money which would otherwise go to pay police officers."
Today, all we have received from the Government is an indication that that new money may be considered in the June spending review. There is no promise of any new money. However, Councillor Neil Taggart, the Labour chairman of West Yorkshire police authority, has described the Government's current funding as a mere "drop in the ocean" compared with the costs of the project. Does the Minister agree with the chairman of the West Yorkshire Police Federation, Roger Benn, who said that the costs of the radio scheme would "decimate the force"? Would the costs decimate the force?
Mr. David Heath: I should like to take the hon. Gentleman back to the pensions issue. In the latter years of the previous, Conservative Government, I was the chairman of a police authority and represented police authorities in their negotiations with the then Conservative Government. Year after year, Home Office Ministers assured us that they would address the pensions issue. I received a categorical assurance from the right

1241
hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) that he would produce the answer to the pensions problem in January 1996. We are still waiting.
Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman has obviously forgotten that we changed the formula to address the issue—[Laughter.] It is easy to laugh, but the facts sometimes hurt.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Bring back Greenway.
Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing such confidence in the new Conservative sports spokesman.
The Government could be excused if it was only the Opposition who were attacking the settlement, but it is not. The settlement has been attacked, as I said, by the Association of Police Authorities, which now describes the Government as "tough on police budgets". The chairman of the Police Federation has accused the Government of shortchanging the service. The chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation recently called for the Home Secretary's resignation.
When I asked the Minister whether it is right to say that, by March 2000, the Metropolitan police will be 400 under strength, he was unable to reply. We should be concerned if it will be 400 under strength.
As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, it really is time that the Government dealt with the problem of police pensions. It is no good Ministers sitting on a report for two years, doing nothing about it. The problem needs to be sorted out, and the Government are the ones who are in power—or at least that is the rumour.
The Metropolitan police is at a crossroads. We all wish Sir John Stevens well, but he will need more than the good wishes of people in this place, including the Government. If he is to fight against crime in the capital, he will need our active support and help. I hope that the Government will give him all the support that they possibly can.
We should ask ourselves what will be the effect of the settlement on the Metropolitan police and recruitment. Is it right, as the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation said, that at current levels, the Metropolitan police stands no chance of recruiting to fill current vacancies, never mind to increase its strength?
What does the Minister think about Sir Paul Condon's comments last year:
"the officers in this hall and the many others in London feel angry, confused, anxious about their future"?
In 1996, the Home Secretary told the Labour party conference:
"The police deserve and receive our support and gratitude."
The Labour manifesto said that
"the police have our full support".
Is it not time for the talk to be turned into action? Is not this police grant settlement a sad event, and an opportunity missed to tackle rising crime and the problem of police numbers and morale? Should this not have been
1242
an opportunity to perform the first duty of Government—to safeguard citizens, to stop the fear of crime stalking our streets, and to stop the thin blue line from getting thinner?
The next Conservative Government will provide the resources to reverse cuts in police numbers. I look forward to sitting on the Treasury Bench listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo)—who made such a glittering start today—make that announcement.
2.29 pm
Mr. John McDonnell: I welcome the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) to the Front Bench. We shall miss the Ryedale wriggler.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that the introduction of the radio communications system was contentious. The problem is not just the funding, but the nature of the system, which needs careful attention. Several of us have received representations from companies in our constituencies about how the decisions on the commissioning of the system have been arrived at. I should welcome close ministerial attention on that issue.
This is a particularly relevant debate for some of us. I say that not only because I was burgled two days ago—I am sure that it was not one of my constituents; it must have been someone passing through—
Mr. Drew: From a rural area.
Mr. McDonnell: Yes, probably from a rural area. The debate is also pertinent because this morning a delegation from the London borough of Hillingdon—including the hon. Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and me—met my noble Friend the Under-Secretary to discuss the issues facing our area. The problems of some areas that are sometimes described as leafy suburbs are neglected, even though they contain pockets of considerable deprivation. Inner-city areas have had access to substantial resources allocated by successive Governments under special schemes and rural areas are getting significant attention from the Government. Areas such as mine fall between those two stools and our problems have not received enough attention.
Over the past few years we have also been penalised as a result of our success in policing. The London borough of Hillingdon, like other areas, has had a significant fall in crime of about 5 per cent. Worryingly, there has recently been a slight increase in violent crime, motor vehicle crime and burglary—as I have experienced to my cost. The fear of crime has been top of the agenda in the local residents' survey for five years. It has outstripped all other issues, largely as a result of perceptions, but also as a result of the reality of crime becoming personalised, particularly with social disorder in public areas. We have done everything possible locally to work together to combat crime and raise community safety issues. We have established community safety as a priority. We have an active police consultative group representing 50 local organisations. We were among the first to set up a crime and disorder audit under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That helped us to tackle our priorities of reducing crime involving young people, tackling drugs, dealing with disorder in public places and combating the high statistics for crimes such as burglary.

1243
However, our ability to deal with those priorities depends heavily on the police being proactive and responsive on the ground. That brings me to the concerns that we expressed to my noble Friend Lord Bassam this morning. We are concerned about the reduction in the number of police officers. It would be wrong of me not to draw that to the attention of the House. The figures for recent years are startling. The briefing that was courageously provided by our local divisional commander shows that we have gone down from 440 police officers to 354, and from 107 civilians to 84. The overall reduction is from 547 to 438. That is a reduction of 20 per cent.—more than 100 people. At the same time our constituents have had a 34 per cent. increase in their precept.
Our worry is that unless suburban area receive attention on two levels we shall be faced with another dramatic round of cuts. The new Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis needs to recognise our problems and adjust his regional formulae for distributing policing resources and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary needs to consider the bids for resources from police authorities. I shall outline what those cuts could mean for Hillingdon.
We are about to lose our entire permanent beat officer force. They will be withdrawn. There is also the prospect of an end to all school involvement, our junior citizenship scheme and the involvement of the police in youth activities. The first time that a young person in my constituency comes into contact with a police officer could be when they are arrested or given a caution. At the moment, police come into schools and are constructively involved in youth activities. We are concerned about the reduction in community policing and neighbourhood watch support. I have already lost opening times at two of my local police stations. I am now faced with the possible closure of Hayes police station and the sale of the site. Those are just some examples of what faces us unless the Metropolitan police's budgetary decisions and the overall settlement direction are reversed as a result of today's announcement.
I acknowledge that this is special pleading. We require a longer-term strategy that tackles the issues of suburban areas. We are being penalised for our success. We have reduced crime as a result of community partnership schemes in line with what the Government have asked of us. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who came to my constituency before the general election and explained what was required of us and then came again several times after the election to help us to set up the new schemes. We have done that and reduced crime as a result.
We have had some superb divisional commanders who have created an efficiency agenda in line with what the Government have asked for. We have reduced sickness levels dramatically. However, we are being penalised as a result of those successes in efficiency and reducing crime, because the formulaic approach used by the Commissioner and, at times, the Government in their regional distribution results in resources being withdrawn when crime is reduced. That is a short-sighted approach to crime and policing across all three Hillingdon constituencies. We need a longer-term programme that addresses the issues of suburban areas, recognising that investment, particularly in preventive work among young people, will reap rewards in future by stabilising crime levels and reducing them in the long term. I am grateful for the support that the borough has been given in
1244
developing the recent closed circuit television scheme in Hayes and St. Dunstan's close. Our problem is that, although the CCTV schemes will help us to identify crimes being perpetrated in the area, we shall not have the police resources to respond quickly enough if the reductions go through.
I am pleased that the additional resources that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced have been translated into reality in today's settlement. That enables us to bid for those resources. Suburban areas such as mine must not be penalised for the successful work that we have undertaken. Our serious problems—immediate and long-term—need to be acknowledged through adequate Government support.
2.38 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the Minister to this important annual debate. This is the first time that he has spoken in it on behalf of the Government. I apologise to him because he had to suffer me this morning upstairs in the Committee considering the Terrorism Bill and he now suffers me here discussing police matters. At least we are both involved in important business.
I wish the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) well in his new responsibilities and I welcome his successor, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). I hope that he does not suffer the same fate as another previous Conservative candidate who stood against me in Bermondsey and then went on to slightly more profitable fields, representing Harrow, West and being promoted within his party before disappearing almost as suddenly. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is only a rumour that the Government are in power, no wonder his party is not doing very well.
The Liberal Democrats echo without qualification the tribute that the Minister paid at the start of his speech. Like him, I visit police forces and officers throughout the country. One of my most impressive duties since taking on this job in October was to attend the police constable of the year award ceremony last autumn at St. James's palace, also attended by the Prince of Wales. Each force selected one person and there was then a selection from around the country. Last year's award was won by an officer from Bedfordshire policing in Luton. He is a white police officer policing in a multiracial area and was commended by all sectors of the community, not least the minority ethnic communities, for his excellent community policing. In the previous year, the award was won by a police officer from Northern Ireland. It is obvious how widely valued the police service is.
This will be the last debate held during the time that the Metropolitan police force has been responsible for its larger area. When police authority responsibilities go from the Home Office, and the Home Secretary personally, to a Londonwide government—something many of us welcome—the boundaries will become the logical boundaries around Greater London. I thank the Met for the work that it has done in its extended area over the years. The force has done a good job, as has been recognised by local communities. The boundaries are being changed not because of complaints, but because it is logical.
We also wish the new Commissioner well, and we hope that he succeeds in his ambitions and objectives. He wrote to many Members to set out what he planned to do, and

1245
we hope to have the opportunity soon to talk to him. We thank his predecessor for much good work over many years.
Given the events of less than a week ago in Cheltenham, I would like to pay particular tribute to Gloucestershire police on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) and our councillors, some of whom are on the police authority for Gloucestershire. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) will also have heard that they did an excellent job, as would be expected. We are all conscious of the obligation that we owe to them.
I share the view that we need to strengthen the national forces—the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the national crime squad. I look forward to talking to the Minister before the election about ideas that we are formulating on how we can build up the profile of the national service to deal with national responsibilities. I share the Minister's implied views on that matter.
It is clear that a new communications system is needed to give the efficiency that we ask for. I have had informal and formal representations that some of the technology that the police work with is not 2000 technology—nor is it even 19-something technology. I have seen it work, and I have seen it not work. The amount of technology downtime that hampers the police is frustrating.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said that of course police numbers were not everything, and that crime figures are important. Here there is a difference of view between the Opposition and the Government. Although police numbers are not everything, the numbers of police officers have a direct implication on the ability of the police service to do its job. Nurses are not everything in the health service; however, the fewer nurses there are, the fewer beds we have, and the fewer beds we have, the fewer people we can treat. The fewer people we can treat, the less likely the health service is to do the work demanded of it.
The more good and competent officers we have, the more likely we are not just to reduce crime, but to increase clear-up rates—which, in some areas, are still low. In some areas of Northern Ireland, clear-up rates are very low, and in some areas covered by the Met the rates are far lower than our constituents want.
The Minister referred to the sparsity factor, and it is not just those of us who represent urban seats who understand that a conclusion is needed to this debate. I understand that it is better to have a comprehensive review across Government of the formula for allocating money to local authorities and police. However, there has long been dissatisfaction across the country with the formula.
One of the frustrations is that the recipients—in this case, the police authorities—are not able to agree what the formula should be. If they cannot agree, the matter comes to Ministers. If we had a sort of papal conclave to come up with a formula, there would have to be a compromise. I have a London caveat to add to that, but I hope that we will not have many more years of Ministers saying that they are doing the work but that they have not come up with a solution.
One element of the police grant—the 10 per cent. element—is based on the strength of the forces as they were in 1994. That has less logic with every year that
1246
passes, and it ought to go. If Ministers are clear that everything should not be determined by the numbers of people in police forces, we should not allocate a part of the formula on the number of people in forces in 1994. The police chief constables are now given the responsibility of deciding how to use their money—even more reason why we do not tie the amounts to forces. I should be grateful if the Minister could address whether that matter is on the agenda, and how soon that measure might be abolished.
Mr. Charles Clarke: I said earlier that it remains the Government's intention to get rid of that part of the formula in due course.
Mr. Hughes: Like many ministerial answers, that is helpful as far as it goes, but we would like something more specific than "in due course". However, I am grateful for the Minister's confirmation that that part of the formula is on the way out.
The police complain regularly that one of the implications of the funding formula is that they cannot have the money for capital spend that they would like. Money for capital equipment is often hugely spent. An article in Public Finance, headed "Police funding reaching crisis levels", stated:
"As well as the boost to revenue funding, police authorities want a major increase in capital allocation. The allocation for 2000/01 … is £144 million. This compares with forces' investment plans of £349 million. These plans rely heavily on capital receipts and contributions from revenue."
There is a major problem and a deficit in that regard.
As police funding largely goes on pay and pensions, one of the complaints will always be when the funding allocation from the Government is not tied to pay increases. If the pay increase goes above inflation or above the percentage police grant increase from the Government, there is less money left. Given that these matters are not negotiated together, as in other public services such as the health service, the formula ought always to take into account—in my view, much more explicitly—the increase in pay. That ought to be effectively ring-fenced as, to a large extent, there can be very little choice. We cannot suddenly lay off a number of police staff, although we can project the number of people due for retirement in the near future.
The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire did not give my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) the answer that he was hoping for—nor, indeed, the answer that the hon. Gentleman knew would have been expected. The Tory Government did not deliver a removal of or a fundamental change to the pension arrangements. I know that this is now on the new Government's agenda, and I have argued the case often.
Across the emergency services, if we are to make what is given by the Government relate to the service on the ground, we must find a way of taking the pension allocation and the pension spend out of the general spend. The pension bill keeps going up—it is something like 14 per cent. at the moment—and there is no direct account taken of that in the formula. For every £1 million spent on pension entitlements, there is £1 million less to spend on front-line policing. If the allocation does not

1247
take into account the pension amount, it will be much more fictitious and will not reflect the needs on the ground.
Mr. Heald: I agree that the previous Government changed the formula to some extent, but this Government have been sitting on the report on the issue for almost three years. Is not it time for action?
Mr. Hughes: Absolutely. It is time for action—not only because politicians are calling for it, but because it is a grievance and a source of frustration that it has been on the agenda for so long. I have told Ministers before that I am comfortable with the idea of sitting down with representatives from the Conservative party and other parties and with the Government to try to reach agreement on how to sort out the pensions issue. The longer it passes from desk to desk, the further away a solution is and people become more and more frustrated.
Mr. David Heath: My hon. Friend is right in what he says about the grievance about pensions and the squeeze that funding them puts on police authority budgets. The problem is that each year the problem is not addressed, the difficulty of addressing it becomes greater. The only tenable long-term solution is a funded scheme. The longer that is delayed, the greater the costs become. I can understand Ministers' difficulty, but somebody must grasp the nettle.
Mr. Hughes: I could not have put it better. [Interruption.] I do not necessarily agree with everything my hon. Friend says, but on this occasion he was word perfect.
Police officers often point out to me that the more successful their police force is in bringing crime figures down, the more it is penalised in its financial allocation. We must avoid penalising successful forces which use their resources efficiently and deliver the outputs—to use the jargon—that everyone wants. Such forces can be in the suburbs, such as the local force of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), in an inner-city constituency such as mine, where crime levels are high, or in a rural area, such as those which my hon. Friends the Members for Somerton and Frome and for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) represent. It should be a given that successful policing, producing fewer crimes and higher clear-up rates, is not penalised by fewer resources.
The Liberal Democrats will vote against the Government motions at 4 o'clock because, unfortunately, the Government are for the third time proposing a funding settlement that will mean less money will be spent on the police than in the year before Labour came to office. I have obtained the figures from the Library. In the first year the Government inherited a fall of 0.8 per cent. Funding went up 0.3 per cent. in the second year and up 0.2 per cent in the third year. Even my elementary maths is sufficient to work out that that means a net fall of 0.3 per cent. over the three years. It is true, as the Minister pointed out, that the figures show that the level will start to pick up after that, but the grant settlement for next year that we are being asked to approve this afternoon will provide less money in real terms for the police from central Government than was the case three years ago.
1248
The comparison is simple and has been provided by the Association of Police Authorities. The education settlement for the coming year will increase by 8.7 per cent, the social services settlement by 5.6 per cent., and the fire service settlement by 3.5 per cent.—only the police settlement increase is below 3 per cent., with a pre-inflation level of 2.9 per cent and a post-inflation figure of 0.2 per cent. That is not acceptable, given the pressures the police are under.
Many authorities have had a decrease in real terms this year, if pensions are removed from the equation. They include Bedfordshire, City of London, Cleveland, Cumbria, Essex, Hertfordshire, Humberside, Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Sussex, Warwickshire, West Mercia, West Midlands and West Yorkshire. The Library's figures for the settlement proposed for the coming year show that some forces will be specifically penalised. The City of London force will have a real-terms cut for the third year in a row. The Gloucestershire police—sadly, in the light of the tribute we have paid to them—will have a real-terms decrease for the fourth year in a row, with a 0.6 decrease in the coming year, having had a 0.9 decrease in the year just finishing. The North Wales police—the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has just left his place—will have a decrease after a couple of years of small increases, and the South Wales police will also have a decrease. As a whole, the police in Wales will have exactly the same amount, neither an increase nor a decrease. In those four specific force areas, the financial position will be worse than elsewhere.
What do the figures mean for police numbers? On that point, there is no dispute between the Conservatives and ourselves because the Library figures are clear. The police service numbers inherited across England and Wales were 127,158. The figures for March 1999 were 126,096. Pending the announcement of the latest figures, the reduction is 1,062. The argument about the 5,000 extra still hinges on the fact that that figure must also take account of the reduction so far and the number of officers retiring or leaving the force. In the same period, we have also seen a reduction of 3,390 in the number of special constables.
The experience of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington in west London is replicated throughout the Metropolitan area, just as it is in many other areas of the country. I know what has happened in my local authority better than in others, but in Islington—where the Liberal Democrats have just taken control of the council—the number of police in the Holloway area has fallen from 245 to 226, and has fallen from 284 in Islington. My local authority of Southwark, south of the river, has seen police numbers fall from 874 to 851 in the past year. In Bromley, an outer London borough, police numbers have fallen from 442 to 432, and in Kingston they have fallen from 329 to 325.
All over the place, police numbers have fallen and police stations have been closed. We can argue about whether every police station is justified, but the public need to have a police presence, and fewer police officers make it less easy to deal with crime and the fear of crime.
My final point concerns the famous crime fighting fund. In an answer I was given on Tuesday this week by the Minister—which the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire has obviously also seen—it was confirmed that 43 forces have bid for the £35 million available. The total number of officers bid for was 2,908, which would

1249
cost more than £96 million, so only about a third of every bid will be satisfied. For example, Avon and Somerset bid for 65 officers, but if its bid is successful it may get only 23. The Metropolitan police force bid for 600, but it may get only 216. The Sussex bid was for 45, but only 16 may be granted.
We have had an allocation of £35 million for next year. That will not be enough over three years to deliver 5,000 officers unless it is doubled in the following two years, and will be enough to keep those officers only if we have the additional money in subsequent years as well. Money at the beginning is sufficient only to bring them in, not to keep them there. I hope that the Government will realise that £35 million—interestingly, they said that that was the extra cost of policing the millennium—is hardly a large additional sum.
Police numbers will be down in the coming year; there will be fewer police stations; and the council tax police precept that our constituents have to pay will be higher. People will pay more and get less. To follow up something that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire quoted, the police and many of the public feel that the Government are being too tough on the police and far too tough on police funding. We need more of both, and very soon.
3.1 pm
Mr. Mark Todd: I welcome the relatively generous settlement for Derbyshire, which did not appear on the list that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) gave. One reason for that is the correction, not before time, of a pension error, but the settlement was fairly generous in any case.
We still have about 250 officers fewer than the average for a county force. The force is thinly stretched at any time, but last year, with three murder inquiries running concurrently and the call on specialist officers hitting some sections disproportionately—including the one that covers a substantial part of my constituency—there was an incredible burden.
For some time, an area of about 70 square miles, with a population of about 60,000, was policed on a shift basis by only three or four officers. It is scarcely surprising that things became very difficult from time to time. Thankfully, the area is generally extremely law-abiding, but some parts of it, including Linton and Newhall, have faced short-term increases in crime that have alarmed local people significantly.
The authority has applied for a share of the crime fighting fund, and I have already written to my hon. Friend the Minister expressing strong support for that bid. If it were granted in full over the full three-year period, the force would just about reach the average strength of a county force; but the likelihood of that is perhaps remote if the funding figure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave at the Labour party conference last year is adhered to. There is an opportunity to review that figure in the light of the bids that have been received.
With the full increase, the Swadlincote section, which serves the bulk of my constituency, could increase the team available to fight and prevent crime by seven or eight officers. That may not seem a great number, but it would make a vast difference to the number of times one saw a uniformed officer in one of my villages.
1250
I have regular meetings with my police inspector, and I expect him to bring me up to date on a variety of local issues when we meet tomorrow, but I know already that the difficulty in responding to local pressures is acute. The increase would make a vast difference to his ability to direct officers to deal with crime, whether in Swadlincote town centre—where local shopkeepers and residents have expressed concerns—or in the outlying villages. The two other sections serving my constituency would have roughly equivalent increases. One of them covers a significant rural area as well as part of the city of Derby. Let us hope that the bid is viewed favourably.
The public safety radio communications service will be a welcome enhancement to the ability of the police to respond to crime and communicate about it. I fully endorse the project, but its cost is substantial: in Derbyshire, the additional revenue element of more than £2 million would cost the equivalent of about 80 officers a year.
I noted what the Minister said about forces' tendency to cite officer equivalents for every cost with which they are laden, but it is none the less a convenient shorthand way of looking at a cost. The capital cost, to which the county would have to contribute, is well beyond the capital resources that have thus far been given to the county to meet its obligations, so it will have to continue to make a contribution to capital from revenue funding, as it has done for some time.
In the year in which that contribution was made, there would be a further hit of about £2 million, which would once again take out about 70 or 80 officers. It has been said that forces will be decimated if the technology is introduced without further thought about the cost implications and on-going revenue commitments. I would not use the word "decimated" in the Latin sense, but it would certainly have a substantial impact on my force's ability to deliver the services that my constituents expect. The reductions cannot be accepted and we require additional resources to fund that valuable increase in service.
Derbyshire has sought to increase the local share of the cost of policing. I am probably unusual—I am happy to admit it publicly—in having written to my police authority last year urging it to use the opportunity of the removal of capping substantially to increase its precept to my constituents. It took my advice in spades and introduced a swingeing increase, but one that was at least understood and recognised as a step towards improving the quality of local policing by people whom I have met who read their council tax bills with some attention.
There are limits to the ability of local citizens to bear that extra burden and, presumably, to the Government's tolerance of the wholesale desire to ignore the spending guidelines and suggestions on what level of council tax increases might be acceptable. Last year, the authority did not receive a yellow card, and I hope that the same indulgence will be given this year, but one must recognise the limits of that source of funding.
The force has been historically underfunded. It seems that best value was invented here. It has committed itself repeatedly to finding ways of squeezing every ounce of fat out of the service. That is one of the difficulties of imposing savings targets on services in a blanket fashion. No doubt many police authorities have not had to go through the same exercises that Derbyshire had to

1251
go through in the 1990s, yet the same broad savings targets that are sought from Derbyshire are sought from them. That is seen as unfair, bearing in mind what we have gone through.
The Derbyshire force has an excellent record in many respects. Incidentally, in the most recent year, crime overall in Derbyshire fell marginally and has certainly fallen since the election. The force is still held in high regard, although many people wish that they saw more of the police officers so that they could express that high regard more freely.
Derbyshire police authority has led the way in a variety of areas. It was one of the first in the country, if not the first, to commit itself to DNA tracing, for example, which led to a conviction. Civilianisation has proceeded apace and there have been strong new controls on sickness and medical retirement. The force also has a strong commitment, led by the chief constable, to increasing representation from our minority communities. The chief constable, who served in other ways last year, made strong and supportive comments on the Lawrence inquiry and the responsibilities of the police service in that regard. He leads from the front in Derbyshire as well, and has earned great respect on that count.
I look forward to a positive response from the Government to the force's bid regarding the crime fighting fund, and a review of the Government contribution to the public safety radio communications service. I welcome unreservedly, and wish to see through to completion, the Government's statement that the removal of the establishment element of the funding formula is imminent.
3.12 pm
Sir Sydney Chapman: It will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to hear that I shall concentrate my remarks on the Metropolitan police in general and the Barnet borough division in particular. The remarks of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) mirror the problems that we, in a similar borough, face—although all boroughs have significant differences—in that, although Barnet is generally regarded as a leafy suburb, it has areas of great deprivation.
We can argue about figures until the cows come home. I have done my best to be independent on this. I know that the incidence of recorded crime fell for six consecutive years until recently. The last Metropolitan police service report stated that street crimes went down in the area by 2.3 per cent. and burglary by 8.3 per cent. to a 20-year low. That is good news. Assaults on police officers and incidents of police officers suffering injuries on duty went down significantly in 1998–I hope that that trend continues. However, I remind the House that, in the year to September 1999, recorded crime was up by 8.7 per cent. in the Metropolitan police area. I hope that that is only a temporary trend, but it is nevertheless very worrying.
Twenty years ago, there were only about 22,000 Metropolitan police officers. By the early 1990s, the figure had reached its peak at 28,000. It has been fluctuating since, dropping slightly in general, but a recent fall brought the figure to 26,500. I am concerned that there is every prospect that the figure will tend to fall and not rise. Incidentally, I am also concerned that, in the last year, the number of special constables in the Metropolitan constabulary decreased by 5 per cent.
1252
Another problem faced in the Metropolitan police area is the wastage in early retirements and transfers. In the past year, the figure increased by nearly 13 per cent. to 1,750. The Metropolitan police have recruiting problems in that so many who train and begin their career in London are seduced, as it were, to go to other police forces or, because of their experiences in London, they seek other jobs. We must think radically about how to deal with that problem because morale, sadly, is very low.
The income and expenditure of the Metropolitan police force is about £1.75 billion. That figure has increased by 100 per cent. over the past 20 years. The Minister's colleague in the other place confirmed in a letter to me that it is planned to increase the grant this next year by only 1.7 per cent. That, I understand, is also dependent on efficiency savings of 2 per cent.
I accept that the way in which the grants are calculated are necessarily complex, because they are comprehensive. The more I try to understand them—I have not broken through the knowledge barrier yet—the more they seem to be a byzantine labyrinth that would make the Ottomans drool with envy. Despite the previous Government's protestations that they were increasing the budget for the police year on year, resources seemed to be diminishing, on the ground and on the beat, at least partly—and not a little significantly—due to the escalating cost of pensions, which are unfunded. The present Government are also witnessing that problem. Although I want to see bigger and better pensions for everybody—something that I will say more frequently as the next election approaches—I am horrified that the figure for pensions in the Metropolitan police force is £335 million, including those for the civil staff. That represents 17 per cent. of total expenditure. We must find a better way of funding those pensions. My plea is popular and simple, but terribly difficult to realise. Can we devise a system in which the pension increase is taken out of the reckoning of the other vital parts of the service?
I have three brief points to make. First, I am deeply concerned about the number of emergency calls that are not genuine. The total annual figure in the Metropolitan police area is about 2 million—there were 200,000 emergency calls last November alone-80 per cent of which were not genuine. People may say that they accidentally touch the wrong numbers on their mobile phones, or whatever. I do not know much about this new-fangled technology, but surely it is not beyond the wit of these technologists to find some way of dealing with that problem.
Secondly, nearly 3,000 demonstrations and other public order events have to be policed in the Metropolitan area. I hope that some consideration is given to that in the budget.
Thirdly, Barnet borough is in a crisis with regard to policing. A very senior officer in my borough said to me that he finds the Metropolitan police service, in particular in the borough of Barnet, to be in a crisis situation.
Three weeks ago, my council—it is not, I regret, Conservative controlled, but I make that party political point only to show that the following criticism does not come only from Conservatives—wrote me a letter. I shall summarise and paraphrase it, but I assure the House

1253
that I am not misleading anyone or placing the wrong emphasis on what was said. The letter said:
"The Council notes with dismay that the number of police officers and civilian support personnel in Barnet continues to fall … there is a crisis in policing in our Borough."
It noted that
"the number of notifiable offences committed in the Borough has increased in the past twelve months."
It added:
"The Council expresses grave concern about the insufficient financial support given to the Metropolitan Police by HM Government in the form of this year's Local Government Settlement."
The council also recognises that that problem is Londonwide, and that it
"will result in the probability of Barnet Council Taxpayers being forced to pay above inflation increases in the form of the Police precept in order to finance the Metropolitan Police."
Those remarks are echoed by the chairman of Barnet borough watch—our network of neighbourhood watch schemes, to which I pay tribute. With 15 years of experience, she says that Barnet's manpower has been cut yet again and that there has been a near 50 per cent. reduction on the level of four years ago. The figure may reflect the fact that some officers are being taken out of the borough to serve in Hertsmere, but the minimum manpower per shift is 22 officers, while the recognised minimum shift strength should be 32. Those 22 officers must cover a population of 320,000.
We must address these real problems responsibly. We owe that both to our constituents and to those who serve us in the Metropolitan police, and who do a difficult, dangerous and sometimes dirty job. We must make sure that they have the resources to carry out that job and decent conditions in which to do it.
3.22 pm
Mr. David Drew: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman). Although my angle on the police is slightly different, I can agree with some of what he said.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for meeting a delegation from Gloucestershire early in the new year. It was a useful meeting. One member of the delegation was the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), and I am sure that the whole House will wish him a speedy recovery. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, events in Cheltenham have brought home to us the unpleasurable role that the police carry out with ultimate efficiency and sensitivity. The police have already visited my constituency office to review security arrangements and to make some recommendations.
I do not wish to go over old ground, having spoken in the same debate last year, when the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) replied. I do not apologise for re-emphasising some themes. Policing is of acute interest in Gloucestershire, which has received the lowest increase. It would be easy for me to criticise the Government for that, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) said about his area, I feel that a slightly rum figure has been used to calculate the amount for Gloucestershire.
1254
I hope that the Minister will keep his door ajar, because I am convinced that the figure is a rogue. That has nothing to do with the Home Office, but results from peculiarities in the way in which the Office for National Statistics has judged the population of Gloucestershire to be falling over the past year. I cannot repeat the phrases used by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, but I feel that the ONS must be the only people in the country who believe that. The statistics used make a huge amount of difference to our grant allocation, which is 1.8 per cent. below average. My hon. Friend the Minister may await some serious calculations from the county council and others before we make further representations.
The matters on which I wish to touch have already been covered, so I shall merely put a local spin on them. We welcome the sparsity report, and I hope that its recommendations will come into play. It would make a welcome difference of about 1.3 per cent. to Gloucestershire. The problem is that most counties are not dissimilar to Gloucestershire in being rural with an urban core. We must strike the proper balance between policing the urban core of Gloucester and Cheltenham and the more sparse surrounding areas. In Stroud, we would argue that people are sucked into urban areas, particularly at weekends, which makes a dramatic difference to the number available. Shift patterns also make a difference.
Mrs. Diana Organ: My hon. Friend mentioned the difficulties caused by the lack of government funding to recognise rural sparsity. Like him, I represent a rural constituency in Gloucestershire, and it faces a double whammy. The difficulty of providing a force in rural areas is not recognised, and the fact that our force is both small and efficient means that efficiency savings are difficult to find.
Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. Friend, who represents the area across the water from me. She has made her point clearly, and we shall continue to argue that case. We have several times made the point to the Minister about the impact of efficiency savings on a smaller force. Our force is efficient, and I pay tribute to its policing of Gloucestershire. We cannot keep cutting the service.
Like every other force, Gloucestershire has put in a bid for what are colloquially known as the "Jack Straw bobbies". Our bid is realistic. I cannot say that I think that it will simply be taken from the shelf and implemented, but it is as realistic as it can be. We would certainly like additional police in the rural areas, even if a training element would mean their helping Gloucester and Cheltenham. There is a need for policing in rural areas so that officers can be seen to be in action as well as actually being in action.
As I said last year, I understand the Government's difficulties over pension provision. Perhaps because he is new to his post, I felt that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) did not quite answer my point that the Tories had had plenty of opportunities to sort out that problem. We have those opportunities now, and we must deal with the report that has been produced.
From the point of view of the police, we cannot improve on their pension provision. The only way in which to do something about it would be to set up a funded scheme. I believe that we must do so. It would cost money, and the Treasury would have to find it.

1255
Sooner rather than later, we must grapple with this almost impenetrable problem. As the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said, pensions take up to 17 per cent. of the budget, and that figure will increase, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said. We cannot allow that. It would be neither sustainable nor practicable to continue as we are. It is already doing enormous damage, and the operational impact is clear.
The Minister generously said that security is still—let me put it no more strongly than this—open to investigation. We feel especially hard done by because, although the overall budget may have increased, so too has the number of forces bidding for it. The perception of the matter must be taken into account. We do not want conflict between local communities over the way in which we fund security arrangements. That would serve no one's purpose. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is not a good way to run a police force.
The overall budgetary problems are clear, and we shall continue to advocate our case in that regard. However, our greatest concern is about the damage that can occur to the partnerships by which the Government set such great store. It is good to see community policing arrangements working to promote safety initiatives.
However, as officers of all ranks have told me, not only does that have to be paid for in time and money, but it results in an administrative overload. That has to be dealt with. The resources will not come out of fresh air—changes in policing need to be funded. It is good to implement such initiatives, but we cannot do so indefinitely without some money coming in.
The same point applies to best value programmes. It also applies to the tri-service initiative in Gloucestershire—of which we are extremely proud—for unifying the emergency call services. People are starting to realise the benefits of some communality for all three emergency services—ambulance, fire and rescue and police. We can build on that, because the public want the services to work together and to know that they will receive the best possible reaction—in both time and professionalism.
Budgetary problems need to be solved. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister's door seems to be open, because we shall be pursuing those matters with him in due course. We want our slice of the £35 million, although we have made it clear that we do not want more than our pro rata share.
The proof of the Government's ability to master the problems of law and order will be seen not only in budgets but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said, in the impact on the streets and in the perception of what is happening. I recently read a document commissioned by the Salvation Army, but produced by the Henley Centre for Forecasting—an interesting combination. I was rather depressed to note that the document showed that people stated that the fear of crime was the single most worrying aspect in their quality of life. That is a key factor in people's perceptions. We have to get that right in Gloucestershire and throughout the country.
3.33 pm
Mr. John Horam: As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) pointed out, the leafy suburbs have traditionally been neglected in debates on policing. I hope that my contribution and that
1256
of my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) will go some way to redress the balance.
I illustrate the problem with an example. I have always been proud of the fact that my constituency includes the village of Biggin Hill with its famous fighter airfield, which was at the heart of the battle of Britain. Today, Biggin Hill is a pleasant place in which to live—full of character, as are its people.
However, the village has a problem—as the chairman of the residents association, many other residents and local councillors told me last Friday evening at my regular advice bureau. Until last year, it had a fully operating police station, right in the main road. As recently as the late 1960s, 14 police officers were working from that one station.
Last year, the police station was closed to the public and, more recently, the number of home beat officers was reduced from two to one. To have only one officer would seem to render the service almost non-operational, but that is the situation. The latest local rumour is that the police station is to be turned into a pizza parlour. If hon. Members think that that is bad enough, a police station in Chislehurst may be about to be converted into a theme pub. I do not know what that will do for the local crime problem.
The local police are still searching for somewhere suitable in Biggin Hill to locate the remaining home beat officer. The people of the village feel completely exposed. Orpington, which houses the main police station, is some distance away across winding country lanes; it can easily take 30 minutes to get from there to Biggin Hill. By that time, any incident would be over and all the miscreants would have gone.
As a result, a hard core of about 12 teenagers have taken to rampaging around local streets, causing mayhem. In a recent incident, they threw iron bars at overhead electricity cables, bringing them down and plunging the neighbourhood into darkness. Drink and, increasingly, drugs are part of the problem. That causes stress, anger and fear in the neighbourhood.
Biggin Hill is not alone. After six years of improving crime figures, which started under the Conservatives, there was a reversal of the trend last year; notified offences increased by 12 per cent.—a large increase—in the Orpington sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, that is a tragedy: much hard work went into reversing the previous rise in crime figures and produced that long six-year run of lower figures, but that has suddenly been dramatically reversed in areas such as Biggin Hill.
The Orpington police have worked hard to overcome those problems; I make no complaint about them. They have had successes, but there are now 20 fewer police officers in the Bromley district than there were two years ago. London itself has 400 fewer officers; during the past two years, the number is down by more than 1,000 over the whole country.
The Assistant Commissioner, Denis O'Connor spelt out the facts at a recent meeting of the Bromley police community consultative group. He said that he needed 6 per cent. extra resources each year even to keep the present strength. The Government have allocated an extra 2 per cent.; the force has to find 2 per cent. from extra efficiency and there is a 2 per cent. shortfall.

1257
The Minister's speech makes it obvious that the situation will not improve in the foreseeable future. According to his figures, with the Government's resources, police numbers will decline again over the coming year, but the police precept will rise—in my area, possibly by 16 per cent. People will be paying much more for a lot less.
The police are being starved of resources when our society demands more policing—especially a more visible police presence on the streets. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) committed the Conservative party to reversing Labour's cuts in police numbers. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire reiterated that firm guarantee today.
The Government are beginning the second phase of their comprehensive spending review, to be concluded in June. I ask them to reconsider this matter urgently. If they do not, crime will be a big issue at the next general election.
3.39 pm
Mr. James Paice: I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) to his new position, although given his splendid record as a Minister in the previous Government, we should hardly be surprised at his excellent debut today. He has clearly explained the national situation, but I add one point.
During the first 10 years that I served as a Member of Parliament—all of them under Conservative Governments—total expenditure on the police increased by a real-terms average of 3.8 per cent each year. Yet here we are under a Labour Government, who pledged to be tough on crime, being asked to approve a real-terms increase of just 0.3 per cent. Even that figure is highly questionable, given that for Cambridgeshire, at least, the Home Office has imposed extra costs that were not imposed before.
Not surprisingly, I wish to deal with the position in Cambridgeshire, Britain's fastest growing county. It has consistently been at, or close to, the bottom of the league for the ratio of police officers to population. Given the time lag in statistics for a growing county, the true figures are almost certainly even worse.
Cambridgeshire also figures close to the bottom of the list for the level of council tax among police authorities. Only three have lower figures. Total resources in Cambridgeshire are about £17 per head of population below the average for England. If we had just the English average, it would mean as much an extra £10 million a year for the Cambridgeshire police authority.
I suspect that the Minister and other Members may say that the Cambridgeshire force does not need resources as much as an inner-city force. That would be a superficial and mistaken judgment to make. Last year, crime in Cambridgeshire rose by 4.7 per cent.—one of the highest rises outside the Metropolitan police area. A large part of Cambridgeshire is rural—much of it I represent—and the crime levels are becoming intolerable for my constituents. Much of that crime may be at the lower end of the seriousness league—it tends to be burglaries and
1258
robberies—but it is no comfort to people whose homes have just been ransacked to tell them that at least they have not been murdered. For them, the crime is palpable and serious.
A problem that is not unique to Cambridgeshire, but is particularly bad in the county, is the impact of a large traveller population. I do not suggest that all travellers are criminals; they are not. Many are perfectly good, law-abiding citizens. However, there is no doubt whatever that a significant proportion of them are. As a senior police officer in Cambridge told me, they are no more than a mobile crime wave.
In the last few weeks in my constituency, I have been made aware of cases in which outdoor machinery and landscape and other equipment have been stolen. In one case, the equipment was replaced and was stolen again a week later. The police often know who is responsible. However, if the goods are disposed of or if a car is taken—car theft is also common—and left burnt out in a gateway only 50 yards from a caravan, they cannot prove who did it. In addition, the fear of reprisals is commonplace in the countryside. If people act as witnesses against some of the traveller population, there is a serious risk that they will be at the receiving end of further crime.
The police in Cambridgeshire are extremely thinly stretched. Travel times in rural areas are very long. The Government study mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and other Members found that additional costs are involved in sparsely populated rural areas. However, the Government have chosen not to implement the study that they commissioned, which would have given Cambridgeshire another £1.2 million.
The Minister said that the study was not implemented because of the moratorium on changes to the formula. Frankly, that is a poor excuse. I do not criticise him for that; I know that the decision was taken by more senior Ministers. However, given how he handled himself today, he may become one of them before too long, and I wish him well. I say that in all honesty. He addressed the issues seriously and with candour, and I appreciate that. It made a great change from his predecessor's approach.
If the sparsity factor is introduced into the formula, it will have a significant effect on Cambridgeshire. If it is not, at some times of the day and night there may be only one police car in literally hundreds of square miles in some parts of the county. It can take 20, 25 or 30 minutes from the time of a call for a police car to arrive at the scene. That is not the fault of the police; it is the result of the low level of policing in the county.
I wish to consider the figures. The proposal for Cambridgeshire is an increase in total resources of 3.2 per cent., and I accept that that is marginally above the national average. However, the pension increase charge is more than £1 million. In addition, the Home Office's priorities include increased use of DNA and there will be a first-time charge of almost £200,000 for the police national computer and a first-time charge for a radio licence. When put together, all the Home Office's priorities will cost the policy authority more than £1.1 million, which will leave only £200,000 out of the total to cover inflation and everything else. Therefore, it is not surprising that our police authority is considering how much can it spend over and above the standard spending assessment and the police grant.

1259
A budget increase of 3.2 per cent. will equal a 3 per cent. council tax increase, and will mean a cut of 72 officers and 86 civilians. The county would need a 16 per cent. increase in council tax just to eliminate the need for officer and civilian reductions in the coming year. Even that would ignore the fact that the number of officers will be reduced by 40 by the end of this year. That is why the so-called "crime fighting fund" would be a joke if the matter were not so serious.
The fund will take away local discretion, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire said, it will do nothing to increase officer numbers in real terms. Cambridgeshire has bid for 43 extra officers and I have written to the Home Secretary to support that bid. Even if it gets that number—from what we have heard today, it is unlikely that all the bids will be met—it will merely balance out the reductions that have had to be made this year. Depending on the authority's decisions, the number of officers could be reduced by another 60 this year. The Government have let Cambridgeshire down not only on the sparsity and establishment factors, but on the promise that the Prime Minister made in Cambridge in the election campaign to rid us of the area cost-adjustment problem.
I wonder how long my constituents will have to wait before they have the number of police officers they need. What can I say to the residents of Soham and Ely, who face youths on the street causing disturbances and engaging in vandalism and threatening behaviour, when nothing can be done? What about the farmer whose machinery is stolen or whose buildings are set on fire but who is afraid to doing anything about that for fear of further reprisals?
Cambridgeshire police do their very best, but they cannot be everywhere. In parts of the county, the thin-blue line is about as visible as the river of fire on millennium night. Rural areas deserve law and order just as much as inner cities. Under the proposals before us, they will not get it.
3.48 pm
Mr. David Heath: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), and I shall pick up on some of the points that he raised. His constituency is not that dissimilar to mine.
I wish to make a few general points, but I do not want to concentrate on the general case because we have already covered that in the debate. We have discussed the problems of pay, pensions and the public safety radio communications project, although I very much welcome what the Minister said about the potential for its funding. We have discussed the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the national crime squad top cut. I believe strongly in such national squads—I had something to do with NCIS in the past—but we must strike a balance between what individual constabularies pay and the perceived benefit that they receive from the national squads.
The one area that we have not debated sufficiently is capital budgets. I am extremely concerned that we shall apparently have a freeze on the overall capital budget to the 1999–2000 figures, which in themselves were 50 per cent. lower than those for 1995–96. Given the increased demand for capital, one might expect the Government to be more responsive to need.
1260
Most of what I have to say is unashamedly parochial and will relate to the Avon and Somerset police authority, which I had the great pleasure to chair for three years and for which I have great affection and respect. Avon and Somerset police do an excellent job, and in the main I like not only what they do but how they do it.
I worry, however, about the consequences for the force of this year's settlement. I know that the police authority will meet in the next couple of weeks to consider a budget that will give it stark choices. It faces a £7 million shortfall. Those of us who have been in local government know that such shortfalls are a regular occurrence, but the force has been recognised as particularly efficient and it has for some time been innovative in its management practices, so there is not a great deal of scope for efficiency savings.
Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heath: No, I am sorry, I do not have time to give way.
The settlement for Avon and Somerset is not the worst in the country. It is about two thirds of the way down the list; 27 authorities have done better and 11 have done worse. However, the settlement does not meet the inflation cost of the pay awards, which is £6.1 million, or the additional pension deficit of £2 million. It does not allow for a capital programme that goes beyond the basic investment in information technology needed to meet Government programmes, plus some maintenance of buildings, for which there is a £7 million backlog. The tragedy is that £9 million of capital receipts is locked in a cupboard and cannot be used. If that could be utilised, it would benefit the police authority.
The council tax benefit limitation scheme also penalises Avon and Somerset by £500,000, which in itself is the cost of 20 police officers. The Minister said earlier that he is faced with a currency of police officers, whereas in his previous job he was faced with a currency of teachers, but that is how we must look at these issues. What will happen if funds are limited in a manpower-intensive service such as the police? We will lose police officers. That, I fear, will be the effect in the Avon and Somerset force this year.
In the next couple of weeks, the police authority will be asked to approve a budget that next year will provide for 30 fewer police officers, less civilian support and fewer of the services that the constabulary would like to provide, such as financial investigation. That is not matched by a reduction in council tax. Far from it—there will be an 11.5 per cent. increase. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said that people do not mind if taxes go up and they see the benefit in the service. People in Somerset will experience an 11.5 per cent. increase in the council tax for the police, on top of a 10.5 per cent. increase last year, but there will be 30 fewer officers on their streets. They will ask why that is happening and why they are being so badly served.
We may well come up trumps in the crime fighting fund application. Who knows? Maybe we will be given everything that we ask for, but I suspect not. If my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is right and we receive 27 officers from that fund, but lose 30 officers because of the general budget, it does not take a mathematical

1261
genius to realise that we will be worse off in terms of the number of officers fighting crime in Avon and Somerset. That is a labour of Sisyphus for the constabulary, because every time we think that we can make improvements, the stone rolls back and we are worse off.
What can the Minister do? First, of course, he can argue—I am sure that he is doing so—for a greater total sum for the police, which is not keeping up with other services. For Avon and Somerset, he can argue also for the removal of the area cost adjustment, because there can be no justification for such an adjustment for a police service in which pay and conditions are determined nationally, yet that is maintained year after year.
There is also sparsity, which the Minister said he is addressing. Avon and Somerset is a strange police authority because we have urban Bristol, including St. Paul's, and Exmoor, and the two have rather different policing needs. We have to police a large rural area, and that must be recognised. Having sympathy for the concerns of hon. Members who represent rural areas is not equivalent to doing something about the formula.
We have a complicated formula for the police grant that awards authorities that have terraced housing. That is wonderful for us because we have Bath, with the Royal crescent, and Clifton with its Georgian crescents, and we get rewarded for that.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heath: No, I am sorry, I do not have time.
Let us have some sense about the costs of policing, and a needs-based budget. There is also the establishment factor, which the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) mentioned. It does not fit with a needs-based formula to base 10 per cent. of a force's budget on historical accident, favouring those forces who happen to have been favoured many years ago.
I could say much more, but I want to give the Minister the opportunity to give a brief reply. Before I do so, I shall make one point. The effect of squeezing police expenditure is not that the police will investigate murders or other serious crimes any less effectively. It is the marginal activities that get squeezed, such as patrols and the provision of cover in rural areas, which affect the visibility of the police. Local commanders have difficulty in carrying absences and abstractions for major crimes, which means that the public have less confidence in their local police, and the police are less visible. I hope that no Member of the House wants that.
3.56 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I shall respond briefly to this useful debate. Pensions were mentioned by many hon. Members, who made legitimate points. That issue is difficult to deal with across government, not only in the police. As has been suggested, we need to sort it out. I make no party political criticism in saying that the matter was not addressed fully under the previous Government; it has not yet been fully addressed, and it needs to be dealt with.
I am glad that the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the national crime squad have been complimented. They are in a different position from
1262
other forces, but I am glad that many hon. Members have referred to the quality of their work and the importance of supporting them. I am strongly committed to doing so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and the hon. Members for Orpington (Mr. Horam) and for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) powerfully made the suburban metropolitan case. I have not heard the suburban argument made that clearly before, and I shall consider those important issues, which fall between those of inner-city crime and those of rural deprivation.
The area cost-adjustment point is well made, but as I said earlier, the overall review conducted by the Deputy Prime Minister is dealing with that, among other matters. Many hon. Members criticised the formula and made interesting points. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) talked about how population movements are measured, which will be part of the process.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the difficult issue of success being penalised, which runs through much of public policy. Obviously, the worse the problems in an area, the greater the inclination to give it more resources, but those areas that have done better then feel, reasonably, that their success is not being properly recognised. I take that problem very seriously.
I did not deal with capital in my opening remarks because of the limited time available. We are now in a period of stability for capital after successive years of cash cuts in police capital provision. Police capital funding next year will remain at this year's figure of £144 million, and our plans will allow police authorities to plan ahead with confidence. In addition, there are private finance initiative schemes.
I am sure that the numbers debate will run on. I merely want to emphasise that police presence on the streets is not simply related to police numbers. We had a meeting near Emneth, close to Norfolk, where there was a terrible murder last Thursday, and people raised the issue of the burden that the criminal justice system places on the police by requiring them to spend more time in police stations and not enough on the beat. There are issues of that kind that are at least as important.
I welcome the debate. I have tried briefly to respond to the points that have been made. I shall be happy to discuss these issues further outside the Chamber.
It being Four o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [28 January].
The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 156.

Division No. 62]

[4 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Beard, Nigel

Ainger, Nick

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Alexander, Douglas

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Allen, Graham

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Benton, Joe

Atkins, Charlotte

Berry, Roger

Austin, John

Best, Harold

Banks, Tony

Betts, Clive

Barnes, Harry

Blackman, Liz

Barron, Kevin

Blears, Ms Hazel

Bayley, Hugh

Blizzard, Bob

1263

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Borrow, David

Hepburn, Stephen

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Heppell, John

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Hesford, Stephen

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Hill, Keith

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Hinchliffe, David

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Browne, Desmond

Hood, Jimmy

Burden, Richard

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Burgon, Colin

Hope, Phil

Butler, Mrs Christine

Hopkins, Kelvin

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Howells, Dr Kim

Cann, Jamie

Hoyle, Lindsay

Caplin, Ivor

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Casale, Roger

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cawsey, Ian

Humble, Mrs Joan

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hurst, Alan

Chaytor, David

Hutton, John

Clapham, Michael

Iddon, Dr Brian

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Illsley, Eric

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Jenkins, Brian

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Clelland, David

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Clwyd, Ann

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Coaker, Vernon

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Coleman, Iain

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Colman, Tony

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Corston, Jean

Keeble, Ms Sally

Cousins, Jim

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Cox, Tom

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Cranston, Ross

Kemp, Fraser

Crausby, David

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Khabra, Piara S

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Kidney, David

Darvill, Keith

Kilfoyle, Peter

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Davidson, Ian

Laxton, Bob

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Lepper, David

Leslie, Christopher

Dawson, Hilton

Levitt, Tom

Dean, Mrs Janet

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Dismore, Andrew

Linton, Martin

Dobbin, Jim

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Doran, Frank

Lock, David

Dowd, Jim

Love, Andrew

Drew, David

McAvoy, Thomas

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

McCabe, Steve

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Efford, Clive

Macdonald, Calum

Ellman, Mrs Louise

McDonnell, John

Etherington, Bill

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Fitzsimons, Lorna

McIsaac, Shona

Flint, Caroline

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Fyfe, Maria

McNulty, Tony

Galloway, George

MacShane, Denis

Gapes, Mike

Mactaggart, Fiona

Gardiner, Barry

Mahon, Mrs Alice

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Mallaber, Judy

Gerrard, Neil

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Godsiff, Roger

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Goggins, Paul

Maxton, John

Golding, Mrs Llin

Meale, Alan

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Miller, Andrew

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mitchell, Austin

Grocott, Bruce

Moffatt, Laura

Grogan, John

Moran, Ms Margaret

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Mountford, Kali

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Mullin, Chris

1264

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Snape, Peter

Norris, Dan

Soley, Clive

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Southworth, Ms Helen

O'Hara, Eddie

Spellar, John

O'Neill, Martin

Squire, Ms Rachel

Organ, Mrs Diana

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Stoate, Dr Howard

Pendry, Tom

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Perham, Ms Linda

Stringer, Graham

Pickthall, Colin

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Pike, Peter L

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Plaskitt, James

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Pollard, Kerry

Pound, Stephen

Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Timms, Stephen

Primarolo, Dawn

Tipping, Paddy

Prosser Gwyn

Todd, Mark

Purchase, Ken

Touhig, Don

Quinn, Lawrie

Trickett, Jon

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Truswell, Paul

Raynsford Nick

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Rogers, Allan

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Tynan, Bill

Rooney, Terry

Vis, Dr Rudi

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Ward, Ms Claire

Rowlands, Ted

Wareing, Robert N

Roy, Frank

Watts, David

Ruddock, Joan

White, Brian

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Ryan, Ms Joan

Wicks, Malcolm

Salter, Martin

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Savidge, Malcolm

Sawford, Phil

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Sedgemore, Brian

Wills, Michael

Shaw, Jonathan

Winnick, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Wise, Audrey

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Wood, Mike

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Woolas, Phil

Singh, Marsha

Worthington, Tony

Skinner, Dennis

Wyatt, Derek

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Mr. Mike Hall and

Mr. Greg Pope.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Amess, David

Burns, Simon

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Burstow, Paul

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Butterfill, John

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Baldry, Tony

Chope, Christopher

Ballard, Jackie

Clappison, James

Beggs, Roy

Collins, Tim

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Colvin, Michael

Bercow, John

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Beresford, Sir Paul

Cotter, Brian

Blunt, Crispin

Cran, James

Body, Sir Richard

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Boswell, Tim

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Brady, Graham

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Brake, Tom

Day, Stephen

Brand, Dr Peter

Duncan, Alan

Brazier, Julian

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Breed, Colin

Faber, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Fabricant, Michael

Browning, Mrs Angela

Fallon, Michael

1265

Flight, Howard

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Foster, Don (Bath)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Madel, Sir David

Fox, Dr Liam

Major, Rt Hon John

Fraser, Christopher

Malins, Humfrey

Gale, Roger

Maples, John

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Gibb, Nick

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Gill, Christopher

May, Mrs Theresa

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Moore, Michael

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Moss, Malcolm

Green, Damian

Nicholls, Patrick

Greenway, John

Norman, Archie

Grieve, Dominic

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Page, Richard

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Paice, James

Hammond, Philip

Paterson, Owen

Hawkins, Nick

Pickles, Eric

Heald, Oliver

Prior, David

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Rendel, David

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Robathan, Andrew

Horam, John

Robertson, Laurence

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Ruffley, David

Hunter, Andrew

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

St Aubyn, Nick

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Sanders, Adrian

Jenkin, Bernard

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Shepherd, Richard

Kirkwood, Archy

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Soames, Nicholas

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Lansley, Andrew

Spicer, Sir Michael

Leigh, Edward

Spring, Richard

Letwin, Oliver

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Steen, Anthony

Lidington, David

Streeter, Gary

Livsey, Richard

Stunell, Andrew

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Swayne, Desmond

Loughton, Tim

Syms, Robert

Luff, Peter

Tapsell, Sir Peter

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

1266

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Whittingdale, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Wilkinson, John

Thompson, William

Willis, Phil

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Wilshire, David

Townend, John

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Tredinnick, David

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Tyler, Paul

Yeo, Tim

Tyrie, Andrew

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Viggers, Peter

Walter, Robert

Tellers for the Noes:

Wardle, Charles

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Waterson, Nigel

and

Wells, Bowen

Mr. John Randall.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2000–01: (HC 169), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Question required to be put at that hour.
Resolved,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1998–99: Amending Report 2000–01 (HC 170), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.—[Ms Armstrong.]
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. An announcement is running on teletext that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is to make a statement to the House later tonight. Have you had notice that we can expect such a statement, or is that simply speculation by the BBC?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Had the hon. Gentleman been present for business questions, he would have heard the Leader of the House foreshadow the possibility that there would be a statement later today. I cannot add to that, but notice has certainly been given to the House.

Local Government Finance
4.13 pm
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2000–01 (HC 160), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 52) (HC 161), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1998–99: Amending Report 2000 (HC 162), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.
Ms Armstrong: I shall set the financial settlement in the context of the Government's radical reform for local government. Modernising and improving public services is central to the Government's approach, to enable people throughout the country to have a higher quality of life. High-quality, accessible and affordable local public services are an essential part of community life.
Promoting the economic and social regeneration of our villages, towns and cities, tackling crime, ensuring that our schools deliver excellence, maintaining decent health and social care, enhancing the local environment, and protecting our most vulnerable citizens—all these are responsibilities which local government at its best fulfils best in partnership with others.
Our ambitious and long-term reform agenda for local government requires a long-term approach to the funding of public services. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, dealing with the Tory inheritance has taken and will take time. We are determined not to make the mistake of boom and bust, and instead have sought to create a stable economic climate within which our public services can develop and improve over time.
Mr. A. J. Beith: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I must point out to her that the only thing stable about education funding in Northumberland is the fact that we are still working on the plans of the previous Government, and that even this year the education standard spending assessment for Northumberland is one of the lowest of any shire county. When can we hope for some improvement in the situation in which children in Northumberland have so much less spent on them per head than in so many other parts of the country?
Ms Armstrong: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there has always been a system of redistribution, taking account of need. We have paid greater attention to the sparsity factor, which has benefited Northumberland. I know the problems of Northumberland because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, my constituency is separated from it only by the river.
The problems are being tackled. There has been a 4.4 per cent. increase in education funding this year. Everything possible is being done to ensure that all children in Northumberland get the opportunity that they deserve.
1268
A distribution formula inevitably means that not every place gets exactly the same amount of money per child, but we are conducting a review and looking at how we can ensure that people throughout the country know that they are getting a better deal. They know that this year because, however low education spending in Northumberland is, it is a lot more than it was in the last three years of the previous regime.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Armstrong: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is my neighbour, will speak later in the debate. I must make progress.
We were acutely aware that local government inherited a short-term challenge, exacerbated by a 4.3 per cent. cut in real terms in the three years preceding 1997. There has been no such cut since this Government were elected. I am pleased to confirm today that this year's settlement will mean that over the first three years of this Government, grant to local councils will have increased by £6 billion. That is a real-terms increase of 7.8 per cent., compared with a 4.3 per cent. cut in the three years preceding the election of a Labour Government.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. May I move the debate from Northumberland down to Leicestershire? The right hon. Lady may not know that Leicestershire has the lowest standard spending assessment for education of any shire county. The Government's recommended spending on education in Leicestershire would involve a 3.3 per cent. cut per pupil. However, that is not going to happen, because Leicestershire county council is to spend more than the recommended amount.
Will the Minister speak to her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and explain, first, that Leicestershire is concerned about the small amount of money that it is getting from the Government through the education SSA and, secondly, that the leader of the council is not the chief executive? Although the Secretary of State has been told that on more than one occasion, he keeps writing to the chief executive, Mr. Sinnott, as the leader.
Ms Armstrong: The average increase in education standard spending assessments is higher in shire counties than in metropolitan counties. That means that Leicestershire received a higher increase than many other authorities. Not everybody can be average or at the top in a system that uses a distribution formula.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Ms Armstrong: I shall be neighbourly to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Atkinson: The Labour leader of Northumberland county council has written to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to plead for extra help. Northumberland county council has had to cut its education budget and, consequently, it cannot take

1269
up £2.8 million of standards fund money because it does not have the match funding. Schools in Northumberland currently face that problem.
Ms Armstrong: Despite the substantial increases, some authorities and schools have historically received low funding. The hon. Gentleman knows that, under the previous Government, his local authority suffered substantial cuts. The Government have ensured increased funding. We have not been able to put everything right, because righting all the previous Government's wrongs will take time. We are considering the third settlement. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the real-terms increase of 7.8 per cent. for local councils since the general election, in contrast with what was happening before the election.
The Government are mindful of the long-term challenges that local councillors face, and appreciate that they are eager to modernise the fabric of the community through capital investment, of which the Tories starved them. We have therefore made available more than £6 billion of additional capital to invest in schools, homes and other much-needed community facilities.
Additional resources must be invested wisely. That is why we are committed to modernising the local government finance system, which at present makes up in complexity for what it lacks in transparency. If local councils are to plan ahead and work effectively in partnerships, they need assurances about the stability of future funding. That is why we announced totals for SSAs and grant for three years, during which we do not expect to change the SSA formulae. The Local Government Association welcomes that move.
Sir Paul Beresford: Will the right hon. Lady explain the enormous variations between last year and this year, and the rumours that they are caused by a glitch in a computer, which affected the previous year's data?
Ms Armstrong: I do not deal in rumours. Changes have been made this year because of the additional investment that we are providing, and because of changes in data. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have consistently said that we would change not the formulae, but the data. Of course changes have occurred, but the good treasurers were able to predict what would happen.
We continue to work with the LGA to review the revenue grant and capital control systems to ascertain whether, together, we can achieve a simpler, fairer system that puts the grant where it will do most good. That is why we are implementing radical proposals for a more efficient, transparent and accountable local democracy.
We have abolished crude and universal capping and we no longer set authorities' spending limits in advance. Those changes make councils more accountable to local people for their tax decisions. In general, councils responded well to that approach in 1999–2000. Unlike Conservative Members, the Government are not in the business of forecasting council tax increases. Indeed, it is becoming a tired old ritual for Opposition Members to forecast high council tax increases and make alarmist predictions that rarely materialise.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: The Minister cannot divorce herself entirely from the impact of the
1270
settlement on council tax, because real people pay that tax through real councils. Many of those people face hardship in paying increased council tax.
Ms Armstrong: That was an interesting intervention. Given the hon. Gentleman's predictions, I wonder about his intentions. Today, he predicted increases of more than 10 per cent. Is he trying to encourage authorities to do that? Last year, Labour councils increased council tax by 6.1 per cent., whereas Tory councils raised it by 7.6 per cent. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is trying to encourage profligate spending by Tory authorities. Thank goodness there are not many of them.
It is important that councils consult local people and consider fully the scope for increased cost-effectiveness before setting their budgets. I am delighted to say that, since I announced the provisional figures in November, efficient management of the transitional costs of local government reorganisation has produced a saving of £35 million. As part of the Government's continual drive to ensure that investment is focused on front-line services, I decided to return the £35 million through an increase in grant support to local authorities to help them fund service improvements and keep council tax increases down.
In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment recently confirmed that an extra £50 million for schools will be paid through a special grant to all education authorities.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: But to qualify for that £50 million, local education authorities must maintain last year's education budget as well as finding extra cash to match the Government's increase on the education SSA this year.
Ms Armstrong: My right hon. Friend has written to local authorities to say that he is interested in the way in which they will pass the education money to schools. He will examine that before he makes a decision. I am happy to support my right hon. Friend.
Overall Government grant to local authorities will be £41.9 billion in 2000–01. That is nearly £2.3 billion or 5.8 per cent. more than in 1999–2000.
Mr. David Watts: Depopulation in many poor areas causes severe problems in maintaining standards and services, and for the council tax. Will my right hon. Friend specifically consider the poorest areas, such as St. Helens and Barnsley, which are suffering while we wait for the review of the SSA system? We all want that to happen as soon as possible.
Ms Armstrong: I shall tackle that later in my speech.
As I said, the overall effect of our policy is an increase this year. Total standard spending will be £53.6 billion, which is £2.9 billion or 5.8 per cent. more than in 1999–2000. Individual authorities' SSAs will have moved slightly since the provisional figures were announced in November to reflect updating or corrections to data. I do not propose a change in the method of calculating SSAs, except when that is needed to take account of the changes that are connected with establishing the Greater London Authority. However, in a formula-based system such as the standard spending assessment, changed circumstances change the amount of grant that individual councils

1271
receive. Specifically, when the data that feed into the formula change, the SSAs for individual authorities change. Those changes led to representations on three issues in particular.
Lower interest rates affected the distribution of the element of the SSA that relates to capital financing. The authorities that lost by that change—principally metropolitan authorities with debt, but low interest receipts—suggested to me an alternative means of calculation. I understand their argument that using an interest rate at a particular point in time may not be representative of a whole year. However, we have said that we intend to stick to the existing method of calculating SSAs and we have to be consistent in that. I must also make the obvious point that reducing interest rates results in a reduced cost to authorities of servicing debt. That is reflected in the particular SSA.
A number of representations suggested that more grant be given to those authorities with the lowest grant increases and that the threshold of 1.5 per cent. that we had proposed for central support protection grant be increased. The Government, though, have to strike a balance between protecting authorities with low increases and allowing the new data to work through the grant formula to give larger increases to others. I consider that we have that balance right.
Authorities such as those to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) referred—which lost grant because of data changes and, in particular, declining population—suggested that we should introduce a mechanism to phase in those losses. I am not persuaded that that would be sensible. It must be true that, other things being equal, a decline in local population will feed through to lower spending. However, that is one of the issues that we shall continue to examine as we consider the review.
I have considered those and other points carefully. However, I remind the House that our July 1998 White Paper, "Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People", set out our plans for the period of the review of revenue grant distribution. We stated that although we did not expect to change the method of distribution, we would update the SSAs of individual authorities to reflect changes in the demands for their services, as reflected in the data used to calculate SSAs. We see no reason to change that view. Therefore, I do not intend to make any changes to the basis of grant distribution that I proposed on 25 November.
The Local Government Association sought information about the arrangements for phasing in the effect of grant changes. I accept its argument, which chimes with the Government's emphasis on providing a stable financial environment in which authorities can plan and deliver better services. I therefore announce today that we intend, for 2001–02, to use the same arrangements for phasing in grant changes as for 2000–01. That means that no authority will lose grant, and local authorities with education and social service responsibilities will receive a grant increase of at least 1.5 per cent.
I also intend to maintain stability in another area that relates to council tax benefit subsidy. We received and considered representations on our proposals for subsidy limitation. Some were opposed to the scheme itself and some sought modifications. However, none convinced me that the basic principle behind subsidy limitation is wrong.
1272
Local authorities will therefore continue to contribute to the benefit costs of council tax rises, if those are above a guideline. The guideline will operate cumulatively, as we said last year. In other respects, the scheme remains as last year.
Mr. Christopher Chope: I understand that the guideline is about 4.8 per cent. Why is that so much above the rate of inflation? Does it not demonstrate that the Minister knows that the consequence of the grant settlement is that council tax rises will be significantly above the rate of inflation next year, as they have been in the last two years under this Government?
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman has a short memory. He knows that when he was in charge of these things—or at least when he was one of the Ministers in the Department—he supported changes that drastically changed the amounts raised through central Government grant and locally. The balance was redressed slightly by changing the basis of that, but his Government changed those amounts. That has been maintained, but we are considering it in the review. It is not true that the guideline is 4.8 per cent. and it is not true that councils have to spend up to it. Councils have already planned to spend well below the guideline, which is not a suggested council tax increase but the guideline at which council tax benefit subsidy limitation kicks in. That is a very different matter.
Mr. Harry Barnes: An aspect of the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme presents a problem. Parish council precepts are included in the amounts to be considered, but parish councils are in control of their own expenditure. Some authorities have a great number of parish councils in their area, so should not that matter be removed from these considerations?
Ms Armstrong: I have considered that. It would be difficult to administer my hon. Friend's proposal and the cost of administration might far outweigh the amount that would be taken. Following discussions with the National Association of Local Councils, we decided not to go down that road. However, I understand his point.
Mr. Sanders: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. Combined fire authorities, which have no control over the local authorities that set their budgets, are affected by the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme. Will she consider making reforms, as the scheme is very unfair to them?
Ms Armstrong: I do not accept that argument. Combined fire authorities comprise representatives from member authorities, and it is their responsibility to ensure that decisions taken by the combined fire authorities do not inflict exacting tolls on the council tax payer. It would not be fair to put that liability on to the other authority, which does not set the tax.
Mr. Sanders: The Minister has that the wrong way round.
Ms Armstrong: I do not; maybe you have.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Minister did not mean to refer to me.
Ms Armstrong: Absolutely not—I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The liability rests with the authority

1273
that sets the budget. If the fire authority sets the budget, council tax benefit subsidy limitation impacts on that budget. The authority must take responsibility for the decisions that it takes.
This is the third local government settlement under the Government and the second within the comprehensive spending review. We are providing unprecedented financial stability for local government, together with proper funding. I acknowledge that some authorities face difficulties. That is why we are continuing to seek long-term reform of the local government finance system. Our proposals for 2000–01 have been widely welcomed by local government. They represent the best deal for local government since the introduction of the council tax. They lay the foundation for reform and modernisation, and enable councils to plan effectively for the provision of decent public services that underpin strong communities. I commend them to the House.
4.40 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Here we are again, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This is a Government who like to pretend that they are the friends of local government. They talk a great deal about enhancing local democracy and use that famous word in the new Labour dictionary, "modernisation". When this Government start talking about modernisation, it is time to start counting the spoons. The last thing that they want is vigorous, independent, representative local councils standing up for local people and opposing harmful policies imposed by central Government. As we see from their attitude to the London mayoral race, there are clear limits to devolution under this Government. They are not prepared to tolerate a mayoral candidate who will not wear a pager and take his lead from Millbank or No. 10.
In the rest of the country, the Government wish to impose their own blueprint for local government structures. The Secretary of State is now leaving the Chamber; I am sorry about that. The Government also refuse point blank to allow the so-called fourth option—to let councils and local people choose the status quo if it suits their needs. Yet so unsuccessful have the Government been in attracting genuine support, rather than sullen acquiescence, from councillors for their plans that not one solitary councillor in Labour-controlled Camden could bring himself or herself to support their plans for reorganisation.
Ms Armstrong: That is not true.
Mr. Waterson: I understand that the council voted 40-something to zero, with three abstentions, against the Government's plans for reorganisation and that one of those who abstained was the Labour leader of the council. If the Minister thinks that I am wrong, however, I shall be happy to give way to her.
Ms Armstrong: Council members properly abided by the group whip, which demonstrates, to an extent, that the current committee system does not provide full, free and open access to discussions relating to decisions.
Mr. Waterson: This is unreal. The Minister is saying that the Labour group debated her proposals for local
1274
government modernisation and decided against them, and that there was then a Labour whip against those proposals. She really should take stock. Is it the case that everyone else is wrong, and she is right?
The Minister may not agree with me about Camden, although I believe that that is a matter of record. She may know, however, that there is a campaign in the Labour party for open local government, which claims to have more than 1,000 Labour councillors as members. [Interruption.] I am sorry if hearing this is painful for Labour Members, but it is what happens when the Government's policies part company with the aspirations of grass-roots Labour party members. Sometimes, that also brings about ministerial resignations.
Ms Armstrong: I will not resign.
Mr. Waterson: The last thing that Conservative Members want is for the Minister to resign, but I was referring to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle).
Nowhere is the Government's control freakery more apparent than in local government finance. Their approach reeks of it. Yet again, we have heard much from the Minister about stability; but, as I said at the time of the original statement, it is no consolation for a council that is treated unfairly in year 1 to be told that it can make plans on the basis that it will be treated just as unfairly in years 2 and 3.
Let me take this opportunity to ask the Minister in more detail how she and her colleagues are progressing with the review of the working of standard spending assessments. I am sure that that is of interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House. According to what I last heard, 19 countries' systems were to be considered. I believe that that has now been narrowed down to four: four countries are to benefit from a ministerial visit, or junket. It would be interesting to know what time scale Ministers have in mind for the reaching of conclusions.
The Government are trying to downplay the significance of the settlement. That is hardly surprising; I do not blame them. Let us look at the facts. The settlement confirms that, over the past three years, the Government have channelled £425 million out of county councils, and £180 million out of London boroughs, in order to subsidise largely Labour-controlled metropolitan councils. In this year alone, shire counties' standard spending assessments will be £160 million below the level that they would have reached without the Government's changes to the funding formula.
Mr. Tim Loughton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the migration of funds from the shires to spendthrift northern metropolitan boroughs under Labour control is all the more absurd when the population figures are rising in the south-east—and, because of that, the Deputy Prime Minister wants to impose 1.1 million new houses on us—while the population figures in northern boroughs are falling? Is not the per head settlement weakening all the time in the south-east?
Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a point that neatly links this debate with the debate that we had only yesterday.

1275
This year's settlement was particularly hard on shire district councils. Funding for environmental protection and cultural services was cut in real terms, and that makes up a substantial proportion of district council spending. District councils are set to lose 6.1 per cent. of their cash revenue support grant; if we take inflation into account, that means a cash shortfall of more than 8 per cent.
The Government say that they are increasing the grant to every authority. That, however, has been achieved because of a large surplus on the business rate pool from last year, which the Government are obliged to transfer to local authorities. I think it fair to say that, without that money, many councils would face steep cuts—actual cuts—in their overall grant.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: May I return my hon. Friend to the subject of shire counties? The Government do not necessarily discriminate: Labour-controlled Northumberland county council has suffered badly in terms of cuts. I have been sent the records of a meeting between staff and council officers who are worried about the situation. They are quite revealing. The staff said:
"The commitment to spending at SSA in relation to education will mean a cut in school budgets—perhaps a commitment should be made to school budgets rather than SSA."
The answer was:
"The council is going through a process of closing old people's homes and cannot spend above SSA for education because of the implications for other services."
Further on in the minutes, a 6.5 per cent. increase in council tax is predicted.
Mr. Waterson: That paints a bleak picture of how Northumberland will fare as a result of the settlement. I intend to return to the Northumberland example when I deal specifically with education.
The Minister adopted an extraordinarily detached attitude to council tax levels, as if they were an act of God and wholly unrelated to the settlement that we are debating. However, last year's increase of 6.8 per cent.— a sharp rise under this Government—came on top of a record increase of 8.6 per cent. the previous year. The average band D household is already paying £100 more in council tax this year than when Labour took power.
That would be bad enough were it not for the fact that, if council spending increases at the same rate as last year, council taxes could go up by more than 10 per cent., with an average band D household facing a further rise of £85. By the end of the process, many homes throughout the country could pay getting on for £200 more in council tax than at the general election. We are not necessarily talking about wealthy people. Ordinary families on tight budgets and elderly people who have trouble meeting such bills may face those costs. Those are serious matters.
If one goes into the figures in even more detail, it will produce some interesting results. If one looks at the real-terms changes in SSA and TES—total external support—one will reach the following conclusions. Last year's settlement was notably biased against councils in the south of England, a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton). Councils in the south of England and the west midlands will have a smaller percentage of their SSA real-terms increase matched by a TES real-terms increase. The Minister is right to say that council taxes are fixed
1276
by councils, but within constraints. That produces the potential for higher-than-average council tax increases in those very councils.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I am somewhat puzzled. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, somehow by magic, the formula on which the settlement is based has surreptitiously been changed without anyone noticing, or that the method by which the SSA is formulated is the same as it was under his Government? Therefore, provided the rules have been kept to, the Government are simply carrying out the formula. While he is at it, is he not saying that, if it were not for the fact that there is more money from the business rate, there would be less money? That seems a strange method of opposing a settlement.
Mr. Waterson: Yes, I am saying that in the first year of the three-year process, the goalposts were moved. The point about the business rate is that, were it not for the surplus from last year, the Government would be looking at real cuts in grants for certain councils.
Let us do a political analysis of the real-terms increases in both SSA and TES for councils and look at the party political control of the councils. The TES increase as a percentage of the SSA increase—a crucial part of the formula—for Conservative-controlled councils is 55.3 per cent., compared with 62.6 per cent for Labour-controlled councils. If it is any assistance to the Government's friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the equivalent figure for Liberal Democrat-controlled councils is 53.5 per cent., so they might have something to say about the way in which the councils that they temporarily control are treated by the Government in one or two of those Cabinet Committees.
Therefore, a smaller percentage of the SSA real-terms increase of Conservative and, incidentally, Liberal Democrat-controlled councils will be matched by a TES real-terms increase. As I have said, that lays the groundwork for higher-than-average council tax increases in those councils, even though the Minister went out of her way to suggest that it was nothing to do with her.
As we have heard, the methodology was not altered this year. We are part of a three-year cycle. There are 21 authorities whose total SSA in 2000–01 will be lower in real terms than in 1999–2000, assuming inflation of 2.5 per cent. One of the them, Tewkesbury, will suffer a fall in SSA. The reason why most—in fact all, except the London borough of Merton—of the councils on that list are shire district councils is because the increase in funding to local government was directed primarily at education and social services. That is a major reason why those councils have been treated unfairly.
The other point, which I think is accepted by the Minister, if I understood her properly, is that the year-on-year changes are data driven. They are based on size, composition of population and so on. They have nothing to do with decisions by Ministers. That is one of the pitfalls of having a three-year period in which no changes are made to SSAs, and in which Ministers have said that they are unwilling to receive representations other than in writing from local councils.
Additionally—this point was made earlier in the debate—some police and fire authorities are receiving a below-inflation increase: Merseyside and West Yorkshire are two examples. That also will have a serious knock-on effect in the areas affected.

1277
A moment ago, I touched on the question of representations. The other day, in answer to a question of mine, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), listed eight authorities that had made requests in writing for meetings to discuss the financial settlement for the coming year. She makes it clear—because this is the basis on which they entered the process—that
"No Minister from this Department met those authorities to discuss their representation",—[Official Report, 1 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 518W.]
although Ministers did receive representations in writing and from the Local Government Association and other bodies.
Again, however—I have made the point before, but I happily make it again—it really cannot be right to have a system that allows Ministers to avoid the necessity of meeting delegations from local authority areas to discuss whether they have been fairly treated. When the previous Government were in power, Ministers regularly met such delegations—I led delegations myself, from Eastbourne—and they listened patiently and courteously to those representations. That is, in part, what Ministers are for.
It is really quite a difficult concept in a parliamentary democracy to have Ministers who refuse to have that type of consultation.
Mr. Watts: I took part in delegations to see the previous Administration about various problems, but we were shoved through one door and out the next. Very rarely did anything come from those meetings; they were pointless. Often, the Ministers did not understand the issues that we were raising and showed very little interest in the problems facing local authorities.
Mr. Waterson: Perhaps it had something to do with the leadership of the delegation. My experience is that Ministers were unfailingly courteous, and—in the shape of my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), who is in the Chamber—extremely knowledgeable indeed, having been leader of an extremely well-run local authority.
Sir Paul Beresford: There is a contrasting view, as Ministers sometimes had to recognise that those who were in a delegation did not understand the points that they were trying to make. Occasionally, graphs we were given were filled in upside down. When it was pointed out to them that the axes had slightly changed, their whole argument would collapse. However, that said, there was much positive gain from receiving those deputations. In the final year of the previous Government, my fellow Ministers and I saw about 92 delegations, which was beneficial.
Mr. Waterson: Perhaps I can draw a line under this particular part of the debate by admitting that there were occasions when I was present when I had the eerie feeling that no one in the room understood the point that was being discussed—but perhaps that is the nature of SSAs. We are hoping that the Minister will come up with a whizz-o, easy-to-understand new system; we shall see.
1278
There are other ways in which the Government, through the local government finance system, are trying to impose their own agenda on local government. One of them is the growing use of specific grants. Conservative Members are friends of the block grant. We think that, in the past, our Government, too, were guilty of having too many specific grants, in which the Government think that a particular priority is important and impose that sense of priorities on local government.
The figures on specific grant are quite significant. [Interruption.] For education—[interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Could I persuade the right hon. Lady the Minister that a running commentary is not helpful?
Mr. Waterson: I have learned not to listen, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The figure for education specific grant, in 1997–98, was £302 million. In 2000–01, the outturn is £1,475 million. For personal social services, it goes from £193 million to £611 million. Those are very significant changes.
Mr. Loughton: The issue is not just specific grants the purpose of which is controlled by central Government. Grants are being phased out and the majority of the additional money available to local authorities is through loans. That gives the Government even greater central control over the use of the money, regardless of local needs and the democratic wishes of the people who elected the councillors.
Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend gives another good example of how local decision making is being constrained.
If the Minister does not want to accept what I am saying, she should listen to the Labour-dominated Local Government Association, which has said that non-police specific grants have doubled as a proportion of aggregate external finance since 1997–98. Combined with more indirect forms of hypothecation such as passporting and ministerial exhortation, that has led to a significant erosion of local financial accountability. Given the usually restrained language of the LGA, that is a serious allegation.
Then we come to teachers' pay. The LGA has expressed concern that the 3.3 per cent. pay settlement announced only a couple of days ago could mean fewer staff and larger classes if the Government fail to give local education authorities extra resources, because most LEAs have put aside 3 per cent. or less for pay rises. There is a shortfall across the board of £110 million. I do not necessarily expect the Minister to accept that from me, but she must listen to Councillor Graham Lane, the Labour chairman of the LGA's education executive, who has said:
"This pay rise is £110 million more than LEAs put aside in their budgets. Unless the Government meets the shortfall there will be less money to employ teachers and class sizes will rise while standards drop."
That is the voice of Labour local government. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) told us in stark detail of the repercussions of the settlement for Northumberland, in particular the fact that the county is going to have to cut its education budget.

1279
Another disturbing development has just come to light.
Mr. Eric Illsley: How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile what he has just said about the restraints on local government caused by specific grants and the fact that authorities are not able to choose how they spend some of their money with the statement that he accepted from his hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) that northern authorities are spendthrift? How can they be spendthrift if they are being constrained in spending the money that they have?
Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend said that northern authorities were doing better than non-Labour-controlled authorities further south under the three years of the settlement. I agreed with him.
I should like to mention a specific and technical education issue that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) has already referred to—I think that this is the same point that he raised. The Government's decision to ease pressure on education budgets following the removal of £150 million from the education SSA has attracted support from the LGA and elsewhere. The Government consulted on how the extra £50 million would be distributed. It has recently emerged that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has decided—not suggested, as the Minister said—to allocate all the additional £50 million through specific grant, with the additional caveat that, before deciding whether to release an LEA's share of the money, he will need confirmation that the whole of the increase in the education SSA has been passported through to education. That is unprecedented and is causing great concern in the LGA and elsewhere. It runs counter to the traditional notion of a block grant, under which authorities were allowed to distribute money between services as they saw fit. For the first time, there will be a financial penalty for failing to comply with the Government's view of how the money should be spent. One of the documents sent to me describes that as "a very disturbing precedent".
Mr. Chope: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is particularly disturbing for local authorities that are spending above the level of their education SSA, as they will be penalised by this extraordinary action by the Government?
Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there will be an extra penalty for those education authorities. That entirely sums up the Government's approach—they do not trust local government to make decisions.
Another issue is the cost of Government initiatives. We are always hearing about the Government rolling out new initiatives on this, that or the other, but they all have to be paid for locally. That means that councils are often running up a lot of expenditure—on officers' time and so on—on the initiatives. Some councils have begun to strip out from their figures the cost of these initiatives, which shows that the costs are mounting at the moment.
I ask the Minister again not to claim that she has abolished capping, because that is just not true.
Ms Armstrong: Cruel and universal capping.
Mr. Waterson: The Minister says more from a sedentary position than she ever says at the Dispatch Box
1280
during these debates. She has replaced cruel and universal capping with two versions of capping. First, there are the so-called reserve powers. I have described these before—councils worry about a knock on the door in the middle of the night after the event, when they are told that they have spent too much. They never know from one year to another whether they will be invited in for a ministerial ticking-off.
Secondly, there is so-called refined capping—the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme. The scheme is a precise and targeted way, as the LGA has said, of making the nearly poor pay for the really poor. The nub of what the Minister said was that she had had representations from local government and that she was not going to take a blind bit of notice of any of them. The scheme will continue, and on a cumulative basis. Our policy in the next Parliament is not to have capping at all. [Laughter.] I thought that that would go down well.
The best value regime is in danger of turning into an expensive farce, with some councils having to cope with no fewer than 179 performance indicators. A good idea—which, in many respects, grew from the success of compulsory competitive tendering under the Conservative Government—has been strangled by this Government's over-prescriptive and nannying approach to local government. The LGA says that the costs of implementing best value are causing problems for smaller authorities in particular. We should not forget the draconian powers that the Government took in the Local Government Act 1999 to intervene in the running of councils which they did not think were up to scratch.
Last year, some social services SSAs declined in Labour heartlands such as Hackney, Lambeth and Newham. It is no wonder that hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Walton are beginning to lose faith in the Government's attitude to old Labour heartlands around the country. We all know the pressures on local social services departments, and there will be hardship as a result of this settlement—let us be in no doubt about that. In addition, many local businesses will be picking up the bill in business rates for the Government's unfair treatment of some parts of the country.
On a brighter note, we welcome the Government's announcement yesterday about the appeals system for business rates. A new programme has been set out, so that ratepayers will have an idea when their appeals are to be considered by the valuation officer or the valuation tribunal. The Government say that they are encouraging the early submission of appeals. We can all envisage that there will be many appeals under the new revaluation, and it is to be welcomed that the system will be streamlined to some extent.
The problem of asylum seekers and refugees is causing much concern to some councils. The LGA has spoken of the uncertainty of funding
"having a damaging effect on the voluntary dispersal scheme for adults and families with children".
It continued:
"Local authorities are concerned about the perceived lack of an overall strategy for funding the particular additional service needs of asylum seekers and refugees."
I hope that the Minister will let us know when she winds up the debate whether more flexibility can be introduced into the system to deal with that specific issue.
Mr. Loughton: My hon. Friend will know that Gatwick airport is in the neighbouring county to mine.

1281
Because of the number of asylum seekers, especially children, coming through the airport, social services in West Sussex have faced a 50 per cent. increase in the number of children requiring care in the past year alone. The social services SSA for the past five years has decreased by 16 per cent. Does he agree with the Minister when she described as "profligate" attempts by counties such as mine to keep up social services spending, which will involve an extra £4 million on the budget, despite the decline in the SSA and the additional factors such as asylum seekers?
Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend makes a good and serious point. The Home Secretary was unable to tell me the other day how many asylum seekers and refugees are living in my constituency. We do know that more than 200 were assigned to local GPs in Eastbourne in November and December last year. It is only when people present themselves to some branch of health or social services that one knows they are there. [Interruption.] I now have a running commentary from two lady Members on the Labour Benches. I am very grateful, but they are drowning each other out.
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman may not realise it, but one must register with the local social services department in order to qualify as a refugee or asylum seeker.
Mr. Waterson: Does the Minister really believe that 100 per cent. of them ever do register? As we all know, many places such as Eastbourne have large numbers of asylum seekers and refugees sent there by London boroughs that will not perform the simple courtesy of informing the local council that they are coming. Local communities deserve more support from central Government to meet the costs entailed, and the asylum seekers themselves need support more than most, in language, health and social services.
Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman's point about asylum seekers and refugees is pertinent to my local council, the royal borough of Kingston. We have several demand-led pressures, including asylum seekers and homelessness, of which the SSA does not take account. The council faces £4 million of cuts because of the allocation it has received from the Government. However, under the Tories, Kingston council's grant was cut year on year. The problems we now face are exacerbated because of the council's inheritance from the Tory years of misrule.
Mr. Waterson: One can never accuse the Liberal Democrats of not being even-handed in their abuse. When it comes to local government, Labour is all talk and no delivery. Despite all the rhetoric about this year's settlement for local government, the reality is that the council tax has already risen sharply under Labour and could go up next year by more than 10 per cent. All together, band D households could be nearly £200 worse off under Tony Blair's Government. It is another example of the great Labour lie.
Labour's figures are biased against the south of England. County councils, London boroughs and shire district councils are all losing out. Education authorities,
1282
as we have heard, will be short of a total of £110 million to meet the teachers' pay settlement. Even Labour leaders in local government admit that that will mean fewer teachers or larger class sizes—or both. The Government are threatening education standards as well as law enforcement.
The Government's attitude to finance for local government is symptomatic of their control freak tendency. They have a centralising agenda and are taking more and more control over what local councils spend. They are undermining local government and local choices. The Labour Government are ripping off local government.
5.15 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: The hypocrisy and bare-faced cheek of Opposition spokesmen and women, on not only this subject but every aspect of Government policy, are incredible, but their attitude is especially inappropriate when we are discussing local government finance.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) criticised the Government for not doing enough to encourage what he called the vigour and independence of local government. I happen to believe that that accusation is unjust: I think that the Government's attitude to local government is in tune with their devolution policy generally, devolving power away from the centre and enabling more and more individuals, at national, regional or local level, to take the decisions that affect themselves.
Let us compare the hon. Gentleman's accusation with the practice of the previous Tory Government from 1979 to 1997, when year by year they took power and responsibility away from local government and put constrictions and constraints and a straitjacket on local authorities such as had never been seen before. It is bare-faced cheek for him to accuse my right hon. Friend the Minister of seeking to undermine the independence and power of local authorities.
Sir Paul Beresford: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the movement of funds into specific grants, with the ties and straitjackets involved, is a form of centralisation? If not, he disagrees with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
Mr. Marshall: There is clearly some justification for that point. I have some fears about the direction that the Government are taking on that matter, but I think that central Government have a right, when trying to improve standards and to experiment at local level, to ensure that the necessary funds are spent on the services to which improvements are sought rather than on the generality of services.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne also accused my right hon. Friend the Minister of fiddling the formulae to benefit Labour authorities. If the Government are doing that, they are signally failing in my local authority in Leicester. The accusation is totally inappropriate from the spokesman of a party that, in government, fiddled the figures to such an extent that Westminster, one of the country's wealthiest local authorities, with some of the wealthiest people, received an exorbitant amount of help compared with that provided for Leicester. We should not have to listen to such humbug.

1283
The threat to do away with capping after the next general election is an empty one, because the probability of the Tories winning that election is so remote as not to place it on the political agenda.
Mr. Peter Brooke: The hon. Gentleman referred to Westminster. Will he take it from me that the number of households living below the poverty criteria in my constituency makes it the poorest Conservative constituency in the country, and that the situation would be even worse in the constituency of the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck)?
Mr. Marshall: I concede that there are poor people living in Westminster. I am one of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, so I am as aware as he is of the population distribution in Westminster. That does not deny the reality that, in terms of global wealth, it must be one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest, constituency in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Watts: Is my hon. Friend aware that Westminster is about the same size as St. Helens? If St. Helens received the same grant as Westminster, it would not need to charge any council tax whatever and could, at the same time, afford to send all its constituents on holiday to Spain. That shows how the previous Government fiddled the council tax system.
Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend's comments speak for themselves.
I should like to make a final comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne. He made a cheap political jibe about the Government neglecting their heartlands. I think that he referred to Newham and, in the same context, to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). However, the hon. Gentleman chose the wrong example, because he referred to the reduction in social service expenditure last year. I know about that, because my city suffered severely. It was as a consequence of the decision no longer to recognise ethnicity as producing an extra burden on social services. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the ethnic population in Walton is virtually zero, whereas in Newham it is fairly high. If he makes a cheap political point, he should at least ensure that the facts that he uses support rather than undermine it.
I should like to make a few points about the settlement's impact on the city of Leicester. My view is that the overall settlement nationally is good and to be welcomed. Perversely, Leicester has done badly, which is what I wish to highlight.
The Minister said last year that she did not wish this year to see deputations or delegations from specific local authorities about their position, but she kindly met me and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) yesterday evening to discuss the longer-term financial plight and situation in Leicester, not the specific difficulties that we face at present, of which she is aware. I thank my right hon. Friend for that meeting, and just hope that, when the Department brings forward the longer-term solutions concerning the future funding
1284
formula, she will take account of the particular difficulties that Leicester faces, and has faced for at least four or five years.
Mr. Waterson: It is typically courteous of the hon. Gentleman to give way. He chose his words carefully, and I hope that he was not suggesting that he had had a meeting with the Minister to discuss this finance settlement for Leicester. Ministers have made it clear that they are not meeting any local authorities; I would not wish to think that they were meeting Labour authorities and not non-Labour authorities.
Mr. Marshall: I thought that I chose my words carefully and had made the position clear. I said that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West and I had a discussion yesterday with my right hon. Friend about the long-term financial position in Leicester. It became clear during the course of the meeting that my right hon. Friend was fully aware not only of the long-term implications, but of the short-term implications of both last year's and this year's settlement. My point is that, as my right hon. Friend is fully aware of those factors, they will be taken into account when the formula for future distribution eventually emerges from the Department.
Leicester has experienced well-documented deprivation and social exclusion. It is both unfair and unfortunate that year-on-year disappointments in financial settlements should have two effects. First, standards in some services are reduced. Secondly, the range of services that the local authority is able to provide is also reduced. For example, several neighbourhood centres in Leicester, which play a real part in the vitality of local communities, will close over the next financial year because of the cuts that the local authority must make as a consequence of this year's settlement. I regret to say that one of those centres—Lansdowne neighbourhood centre—is in my constituency, but I assure its users that I shall use all my influence and do everything in my power to try to save it.
The Minister is well aware that Leicester has faced a difficult financial situation for at least a decade. Successive settlements since local government reorganisation have put the council in an invidious position. Only extra financial resources will resolve the problems. I shall briefly put the problems into an historical context. In 1997–98—the first year of unitary status for Leicester—the capping regime resulted in cuts amounting to £17 million. The following year saw further cuts in services, and the overall grant settlement led to a council tax increase of 26 per cent. In 1999–2000, we had the lowest SSA increase of any local education authority outside London and a further round of cuts.
I can reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne by making it slightly differently. In part, this year's round of cuts was brought about by a change in formula for social services expenditure, which ceased to recognise ethnicity as a factor that gave rise to additional costs. That was particularly damaging in Leicester, where 30 per cent. of the population is of ethnic minority background.
We have not done as badly in this financial year as in previous years. However, we have still done worse than most. Leicester has received an SSA increase of only 3.9 per cent., which is below the national average. The general situation has been compounded by the loss of

1285
central Government protection grant of £1.3 million. To make matters even worse, the increase in education SSA—3.3 per cent.—is again among the lowest in the country. Overall, Leicester believes that, since unitary status began, it has received the lowest cumulative increase in SSA of all similar authorities. It has also had the lowest increase in education SSA of all local education authorities.
I admit, of course, that the Government are making additional resources available nationally to raise standards. However, Leicester is not receiving its fair share of the additional resources, and that is being felt at the sharp end by school pupils across the city. Clearly, parents do not thank the Government or the council for that. The Minister could help in numerous ways, but I shall not delay the House by enumerating them.
I ask the Minister to ensure that there will be an end to the uncertainty over future settlements, and to acknowledge the fact that the settlements for Leicestershire in recent years have made it extremely difficult for the council to meet the needs of our citizens—let alone their aspirations. I know that the Minister is listening—I hope that the whole Government are listening and that they will take action so that, for the next three years, I do not have to make the same speech that I have made for the past three years.
5.30 pm
Mr. Adrian Sanders: The Minister proposes yet another settlement that will prevent many local authorities from meeting local community needs. Increases in grant will be wiped out by inflation, pay settlements and increased responsibilities—just as they were under the Conservatives. As in the past, local government will gain duties but lose power.
Since Labour came to power, the trend has been to increase the cost burden for local government while dictating where money should be spent. Taxation has been shifted from the centre to the council tax payer; and the statistical anomalies, which disadvantage many councils and inhibit their ability to respond to local needs, have been ignored.
I have some points to make about the cost burden imposed on local authorities. In the Government's first Budget, they put a tax on pensions. In year 1, that cost local authorities £300 million. However, that cost also applies in years 2 and 3 and will recur thereafter. Local authorities have never been compensated for that loss.
In year 1, there were eight changes to the SSA; each one tended to take money away from shire councils. In 1998 and 1999, the inflation assumptions were inaccurate; that resulted in a loss of money to local authorities. There was also the council tax benefit subsidy, which resulted in the poor having to subsidise the nearly poor—mainly in poorer local authorities. In the first two years of the Labour Government, rural areas lost about £250 million and London lost £140 million.
The Government examined council tax bands, but failed to reform them. There is a disproportionate council tax burden on people in the A band; those who live in mobile or park homes, which are worth half the amount at the top of that band, have to pay the same rate of tax as people whose property is worth twice as much.
1286
The Government dictate how the money that they give local authorities should be spent. It is one thing for the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to apply pressure on councils to spend up to the amount of the SSA, but to make grants dependent on confirmation that the money will be passed on to schools is quite different.
The Secretary of State wrote to education directors and chairs of education committees in relation to the £50 million special grant. The letter stated:
"The grant will not be paid automatically to authorities. I shall look for prior confirmation that the whole of the increase in your authority's education SSA has been passed on to education before deciding whether to release your share of the grant.
The problem with that—as it is for those authorities which already spend up to or above SSA—is that, if authorities pass on the maximum amount to schools, any increase in the education budget from the Government goes straight to the school. If the other services that have to be met from that budget have not been given an increase, they will suffer a cut. That is why many education authorities have great difficulty in maintaining school transport, special needs provision, school music services, educational psychology, discretionary grants and central support services.
That is all based on the presumption that the SSA is accurate, which brings me to the inaccurate statistics on which the settlement is based. For example, local education authorities must pay for the pupils who attend school today, so they have to pass the money down to the schools for each pupil. However, the figures upon which the grant that they receive from central Government is based are up to 18 months out of date. Therefore, a local authority with rising pupil numbers has to find funds from other parts of its budget, outside of education, to meet the Secretary of State's requirement that it spends up to SSA and that all the money is passported to schools. That means that other services suffer.
The same is true of the budgets for people in residential care and social services. The number of people going into care in one area may be rising, but the figures on them may be behind the SSA figures and the money for them will not arrive until a later year. Therefore, an authority may have to suffer a cut to other services even though it knows that it may make the sums up later. That is a reverse of the depopulation argument advanced by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts).
The number of people on the electoral register has a major impact on the SSA figure and on the amount received by a local authority. That is a particular problem for areas that have a high turnover of residents. That point may be of interest to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), because it relates to seaside resorts, where people often live in short-term let accommodation. They may live in the area for many years, but may change their address twice a year and never get on to the electoral register.
My local authority is probably an extreme example, but its officers estimate that nearly 5,000 people receive services from the local authority for whom they do not receive a penny from central Government. That equated into grant would make the difference between a council tax rise of the rate of inflation and the 16.9 per cent. rise that the council had to levy. The impact is greater the smaller the authority happens to be.
Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman is making points that apply to my constituency, which is also a seaside resort.

1287
Does he agree that councils would like to have the option of putting such arguments to Ministers annually when they feel that they are being treated unfairly by the formula and do not want to be locked into a three-year cycle?
Mr. Sanders: That is very true. Councils should be able to talk directly to Ministers because they cannot rely on the large Local Government Association, which is dominated by the metropolitan councils. The councils representing seaside resorts do not constitute a majority on the association, so perhaps there is an argument for a "seaside resort councils association". If the Government want to encourage one body to represent all local government, it is difficult for authorities that are not like the norm to make their voices heard. Ministers should have an open-door policy to meet the members of such authorities.
Mr. Barnes: I presume that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the introduction of the Representation of the People Bill. It will mean that people can be registered as they move. Although the problem that he mentioned will remain for a while, I hope that it will eventually disappear.
Mr. Sanders: The hon. Gentleman is right. The problem will reduce, but it will not be done away with completely. Because of it, we have suffered under the SSA regime for years, but I do not suppose that we will be compensated once the Bill is on the statute book.
The fact that most authorities spend more than the SSA on social services and education could suggest that the SSA is flawed. A mathematically constant formula that is designed to give average outcomes will always be unfair to those local authorities whose demographic, economic and/or geographical factors are furthest from the average. Seaside resorts, rural areas and peripheral areas, in particular, lose out every year. Sticking to the formula compounds the problem year after year.
We want a transparent system with clear accountability. The Minister said in her opening statement said that she believed the system to be clear and accountable. Yet, if one reads the Red Books, one sees that the receipts expected from council tax have increased each year, so the Chancellor is clearly shifting the burden of taxation from the centre to the council tax payer. We want a system that takes account of an area's ability to pay and gives local people choices about how community needs can be met.
Liberal Democrats want to shift tax raising from national to local government, with more of what councils spend raised through local income tax and local business tax. A buoyant, independent revenue source would do much to rejuvenate local government and strengthen local accountability.
This Government do not trust local government any more than the previous Government did. In fact, as I have said, the Chancellor has gone even further down the road of shifting taxes from the centre to the local council tax payer or the user of local services, which have either gone up in price or been cut. While the Chancellor gets a pat on the back, local councillors get it in the neck.
Mr. Edward Davey: My hon. Friend has undersold the policy of a local income tax. Does he agree that large council tax increases particularly hit pensioners on low
1288
incomes? The Tory-run Royal borough of Kingston upon Thames increased council tax by £90 last year, and we face a possible 7.5 per cent. increase this year. Those increases affect pensioners who would be protected under the Liberal Democrat policy of a local income tax.
Mr. Sanders: My hon. Friend is spot on. Pensioners and people on fixed incomes have problems with council tax levels and increases, as do those who live in areas where council tax rates are high because of property values.
My hon. Friend forgot to say that allowing local councils to raise some of their money from income tax would mean a corresponding reduction in central income tax. Fear of allowing local areas to have that power and freedom may be the reason why central Governments of both parties have tended to resist that measure.
The Minister claims that she has increased the grant so that councils can spend more, but increasing the grant does not mean that councils will not have to make cuts, increase charges or put up council tax. If the increase in total standard spending is greater than the increase in the Government's contribution towards it, councils face a gap. The Government claim that they have increased the amount that councils can spend, the amount that they can borrow and the amount that they receive from central Government, but many councils still find themselves worse off.
Likewise, every year the Government claim that the settlement is most generous. Last year, they claimed that it was the most generous settlement ever. Of course, this year's settlement is the most generous ever—inflation sees to that—but it still represents a cut for many local authorities.
This is a patronising settlement; it is a pocket-money settlement with no room for sweeties. It will result in cuts, increased charges and above-inflation rises in council tax for many local authorities, and we shall vote against it.
5.44 pm
Mr. Eric Illsley: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, not least because it has been curtailed to two and three quarter hours, of which the two Front-Bench speakers took an hour, the Liberal Democrat spokesman took 15 minutes and I understand that 20 minutes will be taken up by winding-up speeches. Given that the Government no longer seek representations from Members of Parliament, someone should rethink the length of the debate. We should either reinstate representations from Members of Parliament or have a full-day's debate on local government finance.
I shall speak briefly about Barnsley's position under the local government settlement and then about the South Yorkshire fire and civil defence budget, which has particularly acute problems.
As the Government know, Barnsley is one of the authorities that consistently loses out under standard spending assessment methodology. I have complained about that methodology ever since its inception in 1990. We are impatiently waiting for a review of the system.
Mr. David Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Illsley: I am sorry, no. Time does not permit me to give way.

1289
Despite the fact that we are using out-dated SSA methodology, Barnsley is one of the first councils to employ the new modernised council system. We have a cabinet system and commissioning. It has become a model for other authorities and Barnsley has been visited by the representatives of more than 100 other local authorities to examine the set up with a view to introducing it in their areas. It is a pity that SSA methodology is not as modern as Barnsley's cabinet system. It has been flawed since its inception in 1990, when Barnsley was one of 21 authorities to be capped, a third of which were coal-mining areas.
One of the keys to SSA methodology is that it is biased against coal-mining areas, especially in the north of England. Contrary to what the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) said, northern authorities are not spendthrifts. If he examined the performance indicators of any northern local authority, he would be pleasantly surprised.
I make a plea on behalf of former coalfield areas. Instead of giving us coalfield regeneration task forces, which are all very well in themselves, as is the money that goes with them, why not give the money to local authorities to enable them to pull themselves up and out of the problems that now beset them?
Barnsley metropolitan borough council is again facing a round of cuts. There will be a £5 million shortfall this time. That is to be added to the year-on-year cuts that we have suffered over the past 10 years.
Barnsley and other local authorities welcome the consistency of the settlement and the real increase in total standard spend of about 5.8 per cent. Welcome also is the predictability and stability of the comprehensive spending review, provided that there is predictability and provided that that works.
Barnsley does not welcome the fact that it takes 31st place among metropolitan authorities in terms of SSA per head. Why is it—I have been asking the question for the past 10 years—that schools in Barnsley at all levels receive hundreds of pounds less in SSA than schools in similar authorities, such as St. Helens? I can think of no reason other than political bias against Barnsley and South Yorkshire on the part of Governments of both parties.
We do not welcome data losses in Barnsley, but we have to use the present formula because the Government will not change it. As a consequence, we must cope with the losses. These are affected by the flow of SSA. Local authorities throughout the country are still using the 1991 census returns for general data. I appreciate that some data are updated. During 2000–01, Barnsley's data losses will amount to £180,000. That is a substantial sum for the authority and one that we cannot afford to lose. The loss will be about £58 million for all the metropolitan authorities.
We do not welcome capital finance control totals, which mean a loss for Barnsley of £700,000 this year. Similarly, we do not agree with capping. This year, the percentage rate of annual increase, before the loss of subsidy under the council tax limitation subsidy, has been reduced to 6.2 per cent. Again, local authorities are being capped. The cap squeezes year on year; as in previous years, this year's capping regime is worse than that which prevailed last year.
1290
I shall make one or two pleas for the future. Let us get on with changes to the SSA methodology. Progress is desperately needed in areas such as Barnsley. I make a plea for the Government to consider extra damping to counter the data losses in education and to ensure the minimum SSA.
The Government must maintain the tax base. For example, since 1991, house prices in greater London have increased by 50 per cent. and in the south-east of England by 28 per cent. SSAs in the shire counties have increased by 4.7 per cent., in outer London by 4.5 per cent.; and in the metropolitan authorities by 3.8 per cent. Our house prices have increased by only 5.6 per cent., so we have lost grant and we have a lower capacity to fund our services. I am told that the effect is equivalent to a £50 reduction in band D council tax.
South Yorkshire's fire and civil defence service will get an increase in grant this year of 2.1 per cent. Previously, the figure was 1.7 per cent.—exactly half the average for other fire authorities. Why is South Yorkshire's settlement lower than that of most other fire authorities? There is no answer other than political bias against the north of England and South Yorkshire. Each year from 1990, the previous Government imposed cut after cut on South Yorkshire, until in 1995 the Home Office accepted that the South Yorkshire fire service was operating below the minimum standards drawn up by the chief fire officer. A delegation that met Home Office Ministers was told to break the capping regulations in force at the time, whereas the Department of the Environment would not permit the capping regulations to be breached. In the event, with the support of the chief fire officer, we breached the capping regulations and the Government recognised that we needed more money. We seem to be in the same situation as in 1995, because we are operating at minimum standards and face the prospect of falling below them if we accept the financial settlement that is to be imposed on us.
Conservative Members speak of spendthrift authorities. To illustrate what South Yorkshire fire service has gone through during the past 10 years, I draw their attention to the closure of Goldthorpe, Hoyland, High Green, Oaks Lane and Kiveton Park fire stations—five stations closed, and new ones opened at Tankersley and Aston Park.
There has been a reduction in the uniformed establishment from more than 1,200 to fewer than 1,000—a 25 per cent. reduction in manpower over the past 10 years. The number of pumping appliances on the run has been reduced from 43 to 33. The service has to contend with indifferent building stock, a decreasing fleet of appliances and equipment, an unfair SSA and low morale.
However, there have also been achievements in South Yorkshire. We have improved the image and the profile of the force. We have been praised by the district audit management. The service has achieved the Investors in People award and is awaiting the charter mark award. It has received the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents gold health and safety award. Those are the achievements of an authority running at minimum standards and on a very low budget.
South Yorkshire fire service is proud of having brought about a culture change towards the prevention of fires. An article that appeared in the local press last year stated:
"The proposed new structure would free up resources and encourage a culture change from firemen fighting fires to educating the public how to prevent them."

1291
The South Yorkshire force is penalised by the fact that it attends fewer fire calls than forces in other authorities, despite the fact that the authority has been trying to educate the public to call the service out less.
South Yorkshire fire authority faces a shortfall of £1.5 million, which will force it below minimum standards. Our fire brigade is one of the most cost-effective in the country. As a South Yorkshire ratepayer, I pay 53p a week for the fire service.
The district auditor, Colin Earl, attended a meeting to present his annual management letter to the authority. He said that the authority had adopted a prudent financial approach in previous years, and that the announcement of the local government settlement was disappointing for the authority. He also stated that the settlement would present the authority,
"which is already in a tight financial position"—
that is an understatement—
"with some difficult decisions to make."
Why is our settlement so low? When the Minister refused to meet a delegation of Members of Parliament to discuss the matter, she wrote me a letter in which she said that our calls had decreased compared with those of other authorities. Thus all the hard work that the authority has undertaken to increase fire prevention and reduce calls penalises it. Capital financing and the drop in interest rates have also penalised the authority.
The problem of declining populations has already been mentioned. Fire risk comprises categories A, B and C; it is not entirely down to population areas or residential matters. Fire risk is assessed on the type of building. Thousands of people visit the Meadowhall shopping centre in Sheffield every day, although no one lives there. The nearby airport also constitutes a high risk, but the population has no effect on it. The M1 and M18 motorways run through South Yorkshire, and the fire authority has to service them. It is required to attend if there is an accident on those roads.
South Yorkshire Members of Parliament requested a meeting with the Minister to discuss those matters, but our request was refused. Under the previous Government, we could at least put issues to Ministers face to face. In 1995, that yielded results, contrary to the claims of one or two other hon. Members. We were able to show that we were below minimum standards and needed more money. We shall have to approach the chief fire officer again, and tell him that that applies now. It is disappointing that we have been unable to put our case.
The £1.5 million shortfall means that we shall lose five fire pumps and are likely to lose 100 firefighter posts; we shall also fall below minimum standards. I did not believe that a Labour Government would allow us to fall into the same predicament as the previous Government allowed. The Government should reconsider, because the people of South Yorkshire deserve a better funded fire service. If we do not receive the funding, how can the Government claim that there is no north-south divide? Our predicament proves that it exists.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I stress that many hon. Members seek to catch my eye and that, unless contributions are much briefer, many will be disappointed.
5.58 pm
Sir Paul Beresford: I was stunned to realise that I agreed with the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley)—the debate is important, but it has been shortened. I believed that the Secretary of State would follow tradition and present it. That would have been entertaining, if nothing else. However, he ducked out. That is an insult to local government. The debate is perhaps even more important than usual because this year's report, taken with last year's and Government decisions and actions, has taken real government out of local government.
The revenue support grant is a major source of revenue for local authorities. It is distributed by a standard spending assessment system, which, although it was complicated previously, was accepted by independent experts as a fair system based on need. That has changed. The proportion of local government funding that is paid directly by council taxpayers and business ratepayers has increased. That applies especially to some of the key geographical areas of the country.
Last year's RSG funding was blatantly moved out of the home counties and London to the north. The report builds on that action and two points make it particularly galling. First, most of the local authorities that received funding boosts last year—generally, they will be correspondingly better off this year—were among the most incompetent. Secondly, I find the spin that has been put to hard-hit councils particularly unpleasant.
Three authorities operate in my constituency: Surrey county council, Guildford borough council and Mole Valley district council. All have been hit, and hit hard, but I shall use Mole Valley as an example. The real-terms reduction in its grant under this and the two previous reports means that it faces the prospect of effectively all its revenue expenditure being raised locally in the near future. In other words, it faces the possibility of not only a zero increase, but zero Government RSG funding. The local council tax and business rate payers will pay for that as they will be loaded with an additional and increasing local tax burden. If there is a stealth tax, that has to be it.
The Minister said yet again that this is the best settlement since sliced bread. Although she is not present, it is worth quoting a key passage from her Department's letter to the chief executive of Mole Valley district council—which she can read in Hansard—on this year's grant. The last paragraph says:
"Your grant support from central government will be £0.0 million higher than this year … This is less than the national average increase of 3.7 per cent."
What a brilliant deduction. It continues:
"And, provided that there are no significant changes in the key data for your area, you can expect to receive a further real increase in funding next year."
For goodness' sake, that is ludicrous.
The Minister's actions will clearly result in dancing in the streets in Mole Valley. There are not only stealth taxes, but year-on-year rising stealth taxes for my semi-rural area. There will be higher council taxes and higher business rates; care for the elderly, education and police budgets will be squeezed; and police numbers will drop. On it goes. As it is topical, I must add that farmers in my area, many of whom are going out of business, may be helped because the Secretary of State is showing great concern: he is seriously considering flooding Surrey with 90,000 new homes on their land.

1293
It is worth looking beyond that to what else comes or flows from the report. First, we heard again that Labour promised to remove universal capping. It did that with one hand, but put two forms of capping back with the other. One is arbitrary and decided by ministerial whim; the other is crude and universal, and nothing less than that. Secondly, we were promised in last year's report three years' stability in funding. Tonight's report shows that that expectation was nonsense. This year, there were huge variations in grant distribution, which were generated by deficiencies in last year's income support data. I understand that that is down to another Government computer fiasco. Thirdly, we have all been fed the story that the Government have been converted from high taxation, but in my area in particular the report means that the council tax—a stealth tax—may rise by three times the rate of inflation. If it does not, that will be because of cuts in expenditure by beleaguered local authorities.
Even more deceitfully, there has been a stealthy movement of grants from a fair distribution system based on an assessment of need through the general grant. More and more funding, particularly from the Department for Education and Employment, is being moved to a specific grant system. Those grants are administered by ministerial whim if need be—we have seen examples of that—and linked to ministerial desires. Frequently, absolutely no regard is paid to local decisions. Furthermore, Ministers frequently require matched funding, which can put a squeeze on local authorities as they have to remove money from other budgets that they feel are more important locally.
I understand that funding by specific grant—I think the phrase is "funding by plans"—is in prospect for local government. That is appalling: it presents the prospect of the removal of local democracy, and the introduction of Big Brother patronage. While that may be all right for the Labour party as an organisation, it is not suitable for local government as a whole.
Fourthly, we have increased costs to local authorities purely through Government-imposed statutory obligations involving more bureaucrats and more bureaucracy. Perhaps this is where the Prime Minister is finding his new jobs. For example, the Audit Commission has just announced that the cost of implementing its part of best value for the first part year—hon. Members should note that I said "part year"—for Wandsworth council will be £300,000. The cost to my little Mole Valley will be £40,000. The internal cost to those authorities is likely to be four times as much. That means that Wandsworth will incur a new cost of £1.2 million, as well as £300,000 for the auditors.
Wandsworth is an efficient council, but under so-called "best value", it will have to find £1.5 million in savings just to stand still. The Mole Valley equivalent would be about £200,000. The authority's revenue support grant is only £3.2 million, and it must still take into account inflation on its £0.0 million increase.
This gerrymandering Government should be ashamed, but I imagine that they will continue to believe their spin doctors. Meanwhile, the public will receive fewer services at greater cost.
6.6 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I think it was the Duke of Wellington who said of Field Marshal Blucher, the Prussian who arrived too late at Waterloo, "Better late than never." I now know how he felt. I have waited two hours to speak today, but in truth I have been waiting since 4 pm on 4 February last year, the occasion of the debate on the three-year funding settlement. I did not manage to speak then, so I am pleased to be doing so today.
This year's local authority financial settlement was set within the parameters laid down in the three-year framework for stability in local government outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last year. Stability is to be welcomed when the status quo is benign; unfortunately the situation in Brent, my own borough, was malign, and that malignancy has been locked in by the three-year approach.
Last year, Brent received the worst settlement of all 150 upper-tier authorities as a result of the change in the calculation of children's personal social services SSA. The decision to abolish the ethnicity criteria wiped out at a stroke a staggering 25.66 per cent. of Brent's children's social services SSA. Brent's children lost £7.5 million. The criteria were changed following research by the university of York, an institution of learning for which I have the highest regard.
When I help my children with their homework—particularly maths—I always say to them, "Look, darling, apply the formula, work out the answer, but always check it against common sense." That is a rubric that the professors at York would have done well to observe. The common-sense check cannot have been applied to a formula intended to reflect need in social services that has resulted in a 25.7 per cent. increase for Bromley, a 49 per cent. increase for Bexley and a 164 per cent. increase for the City of London, while cutting the social services grant for Camden, Lambeth, Newham, Hackney, Haringey and Brent. Those six of the 33 London boroughs contained more than 50 per cent. of London's ethnic population, and had to bear more than 75 per cent. of the £47 million that London boroughs lost in children's personal social services SSA.
On 25 November, when the provisional settlement was announced, I reminded my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions that my borough of Brent was one of the most ethnically diverse in the country. A total of 106 different mother tongue languages are spoken in our schools and 61 per cent. of our children speak English only as a second language. In one school reception class that has a total of 29 pupils, 21 different first languages are spoken as the mother tongue. For those children, the settlement has not been fair.
Last year, Brent received £4.2 million in damping grant to afford some protection from the effect of the settlement on children and other vulnerable people in the borough. This year, that £4.2 million cushion has been reduced to just £197,000. The loss of more than £4 million from the aggregate external finance means that the grant that Brent will receive in the 2000–01 financial year is just 1.5 per cent. more than in the 1999–2000 financial year. For the average London borough, the increase is 3.52 per cent. Brent has just three sevenths, or 42 per cent., of not the best, but the average increase. Brent has the 25th lowest grant out of 33 London boroughs, yet it is the 20th poorest authority not in London, but in the entire country.

1295
I understand that these two years have seen the best settlement for local government throughout the country for more than a decade. I recognise that the stability of the three years of the comprehensive spending review has been welcomed by councils, which have been able to plan on the basis of that basic formula. Even my council has welcomed that stability of planning. In her opening speech, the Minister said that the Government had promised that they "would not change formula, but we would change data." One of the issues that I would like to raise with Ministers is their failure to change data with regard to Brent.
On 1 April, Torah Temimah school will transfer to Brent—a school is transferring from the private to the public sector, and I am sure that the Government will welcome that—but the transfer has not resulted in any increase in our overall funding for 2000–01. Brent will receive the damping grant in line with central Government policy, which ensures that all local education authorities receive at least a 1.5 per cent. increase in overall funding; we do, just. However, we would have received that amount if the school had not transferred and therefore must now fund the additional £480,000 that is needed for the school from our already diminished and depleted resources. I ask Ministers to look carefully at that situation and ensure that, as the commitment was given, data will be changed, even though the formula will not.
I shall try to observe your stricture to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I appreciate that many Back Benchers want to speak in what is an important debate. On the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme, the model that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has provided suggests that, if Brent sets a budget at SSA for 2000–01, our local residents will incur £817,000 in clawback. In Brent, that is the equivalent of £9.01p at band D level council tax.
It seems unjust that councils, such as my own in Brent, that have traditionally spent below the SSA—the standard spending assessment; the level at which the Government say that councils should be spending to provide a standard level of services—should be penalised if they spend below the level that the Government recommend for the current year. With some other Labour Members, I urge Ministers to look once again at the penal way in which the clawback scheme operates.
6.15 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner). His last point was very powerful and I hope that it will persuade him to join us in the No Lobby when we vote on the motions.
Today's debate could easily be entitled, "council tax debate limitation". It is clear that the Government are really about trying to restrict hon. Members—particularly Labour Back Benchers, but also Opposition Members—in the debate.
I was struck by the fact that the Minister avoided telling the House the most important figure in the settlement—the national average council tax at standard spending. We know that that figure is £695, and that, last year—which is the current year—it was £664.88. We also know that the difference between the two figures is just over 4.5 per cent. It is not surprising that the Minister did not want to
1296
admit those facts. If she had done so, she would have been admitting that the Government themselves realise that there will have to be a 4.5 per cent. increase in council tax bills even if local authorities spend in line with their standing spending assessment.
The 4.5 per cent. increase is no less than four times the amount of the pension increase—which brings me to the petition that I had the privilege of presenting to the House, on 8 July 1999, from Daniel Charles Tissington, of Christchurch, which was supported by 8,500 other people from the borough of Christchurch.
Mr. Tissington is a pensioner, as are most of the other people who signed his petition. He pointed out that, living in his band D bungalow situated in the borough of Christchurch, since 1993, his council tax has increased from £491 to £815. That is a 66 per cent. increase, whereas the retail price index has increased by 17.5 per cent. His petition, which was signed by those thousands of people, called on the Government to reduce increases in council tax to below the level of inflation.
The Government—rather than giving a direct response to the petition, saying that there was no way in which they would support such a policy—ducked the issue. However, now that the figures have been revealed to us, we can see that the Government's policy is that, in the coming year, council taxes should increase by at least 4.5 per cent., as that is the percentage by which council tax at standard spending will increase.
I therefore urge the Government to face up to the problems that are being caused to pensioners across the country. If Mr. Tissington and other people living in band D properties in Christchurch have to pay 4.5 per cent. extra in council tax, almost all the extra pension that they receive next year will have to be used to pay it.
The Minister started her speech by saying that she believes in establishing a higher quality of life, but there is no way in which pensioners will be able to have a higher quality of life if almost all their pension increase has to be spent on higher council tax. We hear today that there will be a £15 increase in the television licence fee for pensioners under 75. That will only be salt in the wound.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) spoke eloquently about the Government's imposition of extra burdens on councils at the same time as they are telling councils to act reasonably and keep council tax at a reasonable level. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions sets itself a target of dealing with all call-ins within seven weeks. Why did it take 22 weeks to decide to call in the planning application made by Bournemouth international airport for a new passenger terminal? That delay had enormous consequences. It will be an expensive exercise for the borough of Christchurch and everybody involved. The application was first submitted on 28 November 1997 and was the subject of extensive and exhaustive consultation. After sitting on it for 22 weeks, the Government decided to call it in, ensuring that it would be delayed for at least another year. That is typical of their cavalier attitude to my constituents.
In the previous debate, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) made disparaging remarks about Christchurch people, saying that they were so well heeled that they could afford the penalty of having to make the largest percentage

1297
contribution towards police expenditure from council tax of any local authority in the country. I assure the House that they are not as well off as the Minister supposes. Many of them are on fixed pensions or fixed incomes. They are in despair at the way in which the Government have let them down.
6.21 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: The problems in local government finance were created by the previous Government. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) was part of that, having been a Minister at some stage. He helped to create that situation and, when he replies to his constituents, I hope that he tells them about his role in the whole sorry business.
On the surface, Derbyshire seems to have done well out of the settlement. It has the top percentage SSA increase of any shire county—up by 5.8 per cent. whereas the average increase is 5 per cent. Neighbouring Staffordshire, which is in 34th and bottom position, has only a 4.3 per cent. increase. The situation looks superficially good for Derbyshire. When the money that has come from the Department for Education and Employment for schools, often in specific grants, is added to that, Derbyshire is again in a high position in the league and is often top. The only problem with the grants is that they make it difficult for us to work out who stands where, because some money comes from one Department and some comes from another, some comes in bits and pieces and some comes in the general settlement.
However, when considering Derbyshire's apparently good settlement, we need to look at what that 5.8 per cent. comes on top of. Between 1989–90 and 1998–99, East Sussex had a 30 per cent. cumulative increase above the average in the then capping levels. Derbyshire was bottom of the shire counties league table, with a 37 per cent. fall below the average increase. That was the result of the previous Government fiddling the arrangements for standard spending assessments and of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which also introduced the poll tax. The poll tax may have been replaced by the council tax, but the rest of that Act is still in place.
Band D council tax levels for North East Derbyshire district council show part of the problem. The figures include the district council precepts, the county council and the police. I shall contrast them with the English average and the figures for Westminster. In 1996–97, the last year of Conservative rule, the figure for North East Derbyshire was £758, and the English average was £688—a difference of £70. For Westminster, the figure was £304—£454 less than in North East Derbyshire. In 1999–2000, the figure for North East Derbyshire is £905, and for England, £747—a difference of £148. The figure for Westminster is £350—£555 less than North East Derbyshire. Although slight differences have occurred in this period between North East Derbyshire and Westminster, there is a ghastly distinction between the figures. I will try to explain some of the details later.
The House of Commons document No. 160 on the subject shows what is wrong with the methodology. Page 9 deals with the formula for primary education, and the principles are the same for secondary and post-16 education. Money is given per pupil in various areas,
1298
which is a fair formula. Money is then given for additional needs and free meals, which is perfectly reasonable. However, if an area is mixed—Derbyshire, like all shire counties, is certainly mixed—money given for particular provisions is diluted by what happens in other areas. It is almost as if money is given with one hand and taken away with another. We need to devise a formula in which the extras stick and do not dilute the other arrangements.
There has been an improvement in terms of the money given for sparsity, but there is a claim that that is necessary for village schools and other matters. One of the big problems is the area cost adjustment, which is listed in detail within the document. This must be tackled, although it need not necessarily be done away with. However, if there were less weighting, and money were available for distribution—and not pinched by the Treasury—that would be important.
In Derbyshire, the area cost adjustment goes across the board—to police, fire services and highway maintenance. The problem is thereby extended. Derbyshire's funding plight cannot be corrected by tiny creeping percentage increments, welcome though they are. There has to be a change which takes into account the cumulative problems that Derbyshire has suffered year by year. We cannot wait another two years for a change in the hideous legislation—I served on the Committee—that is the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
I turn once more to the situation in North East Derbyshire district council. I hope that, if I keep saying these things, Ministers—it used to be Conservative Ministers, but it is now Labour Ministers—will respond and take some of it on board. One problem from which we suffer is the enhanced population figures. If people move out of the area in which they are resident to work or to travel for other purposes, a quarter of their SSA money is transferred elsewhere. Some areas will benefit considerably from those arrangements because they have people coming in. I am not saying that Westminster, the seaside resorts and other places benefiting from the arrangements should not have any of the money. However, the weighting is excessive and was one of the Conservative Government's major fiddles. Let us correct it. A myth is perpetuated—for instances, by a journalist on the Sheffield Star—that the people of North East Derbyshire who work and use leisure facilities in Sheffield are freeloaders, making use of the facilities without paying from them. That is far from the truth, because we pay through the nose for provisions in the Sheffield area.
The outdated 1991 census figures are used to help to work out the allocation, and some of our money is transferred to the Bolsover and Chesterfield areas because they used to have people going there to work in the pits. The pits were closed by the previous Government, but North East Derbyshire is still getting hammered by the transfer of money. We lose £3 a head to neighbouring authorities because of the weight given to the enhanced population figures.
We also suffer from the provision designed to accommodate social mix. We suffer even more seriously from that, because we lose £14 a head. In any case, the population in the east of the constituency has an almost identical social structure to Bolsover, but that area does

1299
much better from the arrangements. The money allocated to North East Derbyshire should not be dissipated by other considerations.
I asked the Minister earlier about parish council expenditure. Some 24 parish councils cover the whole of North East Derbyshire. The council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme—incredibly—takes into account parish precepts. If parish councils in North East Derbyshire decide to spend large sums of money to try to make up for the money that the district and county councils cannot afford to spend on social problems, the district council—which has no control over the parish councils—is hit under the subsidy limitation scheme. That is a serious problem in Derbyshire, which, last year, was capped.
I hope that the Minister has in mind some dramatic improvements that will overcome the county-district-parish financial problems in Derbyshire and similar areas beyond the welcome bits and pieces that the Government have already introduced, especially since the comprehensive spending review changed the direction of the process. Derbyshire did not benefit from the shifts and changes of the first two years of the Labour Government, when money was redirected from areas of lesser need to areas of greater need, because we have a mixed social structure. Money was given with one hand and taken away with the other. We now have a bit more money—and we are grateful—but we have so many serious problems to overcome from the previous Government's mishandling that we need a considerable improvement in our ability to provide a better standard of education, social services and the other services provided by local government.
6.34 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and I share an interest in Northern Ireland and we shall both be here at 7 o'clock. I do not propose to take him up on his remarks about Westminster, save to say that if he re-examines his speech he will see that he made a further initial mathematical error before he made the one that he spotted and corrected.
I shall be brief and unashamedly make a constituency point. The Government are well aware of the effect on Westminster of the settlement in 1998–99, which reduced its SSA by £26 million. I shall not revisit that issue but it is a backdrop to the problems I shall set out.
I want to allude to the special grant of £50 million from the Department for Education and Employment, the balance of its extra £64 million after £14 million had been bestowed on "Excellence in Cities" local education authorities. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment mentioned the distribution mechanism for that grant in his letter of 25 November to councils, which was copied to Members of Parliament. It said that officials would follow up in January to seek confirmation that the Government's additional funding had been carried through into relevant local authorities' education budgets.
In Westminster, I have seen the whole of the subsequent correspondence, culminating in the Secretary of State's letter of 31 January, summarising his conclusions, which was quoted by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders). To distil the correspondence, the Government are asking Westminster to spend 6 per cent. more on education because its proposed education standard spending assessment has risen by that amount.
1300
Westminster's overall grant increase is only 1.1 per cent., which already puts it behind the game, but in addition it was already spending 11 per cent. above its education SSA last year. It has conspicuously been supporting education, which is of course a Government priority, and is suffering from the squeeze to which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred.
I infer from the correspondence that Westminster will receive no grant from the Department for Education and Employment and its £50 million because, confronted with the massive gap between a 1.1 per cent. increase in grant and a notional 6 per cent. rise, when it is already spending 11 per cent. above its SSA, it cannot guarantee that it will raise its education budget by a further 6 per cent. this year. I am a bear of very little brain, but it seems to me that the Government's proposal within such an equation could be a recipe for cutting rather than increasing the budget, as, if one concentrates on sticks rather than carrots, one offers no incentive to an authority whose heart is patently in the right place.
At this hour, I cannot bring in the other variables alluded to by the Association of London Government, not a Conservative-controlled body, in its briefing on the cost to some inner London boroughs, plus Brent—the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) made that case—of not raising the central support protection grant threshold from 1.5 per cent. to 2 per cent. Nor will I allude to the ALG briefing on the costs of homelessness, asylum seekers and unaccompanied children in London, although those children and the families of asylum seekers—because of the diverse languages—add to the educational challenge that Westminster has to face.
I am genuinely left wondering whether the Government really have an education priority. The ALG says that what are technically known as the passporting criteria for distributing the extra £50 million do not take account of local circumstances; but perhaps to a centralising Government, local circumstances are of no account.
6.37 pm
Mr. Neil Turner: Coming so late into the debate, it is difficult to say the good things that one wants to say, because one has to concentrate on some of the critical points, so I hope that Ministers will accept that I broadly welcome the settlement that we have had and especially the fact that, for the third year, my local authority is able to increase both the quality and quantum of services in Wigan.
There is a problem with the £50 million for teachers' pay. I have no difficulty with the fact that the Government want to ensure that the full amount given for education is passported through to schools—that is perfectly reasonable—but unfortunately the formula takes into account the number of failing schools. A local authority with failing schools gets more than an authority such as mine, where the schools are very good. Failing schools should be dealt with by different methods. The additional money for the teachers' pay rise should be passported through to schools in proportion to the number of teachers.
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said about the area cost adjustment. I accept that some authorities have cost differentials, but the fact that some get twice as much as others for providing the same services cannot be right.

1301
The council tax benefit subsidy—the clawback—cannot be right. It is inequitable and unfair. It is inequitable because two authorities, with the same increase, will not have the same amount of money taken away from them, and it is unfair because the authority that has the most money taken away from it is the one with the greatest problems. That issue has to be addressed, and I hope that the Minister will do so.
6.40 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: Let me say to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) that some of my best speeches have been two or three minutes long as well, and I am glad that he managed to make his points before the end of the debate.
In the previous Parliament, debates on local government took on average five and a half hours, allowing Members on both sides of the House to express their real concerns about the grant settlement and what was happening in their locality. Not only do we, in this Parliament, have much shorter debates, Ministers no longer see delegations from local councils and Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) said that when he was a Minister, he saw more than 90 delegations last time.
There are some very important issues to do with local government. Members of Parliament spend most of their weekends visiting local authority institutions and schools. They also spend a great deal of time in surgeries, seeing constituents with problems to do with local government. I think it a great pity that the Government have adopted an extremely arrogant view when it comes to seeing delegations from local authorities and Members of Parliament. Many Labour Members have said in this debate that they would have wished to go to the Department to make points on behalf of their authorities. It is a pity that they have not had the opportunity to do so.
In November, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions forecast that council tax bills would go up by 4.8 per cent if Whitehall kept to spending guidelines. The Times has already said that local government experts believe that the rise could be as high as 6 per cent., and many other people predict rises of 10 per cent. or more. Local authorities and town halls have many burdens on them—next year there will be an additional 24,000 school children, high public sector pay settlements and a rise in demand for long-term care for the elderly. Labour is proving to be no friend of local government. It promised to give councils more autonomy, but it is centralising power while cutting funding and increasing taxes for many councils.
Labour is trying to play down the significance of the settlement, as based on its three-year comprehensive spending review announced last year. But central Government funding is set to rise by less than the average spending commitments of local authorities. The result will be three years of higher council taxes, cuts in services and a continuation of the bias against shire counties.
Labour talks about spending more money on education, but it says one thing and does another. To fund the £1 billion that it costs to introduce performance-related pay for teachers, Labour is reducing the increase in education standard spending assessment by £150 million
1302
in 2000–01 and £280 million in 2001–02. Rather than giving more resources to teachers, Labour is simply recycling existing money—top slicing.
The Local Government Association has said that the 3.3 per cent. teachers' pay settlement announced on 1 February will mean fewer staff if the Government fail to give the local education authorities extra resources. There are warnings that while most LEAs have put aside up to 3 per cent. for pay rises, many will have to find the extra £110 million through council tax rises. As that well known Labour chairman of LGA's education executive, councillor Graham Lane, put it:
"This pay rise is £110 million more than LEAs have put aside for their budgets."
The key issue is that the Government are switching resources away from local authorities, particularly those in rural areas, their political allies in Labour-controlled metropolitan areas. Barnsley seems to be the exception. We had an eloquent plea for south Yorkshire and Barnsley from the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), who set out the problems that he faces with his local authority and the fact that the three-year settlement has set in stone some of the difficulties in funding his area.
Rural areas have already lost more than £500 million. That is in spite of the fact that they face specific problems, particularly over lack of transport. Labour has little interest in improving living standards for those in the countryside.
Before the election, Labour promised that it would end crude and universal capping. But this is just another example of the great Labour lie. Labour has replaced it with reserve powers to cap budgets. The Government now practice arbitrary and retrospective capping—they decide, after councils have set their budgets, whether to cap them. That is blurring accountability and transparency. It does local authority planning no good. By contrast, we have made it clear that the next Conservative Government will not cap councils. We are now the friends of local government.
Labour is centralising power, shifting resources from the block grant towards specific grants. Specific grants for education and personal social services have increased by more than 50 per cent., even before we take into account the effects of performance-related changes. Councils consequently have less discretion over how to spend resources, and that is weakening local democracy. Labour is cutting councils' environmental protection and cultural budgets. This year's increase of 1.9 per cent. represents a real cut of 0.6 per cent. That will hit district councils in particular, as that area represents a significant part of their overall budgets, and it will result in higher council taxes and service cuts.
The Labour party manifesto committed the Government to a fair distribution of grant. The settlement confirms that over the past three years, they have funnelled £425 million away from county councils and £180 million away from London boroughs to subsidise the wasteful antics of mostly Labour-controlled metropolitan authorities. This year, the SSAs for shire counties will be £160 million lower than they would have been if the Government had not changed the funding formula.
The Government are presenting the settlement as a great triumph. In reality, as we have heard in speech after speech, most hon. Members have real concerns about their local authorities. The Government claim to be increasing

1303
grant to every local authority, but that has been achieved only because of a large surplus in the business rate pool from last year, which the Government are obliged to transfer to local authorities. Without that money, many councils would face cuts in overall grant.
Council tax has already risen sharply under Labour. Last year's increase was 6.8 per cent., which came on top of a record 8.6 per cent. increase in 1998–99. Band D households are paying considerably more than they did when the Government came into office.
Mr. Loughton: Is my hon. Friend aware of the damage being done to local authority pension funds by the abolition of advance corporation tax? In the case of my local authority, West Sussex, that has resulted in a shortfall of £3 million, or 2 per cent. on the council tax, as the money must be found somewhere to keep up the income flow.
Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend makes a good point. That change was not compensated for by the Government. The same point was central to the speech of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders).
If council spending increases at the same rate as last year, council taxes could rise by more than 10 per cent., which could leave a band D household facing a tax rise of £85. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, pensioners receiving a 75p increase will find it hard to cover that.
Council tax increases will be compounded by the Government's unfair scheme to limit the amount of council tax benefit subsidy payable to local authorities. Local taxpayers will have to pick up the tab for others who have their council tax paid for them. Again, we will see the nearly poor paying for the really poor, as the LGA has put it. From the Government Benches, the hon. Members for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) made eloquent pleas against that aspect of Government policy.
Last year, £30 million was added to council tax bills across the country by the scheme, which does nothing to increase accountability. No one in the affected areas has the faintest idea of how much extra they are paying because their council is exceeding the Government's limits. There is no justification for the scheme—it is just another stealth tax.
Specific grants are increasing. Hypothecation is in vogue. As a proportion of aggregated external finance, it has increased from 13 per cent. in 1997–98 to 17 per cent. in 2000–01. That is restricting authorities' ability to make their own decisions. Many hon. Members have expressed concerns about passporting.
The settlement is bad news for local authorities and the people who depend on their services. It is bad news for hard-pressed council tax payers. The Government are not only wrong, but they arrogantly refused to meet delegations from councils and Members of Parliament of all political persuasions. They have stopped listening to people because they cannot stand to hear the truth about their proposals.
Today's debate has been a traditional one on local government finance. We have heard as much criticism from those on the Government Benches as from those on the Opposition Benches. When people see what is happening in their localities, they realise that problems lie ahead.
6.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): We have held an interesting debate about a settlement, which—despite the carping from the Opposition—represents £2.3 billion of extra investment in local services. That is a 5.8 per cent. increase on top of the 5.5 per cent. rise last year.
I understand that hon. Members always want to press points that affect their areas—so they should. However, I want to stress some facts about the overall settlements that we are making with local government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ms Hughes: I will give way in a moment; I want to make some progress.
Just as we are doing in the whole economy, we are replacing cuts and uncertainty with the funding and stability that councils need to plan ahead and deliver better services, at a reasonable cost to the council tax payer. That is in stark contrast to the record of the Opposition, who, when in government—after the disaster of the poll tax, devised by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and imposed by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) —deliberately cut grant to local authorities by 4.3 per cent. in real terms in their last three years in office.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Hughes: In a moment.
By contrast, the Labour Government have worked with local government to provide a more stable and generous framework. Any hon. Members with experience of local government—although there are not many of them sitting on the Opposition Benches—will acknowledge that that framework has been welcomed by councils across the political spectrum.
That is why we received representations from only a handful of authorities. Indeed, our survey of local authorities informed us that their top priorities were stability and predictability.
Mr. Gill: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. It is no good for her to bandy figures with the House. There is much anger in my county; the real-terms increase in Shropshire is less than 1.5 per cent. We are bottom of the league in police funding, and almost at the bottom for health and local authority funding. Does she not realise that there is great anger in Shropshire about the Government's unwillingness to tackle the real problems?
Ms Hughes: I realise that all parts of the country—including the hon. Gentleman's area—have done much better under the Labour Government than they ever did under the Conservative Government. He needs to realise that.
Much has been made by Opposition Members of our alleged refusal to meet local authorities to discuss their settlement and of the timing of this debate. We made it clear that, given the stability that we were introducing,

1305
we would not invite local authorities to meet Ministers. However, we held formal and extensive meetings with all the associations.
As for the timing of the debate, Opposition Members will know that that is a matter for the business managers on both sides of the House. Opposition managers agreed to the timing.
Let me put the record straight on local areas. For the second year running, rural areas have received above-average increases—as have sparsely populated areas and shire counties. Contrary to Opposition allegations, the southern regions also received above-average increases at 4.6 per cent.
The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) lamented what he saw as a poor settlement for his district council, but he failed to say that Surrey county council, which provides most of the services, had an SSA increase of 4.9 per cent. I point out to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) that I met the district councils; they are happy that, with our previous two settlements, the Government are improving their relative position.
Sir Paul Beresford: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Hughes: I am sorry; I shall not give way at the moment, I need to make some progress.
Several hon. Members made general points about their areas. However, it is testimony to the overall satisfaction with the settlement that so few Members made points about the improvements that they wanted in their area.
In response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), I understand that the data for the school to which he referred have been included in the data changes for Brent. Even with these data, Brent would have received a grant increase of less than 1.5 per cent. without the guaranteed uplift that we have introduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) spoke with great knowledge about his authority. He knows that we recognise that it has a particular problem. The authority and my hon. Friend are to be congratulated on the way that they have responded to the situation. Certainly, the changes that we want to consider in the overall review will include some of the issues that he has raised.
As we have heard, some northern areas have complained about the impact of the current system on them. My hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and for North-East Derbyshire referred to the area cost adjustment. However, I remind them that those areas have also received substantial increases, although they may wish that they had been greater. Certainly, they will know that, in the review that we are undertaking, the area cost adjustment is an issue that we are particularly considering.
We heard much from the Opposition parties about control freakery. The Tories complain that we are too controlling and that they are now the champions of local
1306
choice and local decision-making. Now they do not like block grants, having cut grants in real terms year on year. Now they do not like capping, having capped with a vengeance. Now they do not like best value; it is too prescriptive, unlike compulsory competitive tendering, of course. That is a big U-turn. It is beginning to sound like the warm words of a party that knows that it will be in opposition for a very long time and not have to administer any local government settlements.
We are striking the right balance. I make no apologies for central Government's responsibility and legitimate role in having an interest in the way that public money is spent and the way that taxes are raised locally. If Conservative Members are now saying that they will abdicate that responsibility, we will not.
In that context, Conservative Members raised the issue of specific and special grants. In the forthcoming financial year, specific grants will constitute 17 per cent. of the total settlement, which leaves 83 per cent. for local discretion. Again, we make no apology for ensuring that Government priorities in education and other important services—which we back with funding, unlike the Conservatives when they had the opportunity—have to be part of the priorities for local councils. That is the difference between this Government and the previous one: we are working with local authorities to help them improve education and other services. The Conservative Government simply put the screws on across the board.
Conservative Members also claimed that the teachers pay award will be a problem. The award is 3.3 per cent. and the national increase in education funding is 8.7 per cent. within which SSAs are up by 5.6 per cent. That gives ample headroom to cover pay and prices' effects on local education authorities.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) talked about the extra £50 million that will be paid to local authorities as a special grant for the teachers pay award. I remind them that the letter of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said that he would take into consideration whether local authorities had passported fully their education grant into schools and the education budgets. My right hon. Friend has not made it clear how he will take that into consideration, but he said that he would. That is his right. Education is a top priority for the Government and if we are giving more money for education, that is where it should be spent.
In conclusion, we are continuing to deliver the most generous local government settlement since the introduction of council tax. It means more money for local services, a better deal for council tax payers and stability so that councils can plan ahead sensibly and creatively, as many are doing. Annual above-inflation increases are a far cry from the year-on-year cuts that we had under the previous Government. Advance announcement of grant totals and distribution formulae has established a climate of stability that local authorities have wanted for a long time. We recognise that local authorities—
It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [28 January].
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 146.

Division No. 63]

[7 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Denham, John

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Dismore, Andrew

Ainger, Nick

Dobbin, Jim

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Dowd, Jim

Alexander, Douglas

Drew, David

Allen, Graham

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Atkins, Charlotte

Etherington, Bill

Austin, John

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Banks, Tony

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Barnes, Harry

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Barron, Kevin

Flint, Caroline

Battle, John

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Bayley, Hugh

Fyfe, Maria

Beard, Nigel

Gapes, Mike

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Gardiner, Barry

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Gerrard, Neil

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Benton, Joe

Godman, Dr Norman A

Bermingham, Gerald

Godsiff, Roger

Best, Harold

Goggins, Paul

Blackman, Liz

Golding, Mrs Llin

Blears, Ms Hazel

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Blizzard, Bob

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Borrow, David

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Grocott, Bruce

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Grogan, John

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Browne, Desmond

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Burden, Richard

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Burgon, Colin

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Cann, Jamie

Hepburn, Stephen

Caplin, Ivor

Heppell, John

Casale, Roger

Hesford, Stephen

Cawsey, Ian

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hill, Keith

Chaytor, David

Hinchliffe, David

Clapham, Michael

Hoey, Kate

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hood, Jimmy

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hope, Phil

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Clelland, David

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Clwyd, Ann

Howells, Dr Kim

Coaker, Vernon

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Coleman, Iain

Hurst, Alan

Colman, Tony

Hutton, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Iddon, Dr Brian

Corston, Jean

Illsley, Eric

Cousins, Jim

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cox, Tom

Jenkins, Brian

Cranston, Ross

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Crausby, David

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Darvill, Keith

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Dawson, Hilton

Khabra, Piara S

Dean, Mrs Janet

Kidney, David

1308

Kilfoyle, Peter

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Laxton, Bob

Rogers, Allan

Lepper, David

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Leslie, Christopher

Rooney, Terry

Levitt, Tom

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Rowlands, Ted

Linton, Martin

Roy, Frank

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Ruddock, Joan

Lock, David

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Love, Andrew

Ryan, Ms Joan

McAvoy, Thomas

Salter, Martin

McCabe, Steve

Sedgemore, Brian

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Shaw, Jonathan

McDonagh, Siobhain

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Macdonald, Calum

Shipley, Ms Debra

McDonnell, John

Short, Rt Hon Clare

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McIsaac, Shona

Singh, Marsha

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Skinner, Dennis

Mackinlay, Andrew

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

MacShane, Denis

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McWalter, Tony

Snape, Peter

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Soley, Clive

Mallaber, Judy

Southworth, Ms Helen

Mandelson, Fit Hon Peter

Squire, Ms Rachel

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Meale, Alan

Stringer, Graham

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Miller, Andrew

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mitchell, Austin

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Moffatt, Laura

Moran, Ms Margaret

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Mountford, Kali

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Mullin, Chris

Temple-Morris, Peter

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Todd, Mark

Norris, Dan

Trickett, Jon

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Truswell, Paul

O'Hara, Eddie

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

O'Neill, Martin

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Pearson, Ian

Tynan, Bill

Pendry, Tom

Vis, Dr Rudi

Perham, Ms Linda

Ward, Ms Claire

Pickthall, Colin

Wareing, Robert N

Pike, Peter L

Watts, David

Plaskitt, James

White, Brian

Pollard, Kerry

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Pond, Chris

Wicks, Malcolm

Pope, Greg

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Pound, Stephen

Powell, Sir Raymond

Wills, Michael

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Winnick, David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Wood, Mike

Primarolo, Dawn

Woolas, Phil

Prosser, Gwyn

Worthington, Tony

Purchase, Ken

Wyatt, Derek

Quinn, Lawrie

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rapson, Syd

Mr. Don Touhig and

Raynsford, Nick

Mr. Clive Betts.

NOES

Amess, David

Ballard, Jackie

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Beggs, Roy

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Blunt, Crispin

Baldry, Tony

Body, Sir Richard

1309

Boswell, Tim

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Horam, John

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Brady, Graham

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Brand, Dr Peter

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Brazier, Julian

Hunter, Andrew

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Browning, Mrs Angela

Jenkin, Bernard

Burns, Simon

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Burstow, Paul

Butterfill, John

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Cash, William

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Lansley, Andrew

Chope, Christopher

Leigh, Edward

Clappison, James

Letwin, Oliver

Collins, Tim

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Colvin, Michael

Lidington, David

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Cotter, Brian

Loughton, Tim

Cran, James

Luff, Peter

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

McCartney, Robert (N Down)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Day, Stephen

McLoughlin, Patrick

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Major, Rt Hon John

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Malins, Humfrey

Faber, David

Maples, John

Fabricant, Michael

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Fallon, Michael

May, Mrs Theresa

Flight, Howard

Moore, Michael

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Moss, Malcolm

Foster, Don (Bath)

Nicholls, Patrick

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Norman, Archie

Fraser, Christopher

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Gale, Roger

Page, Richard

Gibb, Nick

Paice, James

Gill, Christopher

Paisley, Rev Ian

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Paterson, Owen

Green, Damian

Pickles, Eric

Greenway, John

Prior, David

Grieve, Dominic

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Rendel, David

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Robathan, Andrew

Hammond, Philip

Robertson, Laurence

Hawkins, Nick

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

Heald, Oliver

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Ruffley, David

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

1310

St Aubyn, Nick

Townend, John

Sanders, Adrian

Tredinnick, David

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Tyler, Paul

Shepherd, Richard

Tyrie, Andrew

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Viggers, Peter

Soames, Nicholas

Wardle, Charles

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Waterson, Nigel

Spicer, Sir Michael

Wells, Bowen

Spring, Richard

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Whittingdale, John

Steen, Anthony

Wilkinson, John

Streeter, Gary

Willis, Phil

Stunell, Andrew

Wilshire, David

Swayne, Desmond

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Syms, Robert

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Yeo, Tim

Taylor, Ian (Esher &Walton)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Tellers for the Noes:

Thompson, William

Mr. John Randall and

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2000–01 (HC 160), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.
MADAM SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 52) (HC 161), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved. — [Mr. Sutcliffe.]
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1998–99: Amending Report 2000 (HC 162), which was laid before this House on 27th January, be approved. —[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

COMMITTEES
Resolved,
That Mr. Michael Colvin be discharged from the Defence Committee and Dr. Julian Lewis be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McLoughlin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Northern Ireland
7.13 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement on the current situation in Northern Ireland.
I first pay tribute to the way in which the new institutions have got on with their challenging tasks in the past two months. The Assembly, the Executive, the north-south bodies and the British-Irish Council are all now up and running, as intended under the Good Friday agreement.
I pay particular tribute to each of the Ministers in the new devolved Executive, and their parties, who have taken up their new responsibilities in good faith, with good will towards each other and a genuine determination to serve all the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that that augurs well for the long-term success of devolved government in Northern Ireland.
Late on Monday, the latest report of the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning was delivered to the British and Irish Governments.
I pay tribute to the patient efforts of the Commission members, General John de Chastelain, Ambassador Andrew Sens and Brigadier Tauno Nieminen, over recent months—indeed years—and their readiness to continue those efforts to secure decommissioning as intended under the Good Friday agreement.
With the appointment of contact persons by the IRA and the UFF in December 1999, all the main paramilitary groups on ceasefire are now engaged with the commission. That is a significant advance. The commission's report points to a number of other positive factors. The ceasefires remain in place. The silence of the guns and the unequivocal support of the IRA and the other paramilitary groups for the political process have played a vital part in recent political advances. The assurance, repeated this week, that there is no threat to the peace process from the IRA is important and will be welcomed.
However, the report also stated that there has not yet been any decommissioning of arms by a major paramilitary group. If this continues, it is totally unacceptable. Notably in the case of the IRA, it has to be clear that decommissioning is going to happen. The commission believes that its conclusion in its report of 10 December—that recent events gave the basis for an assessment that decommissioning will happen—remains well founded. But it needs further evidence to substantiate that conclusion. In particular, it needs definite information about when decommissioning will actually start.
Over the past few days, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have had intensive discussions with the Irish Government and the main parties. Even as I speak, those discussions are continuing. The decommissioning body has been kept closely in touch with those discussions and it has informed me that it is ready at any time to report further in the event of concrete results emerging from those discussions. If the commission provides a further report, which renders out of date the information that I am giving the House now, I will, of course, make a further statement.
Even at this very late stage, it is right that we and all the parties continue to see whether there is a basis on which the institutions can continue to operate and
1312
decommissioning start. The institutions, though, can work only on the basis of cross-community confidence. Without clarity over decommissioning, I have no doubt that this confidence will ebb quickly. All the parties must have certainty that all aspects of the Good Friday agreement are being implemented, without some being forgotten and others overlooked.
If it becomes clear that, because of a loss of confidence, the institutions cannot be sustained, the Government have to be ready to put on hold the operation of those institutions. Nobody who is genuinely committed to the peace process will relish this prospect. However, our purpose if it comes to this will be to preserve them from collapse and to create the time and space in which to rebuild the confidence required to sustain them.
I shall therefore publish a Bill tomorrow to enable us to institute such a pause should one prove necessary despite our best efforts.
This will only be the case if the current unsatisfactory state of affairs is not changed clearly for the better.
We shall invite the House to consider the Bill early next week, with a view to royal assent later in the week unless events between now and then clearly make that unnecessary. In the meantime, we shall redouble our efforts, with the Irish Government and the main parties, to resolve the present difficulties.
Even at this late stage, I believe it remains possible to rebuild confidence in the institutions, to enable devolution and the other institutions to continue, and to ensure that decommissioning starts. But, I stress, those three things are interdependent. We cannot partially implement the Good Friday agreement. It is all or it is nothing.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: This is a sad day for the people of Northern Ireland. For weeks, they have prayed and hoped that there would be a proper start to the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives. They have been badly let down by the paramilitaries, both republican and so-called loyalist.
May I put it to the Secretary of State that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and his Unionist colleagues, made a courageous decision to take ministerial posts in an Executive last December, even though there was no decommissioning by the paramilitaries? It was a courageous decision that we on the Opposition Benches strongly supported. Will he also confirm that there was an understanding that the Provisional IRA would properly start decommissioning its illegally held arms and explosives within a matter of weeks? As General de Chastelain has now reported, this has not happened.
Will the Secretary of State also confirm that all the other signatories to the Belfast agreement have fulfilled all their obligations in full? The only people who have not are the parties inextricably linked to the paramilitaries, whether so-called loyalist or republican. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an undertaking that General de Chastelain's report will be published so we can learn from it and perhaps gain guidance from it? Will he agree with me that it would be unwise at this juncture to continue with the Disqualifications Bill, which has now gone to another place? That should be put on hold.
Will the Secretary of State accept that we believe that he had no alternative and that he is absolutely right—if we do not, at this late hour, have positive moves

1313
on decommissioning—to suspend the Executive, the Assembly and related bodies? When he brings legislation before the House next week, will he accept my assurance that, as far as we are concerned, it will receive a speedy passage?
Will the Secretary of State also accept that many people—myself included—will regret the return to direct rule? The great majority of people in Northern Ireland, in both communities, have appreciated and enjoyed the end of the democratic deficit. They have welcomed the fact that their democratically elected politicians are taking important decisions and running much of the Province, and there will be regret that those within the Unionist community and the nationalist community who have done so much and have fulfilled their obligations are now being penalised in the same way as those who have failed to fulfil those obligations. We must bear it in mind that, particularly, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and the Deputy First Minister—the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) —have done an outstanding job and they also deserve better than that an Executive should be suspended through no fault of their own.
Mr. Mandelson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for what I have announced today. I entirely share his analysis of the courage and the initiative shown by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his colleagues as well as other Members of the House who are present tonight. Both the First Minister of Northern Ireland and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland—both of whom are here tonight—have shown tremendous strength of leadership to both traditions throughout Northern Ireland. I know the House will wish strongly to commend them for the leadership that they have shown.
I accept that it was clearly understood during the course of the Mitchell review that, while no commitment or guarantee was given that decommissioning should happen in January, none the less it was equally clear throughout, among all those who were involved in the Mitchell review, that if there was no decommissioning by the end of January, the Ulster Unionists would be unable to sustain their involvement in the Executive in Northern Ireland. There was no ambiguity about that—no guarantee, but no ambiguity either. It is, therefore, a disappointment that progress has not yet begun on decommissioning.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) was right in what he said about everyone else's obligations under the Good Friday agreement. I believe that the criminal justice review has yet to be published. That will happen in a matter of weeks. I cannot think of anything else that has not been done, is not being done, or is not about to be done.
I am not going to engage in some sort of blame game tonight, but everyone in Northern Ireland will be disappointed that progress has not been made in decommissioning, for precisely the reason given by the right hon. Member for Bracknell. People in Northern Ireland are rightly proud of the Executive. They like seeing local people—locally elected politicians with local accents—taking charge of local affairs, and they want that to continue. It will only continue if all aspects of the Good Friday agreement are properly implemented.
1314
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, in the event of a further report from the de Chastelain commission, the report that the commission gave the Governments on Monday will also be published, at the same time, so that any difference between the two can be carefully noted.
As for the Disqualifications Bill, it is not linked to what I am talking about now, and I think that its passage can be safely left to the other place.
Mr. David Trimble: As the Secretary of State has said, it is clear that no decommissioning has occurred. Can he confirm that there has also been no serious discussion, let alone agreement, on the modalities of decommissioning of any specific terrorist weapons, and that the progress made over the past six weeks has been minuscule and deeply disappointing? Does he understand the disappointment we feel—after taking the risk to proceed, in advance of decommissioning, with the formation of the Administration—about the fact that now, months later, there has been such a contemptuous response from the paramilitaries concerned? Does he understand our astonishment at the fact that, after all the discussions and the review, so little has happened? I think the House will appreciate that, now that the basis on which we proceeded to devolution has been falsified, we have no alternative, and cannot continue in an Administration with those who have disappointed the hopes that were created.
I must ask the Secretary of State whether he intends, unless there is clear, significant and verifiable decommissioning in the next few days, to suspend the institutions. He referred to the presentation of a Bill that would receive royal assent next week; can he say precisely when it will be brought into operation?
Mr. Mandelson: Let me say straight away that no one doubts—indeed, I think every Member will applaud—the commitment of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to the Good Friday agreement. That is beyond doubt. Equally, let me say that we shall need his strength and determination again to keep the process moving ahead.
Both traditions throughout the community in Northern Ireland want to see the agreement work. They want to see the political parties—they want to see their political leaders—working together as well in the future as they have during the last two months. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will not take precipitate action in relation to the Executive, and that they will allow the events of the next few days to unfold before making a final judgment.
I have to confirm, however, that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there has not been an adequate engagement on the part of any of the paramilitary organisations with General de Chastelain's body. That is simply unacceptable. It is a betrayal of the entire community in Northern Ireland, of whatever hue, whatever background or whatever tradition—especially when it is abundantly clear from every expression of public opinion and every opinion poll published on the subject, both in Northern Ireland and in the south, that Unionists, nationalists and, I suspect, most republicans, overwhelmingly want decommissioning to happen, and want it to start now. I appeal to the paramilitary

1315
organisations to heed the call of the people to get cracking and to enable local self-government in Northern Ireland to flourish once and for all.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: May I commend the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, the Secretary of State and the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the remarkable efforts that they have been making recently to solve the problem, and are making now, as we speak, on the issue?
The Secretary of State knows that I believe that suspension of any kind of the institutions in the north of Ireland at this time and in this context would be unwise for three reasons. One: it could do serious and perhaps lasting damage to the new political dispensation, which is beginning to work and is beginning to work well, if I may say so. Two: it would make obtaining decommissioning immeasurably more difficult, if not ultimately impossible. Three: it would play straight into the hands of those who are opposed to the agreement, its institutions and the working of those institutions.
May I ask the Secretary of State if he agrees that the priority as of now must be to allow and ask General de Chastelain to obtain answers from all the paramilitary groups to two questions? One: "Will you decommission?" Two: "If yes, when will you decommission?" Will the Secretary of State then inform the House of those answers; inform all the political parties in Northern Ireland; consult with the Irish Government; and, in light of those answers, decide how to proceed—but not until answers are got to those questions, which should have been answered many, many months ago?
Mr. Mandelson: I think that all those questions are extremely relevant and I can assure my hon. Friend that those are precisely the detailed questions that I have already put to General de Chastelain. I regret to say that, in answer to most of them, the answers have been extremely lacking. Let me make it absolutely clear to him: no one is seeking suspension of the Executive. It is the very last thing that I would want to see happen, save to have those institutions collapse and fall apart. If that is the choice, suspension is the better of those two options and that is what is motivating us.
No one wants to do anything that will make decommissioning any harder to achieve, but there comes a moment when we have to express our impatience and, indeed, our intolerance, that decommissioning is failing to happen. I know that the hon. Gentleman has expressed his own impatience and his own very strong feelings on behalf of the people whom he represents, and that is welcome.
May I say this, too? I know that there will be many nationalists whom the hon. Gentleman represents who will be bitterly disappointed that, having gained their places in government after being treated as outsiders for so long in Northern Ireland, they might be suddenly snatched away from them. To them, I say, "Have faith and have confidence." There are no longer any second-class citizens in Northern Ireland. Their place in government is absolutely assured. That is precisely why we are trying to build up the confidence of everyone in Northern Ireland in the Executive and in the institutions that have been
1316
created—just so that their place and the place of every section of political opinion can be properly secured in that Government in Northern Ireland.
Mr. John Major: Many hopes—hopes across the divisions in Northern Ireland—will have been fractured by the failure of the paramilitaries to decommission. One of the great conundrums of the process from the very outset has been whether the leadership of the paramilitary groups—and most important of all of Sinn Fein-IRA—wished to disarm, but were inhibited from doing so by the views of the membership, or whether there was in reality never any real intention to disarm at all. That, sadly, is still unclear to me, and I suspect that it is still unclear to the House.
What is clear is that the leaders left the impression that there would be disarmament; but there has been none. In the circumstances, sadly, and I hope, temporarily, the Government have no alternative left to them but to return to direct rule, and there should be no doubt where the blame for that backward step now clearly lies.
May I follow up the important point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) by making a slightly different point? Can the Secretary of State tell me whether Sinn Fein and the IRA have ever been directly asked by the Government if they would place a proposal for disarmament before the general council of the IRA and a general meeting of volunteers? Can he tell me whether that point has ever been put? If not, can the Secretary of State undertake to put that point now, so that this House may know the clear intentions of those people with whom the Government have been negotiating on behalf of this House for some time?
Mr. Mandelson: I can say to the right hon. Gentleman without any equivocation at all that we would not have got this far, and that the Government would not have treated with Sinn Fein in the way that we have, had it not been made absolutely clear by that organisation that they regard decommissioning as an essential part of the peace process. That having been said, the IRA, in their statement at the conclusion of the Mitchell review, said among other things that they accepted the leadership shown by Sinn Fein. I think most people would infer from that that they were accepting and endorsing the political strategy as expressed by the leadership of that organisation.
If that is the case, they must accept, as Sinn Fein has said, that decommissioning is an essential part of the peace process. That is what they are being tested on and that is what they will be judged by. I hope very much indeed that, in the time that is available to them, the IRA will make that clear—just as Sinn Fein has made that clear—so that the powers that I am proposing to take in the legislation next week do not have to be used and so that we do not have to suspend the Executive and the institutions. There is time yet.
We have not reverted to direct rule yet. I hope that everyone will come to their senses, see the value in what has been created and not put it in jeopardy any more.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that Liberal Democrat Members will offer complete, but sad, support for the proposition that we shall have to have reserve powers to suspend the working of the Northern Ireland Assembly, if that is what is required at the end of next week?

1317
Will the Secretary of State join me in appreciating the enormous efforts made by Members—both Unionists and nationalists—of this House who have brought us to the brink of peace, and whose efforts we must all try not to frustrate at this stage?
Will the Secretary of State explicitly share with me the view that, given how far so many people have come already down the Good Friday road, it is now absolutely clear that it is, above all, the IRA who must take the next step; and that General de Chastelain's report made it clear that, unless the next step is taken very soon, it will not be possible for the May deadline for decommissioning to be met? Does he also agree that the Unionists who have stayed on the road very firmly, despite pressures and temptations, must be encouraged by all of us to stand firm and not to be pushed off course, and that their leadership is the prerequisite to our continuing to make progress together towards continued devolution of power to Northern Ireland?
I have two specific questions on the factual timetable. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if there is progress over the next few days, there need not even be legislation to produce reserve powers? More importantly, will he confirm that, if there has to be legislation, he will not take a decision to suspend until the last moment, always seeing that as the worst option, and that suspension can be lifted almost immediately if the people who now have a responsibility take the steps that are clearly required to start making progress towards the decommissioning that the whole of the United Kingdom and Ireland need them to take?
Mr. Mandelson: I can confirm what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course, as I have said already, nobody wants to take this step. If we can possibly avoid it, we will, but only if an objective change in the circumstances allows us to make that change. For that to happen, we must see a different approach and a different stance on the part of the IRA. The hon. Gentleman is right in referring to the fact that there is only one deadline for decommissioning in the Good Friday agreement. It is not January, it is not February, it is not March; it is May—to be precise, 22 May of this year. Nobody is trying to impose new deadlines for people to meet. Nobody—not the Unionists, not the Government—is trying to rewrite the Good Friday agreement. All that we are seeking is the full implementation of the agreement that we had. That should be clearly understood by those in the republican movement who have expressed some anger at the turn of events this week. It is very important that they realise that. Nobody is trying, as some have accused me this week of doing, to abandon faith in the political process or the institutions that have been created—far from it: I am motivated solely by a desire to save and preserve the process and the institutions that have been created. That will certainly determine all the Government's actions in the coming week and in the months ahead.
Mr. David Winnick: At this very disappointing time for Northern Ireland, should we not bear in mind that there remains overwhelming public support in the United Kingdom, as in the Irish republic, for the Good Friday agreement, and that the vast majority of people in both countries want that agreement to remain
1318
in force? As far as the IRA is concerned, is it not "make up your mind" time? If the IRA want the agreement to remain in force and the Executive and the north-south bodies to continue, they know what they should do. The vast majority of people in Ireland—the Republic and the north—want them to do what we in Parliament want them to do: decommission.
Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we did not have the Good Friday agreement and we were starting all over again with all the negotiations from scratch, I have absolutely no doubt that the agreement that suits everyone's needs and aspirations most clearly and the one with which we would end up all over again is the Good Friday agreement. That is why it is so important that we move ahead and implement it in its entirety, but it has to be clear that decommissioning is going to happen. "No more ifs and buts"—that is what people want to hear and that is what they are entitled to hear. The method of decommissioning is for the de Chastelain commission. The commission must act in accordance with decommissioning schemes made by the two Governments. They provide for a variety of methods, but all require arms to be destroyed or made permanently unusable or inaccessible. That must be the basis for the action that is undertaken by all the paramilitary organisations.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Can the Secretary of State and General de Chastelain confirm that there is not a scintilla of a possibility of a misunderstanding on the part of the paramilitaries and of those associated with them of what the consequences would be of a continuance of their present stance?
Mr. Mandelson: I hope that, in everything that I have said—which, I am sure, is echoed in every part of this House—there is no ambiguity, but if there is, let me make it absolutely clear. If there is no decommissioning, there will be no full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. If there is no full implementation, there will be no devolution in Northern Ireland. That is a matter of colossal regret, but it is a fact.
Mr. Tony Benn: May I thank the Secretary of State for making his statement to the House, and for giving an assurance on any proposed legislation or any further statements to this House next week, because we have as great an interest in this matter as the people of Northern Ireland? May I thank him also for the cautious, confident and moderate statement that he made, because he knows that the people of Northern Ireland want this to succeed? May I put it to him that those in either community who are opposed to the Belfast agreement have an interest either in not decommissioning or in suspending the Executive? They feed upon each other.
In considering what might have to happen if no progress is made, will the Secretary of State consider that we do not really want to go back to the old direct rule, because it was under that that so many of the tragedies occurred? May I ask him to give an assurance to the House that the one element that will remain firmly in place is the close co-operation between the British and Irish Governments, because neither is involved in any

1319
suspension, and that this direct rule should be direct rule by London and Dublin together, as a way of carrying the process forward?
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support. He is absolutely right that there are rejectionists on both sides of this argument who are prepared, in some cases, I am afraid, to fill the atmosphere with hatred and poison, which simply serves to deepen the divide in Northern Ireland's community, to polarise opinion and to frustrate the whole cause of making peace.
I can assure my right hon. Friend that the co-operation between our own and the Irish Government remains very close indeed. As the Taoiseach said in the Dail last November:
"The whole Agreement is based on mutual confidence, partnership and the sense that everybody is acting in good faith in implementing all its terms. If there is difficulty, either in relation to devolution or decommissioning, we are, by definition, in a very serious situation. In those circumstances, where the Agreement was not being implemented in significant respects, the Governments would have to step in and assume their responsibilities, including through appropriate suspension arrangements."
Nobody wants it, but both Governments know that if it has to be, it will be.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Secretary of State agree that the statement made by the previous speaker, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that we should have a new form of joint rule from Dublin and this House is the sort of statement that would bring about a disastrous situation? Should not the Secretary of State tell the House today that no such joint rule will take place in Northern Ireland?
Secondly, does not the Secretary of State understand that his statements tonight are not at all helpful to the people of Northern Ireland? He says that the
"unequivocal support of the IRA and the other paramilitary groups for the political process has played a vital part in recent political advances".
Surely we are here tonight because the IRA has not played its part, and has not lived up to the promises that it made. The other amazing statement was that
"the assurance repeated this week that there is no threat to the peace process from the IRA is important and will be welcomed".
Surely the threat from the IRA is that it has the means to destroy life in Northern Ireland, and that it has an arsenal bigger than any other terrorist arsenal in western Europe, which it refuses to decommission. When he comes next week to present his Bill, can he give us an assurance that we will possess de Chastelain's report? It is unfair to ask Members from Northern Ireland to discuss this matter next week if we do not have in our hands the report of de Chastelain. The Secretary of State said something about another report, but if there is no other report, will we have the report of which we have not as yet seen the contents? If there is going to be a pause, may I ask him, "Will he pause the release of prisoners?" Will he stop the implementation of the Patten report? These are matters that need to be handled, and handled urgently.
Mr. Mandelson: I must say that I did not share the hon. Gentleman's precise interpretation of the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I do not think that he was calling for joint rule as such, but in case there is any ambiguity about the
1320
Government's policy, I may say that we do not support joint rule—however advantageous and beneficial it is to the people of Northern Ireland to have the ready support and contribution of the Irish Government for the political progress that has been made in Northern Ireland.
If the hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying so, I think that he is slightly splitting hairs over the statement that I have made. Of course I readily acknowledge—indeed, I said—that the arsenal of weapons held by the IRA makes their continuing, indefinite involvement in democratic politics impossible. We know that, and they themselves have accepted that, which is why they say that decommissioning is an essential part of the peace process. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman disagrees with me, but I happen to believe that the ceasefires are not unimportant as an essential condition for political progress.
I think that anyone who is in any doubt about the difference that has been made to life in Northern Ireland by the ceasefires could just go over there and live there for a few days, and talk to the people who live there. They would soon find out that it has made an enormous difference to the quality of life of everyone there.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect and provide not rancour and not recrimination in these circumstances, but his support for those who have made such a success of Northern Ireland's government. Among those, I include the representatives of his own party, who have been excellent Ministers on the Executive.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Would it be correct to say that my right hon. Friend's statement is a holding operation? It is an essential holding operation and has a dynamic contained in it, in that the Bill will provide the arrangements by which the suspension of the Executive is imminent unless the paramilitaries deliver. Therefore, there is a duty on right hon. and hon. Members who have any influence with our friends from Northern Ireland to point out to Unionists the significance of the Bill that will be put forward. Those who have links with Sinn Fein should press them to see that decommissioning takes place.
Mr. Mandelson: All of us will be pressing all the paramilitary organisations to ensure that decommissioning takes place. My hon. Friend is right, in a sense, that I am describing a holding operation, but it is an operation that will not permanently be on hold. I will take the necessary powers in case the discussions that are going on now are unsuccessful. That is a prudent preparation to enable me to move as quickly as the situation demands, and nobody should be in any doubt that I will.
Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the House will not have to wait until there is a second report from General de Chastelain before we get the first report that he received on Monday of this week?
Is the Secretary of State aware that General de Chastelain and his fellow commissioners, in a report on 7 July 1999, set out the clear criteria for the commencement of the process of decommissioning—not decommissioning itself, but the process—which contained two requirements: that the paramilitaries had given an unambiguous commitment to the completion of

1321
decommissioning by 22 May; and that the interlocutor had agreed all the modalities, including timing and verification? Will the Secretary of State confirm that neither of those criteria has been met?
Mr. Mandelson: I think that I made it absolutely clear in my opening remarks that that is precisely the situation and that we find it disappointing and unacceptable. That is why we hope and assume that the paramilitary organisations will rectify the situation without delay.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I warmly endorse my right hon. Friend's positive remarks concerning the democratic functioning of the institutions in Northern Ireland. I spent the whole of Tuesday at Stormont and I saw Members of the Legislative Assembly going about their work in a way that would be immediately familiar to Members of Parliament and, dare I say it, Members of the Scottish Parliament. Assembly Members and many members of the local public said to me that they were deeply alarmed at the prospect of the enormous loss of what has already been achieved in terms of stable partnership government and the working of the Assembly.
If my right hon. Friend has to introduce a period of suspension, I urge him and members of the Irish Government to do their utmost to ensure that it is as short as is humanly possible, so that democracy can take healthy root in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Mandelson: I strongly welcome and echo my hon. Friend's comments. I can give him this reassurance: the only point of creating a pause in the operation of the Executive of the institutions in Northern Ireland would be to avert their collapse and to allow them to get back on track as rapidly as possible. I am proposing to take this power in the legislation next week precisely because I fear that, if we did not put them on hold, should the circumstances arise and so demand, confidence in the institutions would continue to ebb and we would place in jeopardy their continued operation, through the actions of other people. The aim is precisely to save the institutions, to preserve what has been created for the benefit of the people in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the Members of the Assembly and those in the Executive are thoroughly conscientious and diligent. Above all, whatever political background they come from and whatever tradition has elected them, it is most noteworthy that all the Ministers speak and act for the interests of both traditions and all people in Northern Ireland. That is a huge step forward and something that we will want to preserve at all costs.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I have been cautiously pessimistic about the process in Northern Ireland for well over 10 years, but there are grounds for hope. I spent the day in Mid-Ulster today, and there was no sense of crisis, although clearly there is a political problem that could develop into a crisis. People right across the political spectrum, from Sinn Fein to the Unionists, had far more sense of partnership on practical matters. We have a week, possibly, before the Executive would have to be suspended; does the Secretary of State
1322
think that Sinn Fein-IRA will be able or will choose to make possible a continuation of the Executive without suspension?
Mr. Mandelson: I hope very much that that is the case. I do not think that any of us in the House can begin to imagine what the inner workings and political dynamic of Sinn Fein and the IRA are. I certainly do not know. I suspect from what I glean that there is a strong debate, a strong argument—a bit of a struggle—going on among different people who probably come from different backgrounds and have different leanings within the republican movement as a whole.
I suspect that Sinn Fein's leaders have tried hard. I believe that they have been personally sincere in their commitment to fulfilling that statement originally made by Sinn Fein at the close of the Mitchell review. But words, in these matters, while welcome and valuable, are not enough to sustain the confidence of both traditions in Northern Ireland for the political process. It is in order to rebuild and replenish that confidence in both traditions that we ask and plead that all the paramilitary organisations now do what the people of Northern Ireland want—that is, make a proper start to decommissioning.
Mr. Stuart Bell: As I understand my right hon. Friend, what we are doing next week is passing legislation that will be a sword of Damocles over all the work and institutions that have been created in Northern Ireland and throughout the island of Ireland. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there can be no veto over these democratic institutions by terrorist organisations, and that the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom are absolutely as one that there can be no veto.
Can my right hon. Friend also confirm, building on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), that it would be unwise to rush back to direct rule? We need time and patience. We need closeness with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. Is it not a fact that such closeness and co-operation are as much in the interest of Unionism as they are of nationalism?
Mr. Mandelson: I think that my hon. Friend's words are extremely wise and to the point. It is so frustrating and vexatious for people in Northern Ireland, who are so committed to devolution and to democracy in Northern Ireland, to find themselves cheated of those things by the actions of those who had hitherto placed themselves outside the democratic process. What we have seen over recent years is not only the all-important ceasefires, but, inching ahead, month by month, year by year, a growing distance being put by the paramilitary organisations between themselves and the violence that they engaged in in the past. The problem is that while they are now a long way from the sort of violence and military strategy, the bombings and the barricades, that were such an appalling feature of Northern Ireland in the past, they none the less seem no nearer to the decommissioning that is essential if the peace process is to be sustained in the future. It is that change that we need to see now.
Mr. John D. Taylor: The Secretary of State has confirmed from the de Chastelain report that, even though decommissioning of illegal arms was a

1323
requirement of the Belfast agreement almost two years ago, and our Prime Minister confirmed that he expected it to begin in June 1998, there is still no decommissioning of IRA arms. Could the right hon. Gentleman refer to another part of this absent de Chastelain report—which I hope some day we will see—and confirm that it states that such is the magnitude of the IRA arsenal, decommissioning would need to begin now for the completion date of 22 May 2000 to be achieved?
When the Secretary of State talks about suspension of the institutions, is he also intending to suspend the north-south bodies and the British-Irish Council? Finally, does he fully understand the seriousness of the situation in Northern Ireland tonight, irrespective of some comments from other parliamentary colleagues, and that spin and words will not rescue the situation? The only way to save devolution in Northern Ireland is to move swiftly to suspension and not play for time, because if we play for time, we will lose everything.
Mr. Mandelson: Nobody is playing for time. We are playing for product and playing for progress. If that progress and product require a little more time, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be the last to deny anyone an opportunity to make it work, even at the 11th hour. If, in the event, that does not happen and fortuitous circumstances do not arise, I have already said that we shall take the powers necessary to place on hold the working of the institutions. I do not think that I can do more than that.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's remark about the magnitude of the weaponry that is held, he is right that it is great. It is not the case that General de Chastelain and his colleagues have said that for the deadline of complete decommissioning to be reached in May, a start has to be made now. It is desirable and necessary that a start should be made now, but the practical time frame to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is a little shorter than that.
Dr. Nick Palmer: Does the Secretary of State agree that the already difficult process of ensuring that deadlines in the Good Friday agreement are met is not necessarily made easier by the tendency of some parties to impose additional deadlines on other parties? Does he agree that we are discussing the need for a credible plan from the IRA for meeting the May deadline, and no other deadline? If it is necessary to suspend the institutions for a period, and in order to avoid demoralisation and discontinuity during that period, will my right hon. Friend consider asking some of the bodies that are working at the moment to continue on a shadow basis to advise the institutions of direct rule so that they will be able to resume their work officially, should the opportunity arise?
Mr. Mandelson: I can confirm that the legislation that we shall introduce next week will make it clearly understood that existing Ministers will continue to hold their posts, but will not exercise any of their functions. When—I hope it will be in a short time—devolution and the Executive resume, the status quo ante will simply apply. All existing Ministers—including the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, assuming they are willing—will revert to their previous ministerial roles.
It is true to say that the only deadline in the Good Friday agreement is for decommissioning in May, and I certainly agree that we need a credible plan to achieve
1324
that from the IRA. However, I must add that a deadline is one thing, and a credible plan another. For one to be reached and the other implemented, we require the maintenance of confidence right across the community in Northern Ireland. If that confidence subsides, people's ability to sustain the Executive and the institutions will inevitable wane. It is in order to replenish confidence among everyone in all the parties in Northern Ireland that we need not just credible plans, but early moves to achieve decommissioning.
Mr. John Maples: Can the Secretary of State tell us whether the Irish Government fully support the statement that he has made and the actions that he proposes to take? Will they make their support absolutely clear, so that an unequivocal message goes from both Governments to the terrorists?
Mr. Mandelson: I do not think that there is any doubt at all—I must say this—about the position of the Irish Government in relation to this issue. The Taoiseach and his deputy and other Ministers have made it clear, again and again. As recently as January—on 13 January—the Taoiseach said:
"It is my view with certainty that the entire thing will fall apart if decommissioning does not take place. Whatever happens after that, that is another thing."
I do not think that he could have been clearer. I think that his support and his commitment to the implementation of the Good Friday agreement as a whole are necessary and welcome. He should be applauded for the strength of that commitment.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Those of us who had the privilege of participating in the negotiations in Castle Buildings in April 1998 always knew that the agreement was reached without trust. Does the Secretary of State agree that trust has begun to creep in, and that one of its bases is the excellent relationship between the British and Irish Governments? Will he assure the House that, whatever happens during the next week, we will not go back to bad relations between our two Governments, and that the excellent relationship that has been established will be built on in the future? Will he also assure the House that the agreement is the property not of the eight parties that signed it, or of the two Governments, but of the people of Ireland—in the north and the Irish Republic—who voted for it overwhelmingly? Will he confirm that the agreement will not be torn up, as some rejectionists want, but will continue in some form in the future?
Mr. Mandelson: There is absolutely no question of the Good Friday agreement being torn up. It will encounter many vicissitudes; it will encounter difficult times and, no doubt, strong opposition from familiar quarters. However, in my view, it is strong enough—robust enough—to withstand all that, because it is the right agreement for the people of Northern Ireland, as well as for those in the Republic. The agreement simply could not have been achieved without the efforts, put in over so long a time, by people in political parties in north and south and by the Governments both here and in the south. It is absolutely important that those relations are built upon, and they will be, so that that trust, which my hon. Friend rightly says has crept in, is kept in and built on in the future.
Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: Will the Secretary of State now confirm exactly when we can

1325
expect to receive the de Chastelain report? Secondly, if decommissioning has not been completed by 22 May 2000, will the Secretary of State confirm that, under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, he is under a statutory obligation to halt the early release of terrorist prisoners, which is not due to be completed until July 2000; that between 22 May and the end of July, there is a considerable number—perhaps somewhere in the region of 150—of terrorist prisoners remaining to be released; and that it would be most unfair if those releases were to continue in the absence of the decommissioning of terrorist weapons?
Mr. Mandelson: On the specific point of the prisoner releases, the provisions relating to those flow from legislation that was foreshadowed in the Good Friday agreement. Prisoner releases had always depended not on the state of decommissioning, but on the state of the ceasefires. That remains the case. The maintenance of the ceasefires obviously remains under permanent scrutiny by the Government. We will not be suspending the Good Friday agreement; therefore, we are not going to put into reverse all those gains and all those changes that have flowed from its implementation. We will be suspending, if we need to—and only if we need to as a last resort—the operation of the political institutions, for what I hope will be a very short period of time.
As for the report issued by General de Chastelain, I have described fully and accurately—and certainly somewhat disappointingly—the contents. I can give the hon. Gentleman this assurance: it will not be changed prior to publication and it will be published alongside any further report, should one be issued.
Mr. Tony McWalter: In agreeing wholeheartedly with the tone and the content of my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask him whether he thinks that the key to progress is to try to get some clarification of the relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA? There seems to be a variable distance between them. When there is a ceasefire, Sinn Fein claims that it is close to the IRA and, hence, that it deserves the credit for the ceasefire. When there is a failure to decommission, there is a huge gap between them and Sinn Fein claims, as it did to us yesterday in Belfast, that it is nothing, or very little, to do with it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if there is a huge difference between Sinn Fein and the IRA on the matter, the undertakings that Sinn Fein gave in the Belfast agreement were not given in good faith because it did not have the necessary relationship to give those undertakings?
Mr. Mandelson: No, I do not think that it would be fair to say that any commitments made in relation to the Good Friday agreement were made in bad faith. I genuinely do not believe that. I think that there was a sincere commitment made by individuals to do their best to bring about the changes to persuade their colleagues in other parts of the republican movement to fulfil the Good Friday agreement in the way that they had signed up to. They do not appear to have been entirely successful, however. Rather than spending time clarifying the
1326
relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA, I would just urge them to agree on what needs to be done and to get on and do it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Only five Members are waiting to be called. I am conscious that the Secretary of State has been at the Dispatch Box for more than an hour, and it is not usual to keep a Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box for even an hour. All parts of the statement have been well aired, so can I have brisk questions and brisk answers from the Secretary of State? I do not wish to disappoint hon. Members on such an important issue.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: The Secretary of State appears to be saying that he will not publish independently, in advance of any second report that there may be, the de Chastelain report on which he based his statement. Why is that?
Mr. Mandelson: I have already described accurately and fully the contents of the report. If I felt it were important and relevant for the House to see and to compare one report with another in the event of a further report being issued, I shall make sure that the original one is published alongside it.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity, when he speaks to Sinn Fein, to point out to it that the two-year time frame was largely for the benefit of those who needed to have trust built? If they are not taking advantage of that to take staged decommissioning when the opportunity exists as they go along to have the reassurances that they may need, they are losing the benefits of the agreement to which they themselves signed up.
Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman—perhaps inadvertently—puts his finger on a thorny issue. The problem for members of Sinn Fein as they would present it, if they had taken up their seats here and were to respond to him directly, is that, whereas the Good Friday agreement was signed 18 months and more ago, the Executive and the institutions came into effect only last December. Therefore, they think that the time frame has become somewhat concertina-ed. It is a matter for them to make the case on their own behalf—I am certainly not going to do so for them—but it is not unreasonable to take that into account even though it does not provide an excuse for the inaction that we have seen.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When is an understanding and an agreement not an understanding and an agreement, and when are procrastination and good faith not procrastination and good faith? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it appears to be when we are talking about decommissioning? Does he accept that there can be no lasting, certain peace in Northern Ireland without the decommissioning of the huge arsenal of terrorist weapons? Will he now lay down a firm timetable for such decommissioning? We have been talking about it for three years.
Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of my responsibilities and those of General de

1327
Chastelain and his colleagues on the decommissioning body. It is their job, not mine, to do what he has described, and they are trying their best to achieve it.
Mr. William Cash: Will the Secretary of State give the reasons for the Disqualifications Bill? Will he deny that it was based on a secret agreement with Sinn Fein-IRA?
Mr. Mandelson: The reasons for the Disqualifications Bill remain the same as described by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and no, they were not the subject of any deal made with any organisation.
Mr. David Wilshire: I am most grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for your forbearance on this occasion.
In order that the people of Northern Ireland and the Members of the House can make a complete, fair and balanced judgment, will the Secretary of State undertake to publish the de Chastelain report before the House rises tomorrow afternoon?
Mr. Mandelson: I have nothing to add to the answers that I have already given on four occasions during the course of the statement.

Thames Gateway
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
8.21 pm
Mrs. Christine Butler: Previously called the East Thames corridor, the Thames gateway begins in east London, and extends from Stratford and Greenwich to Tilbury in Essex and Sittingbourne and Sheerness in Kent.
Tonight, I shall argue that the Thames gateway should be further extended to include areas north of the river, just as at present it includes areas along the Kent coast to the south. That view is supported by the Essex chamber of commerce, and it is a major plank of the south-east Essex economic strategy document. Essex county council and the Essex economic partnership are strong supporters of that proposal, as is the East of England development agency, and the south-east regional planning committee, which is better known as Serplan.
The panel report following the public examination of the regional planning guidance for the south-east was a huge disappointment not only for its suggestion that the south-east should have 1 million more dwellings, but for its recommendation that the Thames gateway should not be further extended into Essex.
In December, Castle Point council informed the Government office for the east of England that the panel report did not reflect an adequate understanding of the economic problems of south-east Essex, and that further consideration should be given to those matters in a review of the Thames gateway planning guidance.
The council also expressed its concerns about the unco-ordinated approach to the transport infrastructure generally and the lack of attention to the problem of south Essex in particular. It went on to say that the panel report did not reflect a sustainable approach to the development of the region, and was likely to result in increased pressure on existing resources.
The south-east regional planning statement justified the extension of the gateway. South Essex has direct links to London and the existing gateway, with major industrial and service agencies linked to those of London. While it traditionally provides a large part of London's work force, a more sustainable strategy needs to be developed.
The north Thames area provides the nearest resort, tourism and leisure facilities outside London for the local Essex and visiting London population. It has direct transport links by road and rail to the existing gateway and London. They also link to the M25 and London Southend airport. The LTS rail route forms part of the trans-European network, and that reflects the area's appeal as the gateway to the continent. That is further supported by port facilities. The area also has pockets of deprivation that compare to those in the existing gateway south of the Thames.
Inclusion in the gateway would bring opportunities for sustainable economic development by reducing traffic demand on major routes into, and out of, London. It would reduce competition for jobs in London and the existing gateway. It could provide local people with better accessibility to local jobs, improve transport links by air, rail and water, and increase the range of economic development, including port and river facilities.

1329
That sets in context the plea that I make for Castle Point and, in particular, Canvey Island. For the life of me, I never understood why Canvey Island was ignored when the Thames gateway regeneration project first emerged. After all, it is an island strategically placed in the gateway to London, surrounded by the Thames and within the Port of London authority.
Almost 2,000 years ago, in the first century, the Romans spotted its advantages, as did the Viking invaders about 800 years later. The Vikings were defeated in 893 by King Alfred's army in the battle of Benfleet. When the Dutch settled on Canvey, they turned what had been rather a deserted place into farmland and established a small but thriving community. They drained the land, built a church and set about defending the island from the power of the sea.
Successive settlers did not change the essentially rural landscape that much until the 20th century. During the industrial revolution, Canvey escaped unscathed. No Dickensian horrors of urban living can be traced on Canvey, although visitors will find a plaque on the wall of the Lobster Smack noting that this remote spot was the inspiration for scenes from "Great Expectations". Even when the railways came and a new station was built at Benfleet, visitors from London seeking the joys of Canvey would have to cross Benfleet creek by the stepping stones.
Today, Canvey Island is a very different place. The strong sea defences established after the 1953 floods and the added security that they brought began to draw a much greater interest in the place from developers. Housebuilding started to accelerate. However, those intent on making a good profit from real estate were not the only ones to have their eye on the commercial potential of Canvey Island. This interest may have come late to Canvey but, when it did, it was rapid and merciless to the growing community of islanders, and Canvey was not prepared.
Canvey again was seen to occupy a strategic location on the Thames. It was recognised as a good place to store oil, a good place for an oil refinery and an ideal location to import all sorts of high-bulk commodities, from coal to crushed rock, to feed the rapacious jaws of London and its hinterland. The competing interests between a rapidly rising population and new industrial development was never properly resolved. There was no comprehensive plan to care for Canvey and Canvey suffered.
How could a small island be expected to cope with all those competing pressures? Well, it could not. Thank goodness Essex county council stepped in during the early 1990s to back islanders against the plans of Peter de Savory to build a massive 4,500 more houses on the last remaining expanse of ancient grazing land on the western part of Canvey.
My involvement with the island began at the time of the public inquiry into the proposal and, despite all the lobbying that was going on at the time by various politicians, the Secretary of State made the right decision and refused the application. However, Canvey's future was still uncertain. Development, taking no account of the needs of the population or a long-term, sustainable future for Canvey, still remains a threat.
Very soon, the planning committee will have to consider an application for the storage and auction of accident-damaged cars on a 30-acre site at the bottom of
1330
Haven road. That is a big area. Many of the cars will become scrap. The application comes from HBC, which trades from Charfleets industrial estate. Should the project go ahead, the result could be an expansion of a land use that is prejudicial to the best interests of the island. Canvey does not need more scrap cars on this scale. The scheme will offer virtually no employment. Instead, it will worsen traffic conditions, in particular making the lives of the people living in and around Haven road a misery. It will create an enormous ugly scar on the flat landscape of Canvey. Who would want to be near that?
Canvey needs to attract the kind of things that its people need and want, such as good, clean jobs, better amenity and improved road access. I firmly believe that Canvey is not big enough to accommodate dirty, untidy industry and almost 40,000 people. We need to implement a new 21st century vision for Canvey, putting the blight of the last half of the 20th century in the history books.
Part of this speech, which outlines my apprehension for the future of Canvey, was printed in one of our local newspapers recently, and it seems to have touched a raw nerve on the part of one Terry Holding, principal director of HBC Group. He responded in a disgraceful and shameful manner.
Yesterday, my office received several telephone calls from concerned constituents who had been the unfortunate recipients of a malicious and defamatory letter about their Member of Parliament, written by that man. He is the same person who was rejected at the ballot box when he stood as a Conservative candidate in the local elections less than a year ago. I cannot allow myself to be intimidated by such an approach, and nor could any Member of Parliament. I will continue to represent the interests of Castle Point and my constituents.
With reference to Mr. Holding's allegations, and to set the record straight, I have never said that I had secured a company to build and run a marina at Holehaven on Canvey, but I have pushed the idea that a marina could be the key to unlocking the problems that we are experiencing in attracting the right kind of investment on development land around Safeway.
Properly and sympathetically designed, that could help to regenerate the land on which the former Occidental oil refinery once stood. It could attract projects for environmental regeneration, protected open space, conservation and amenity, promoting the attractiveness of the area. Plans for a high-quality business park would therefore be far more likely to go ahead.
It is of paramount importance that a better image—as well as reality—should be created for Canvey. For the land south of Northwick road, that will require a great deal of hard work, commitment and imagination. We must be brave enough to challenge old expectations and welcome new thinking. We must believe that, in the end, our aspirations can be realised. We can overcome the legacy of past carelessness, but we need help.
Castle Point is one of the riparian authorities included in the new Thames Estuary partnership. The partnership is a neutral body set up to promote integrated policies for the whole of the Thames estuary. It is looking at matters such as improving air quality, enhancing bio-diversity, sustainable commercial use, managing fisheries, flood defences, cultural resources, landscape character, and waste and water management. It aims to act as a catalyst to co-ordinate sustainable activities through London to the lower reaches of the Thames.

1331
I have just read the partnership's strategy document, "Today's Estuary Tomorrow" and I applaud the way in which it has been drawn up. It gives a significant lead to the way in which we should be thinking about the Thames estuary. It would be an anomaly if the Thames gateway planning guidance did not extend to all the Thames estuary authorities, including the north side of the Thames. And it would be a great shame if, to steal a phrase, Canvey Island were left out and forgotten.
8.33 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on securing the debate. I welcome the opportunity to reassure her of the Government's desire to encourage new economic development and investment in Canvey Island and the whole of south-east Essex, and to reiterate our commitment to regional planning.
I am aware that, in recent years, south-east Essex may not have prospered to the same extent as some other parts of the south-east region. The area has much to recommend it, as my hon. Friend made clear. It is rich in history and has areas of countryside that are important for nature conservation, and some prestigious new shopping and leisure developments.
However, like my hon. Friend, I am conscious that there are still pockets of previously used land, especially on the Thames estuary, that suffer from dereliction and contamination and where improvements to the environment are a priority. There is a need to attract new jobs to the area, and to create opportunities for local people to learn new skills and make more rewarding use of their existing skills. We also want to reduce the number of people who have to leave the area every day to work elsewhere. I know that such daily commuting adds to the congestion that is a common occurrence, especially for those trying to get in and out of Canvey Island.
Regeneration of the area in accordance with the principles of sustainability to which the Government are committed must be a clear objective, and we will do all that we can to encourage that process. Regeneration can best be achieved through partnership and co-operation between local authorities, local people and local businesses. My hon. Friend talked about a local partnership.
The policies and proposals in the Castle Point local plan and the emerging Essex and Southend replacement structure plan, which have been subject to full public consultation and debate, set out the strategy for future development in the area. It is right that decisions about the scale and location of new development, whether intended to provide houses or jobs, should be made by local people. However, there is also a strong regional dimension, which my hon. Friend recognises.
Local authority development plans are part of a framework, which must continue to be set by regional planning guidance, so that what happens in south-east Essex is not divorced from the spatial strategy for the wider region. It is the role of regional planning guidance to consider whether there are, regionally or sub-regionally, suitable areas or broad locations for major housing, business, retail and leisure uses.
At regional level, regional development agencies can play an important role in encouraging and attracting economic investment to areas such as south-east Essex,
1332
where that is urgently needed, and in supporting regeneration. The RDAs for the eastern and south-eastern regions have published their strategies for improving the region's economic performance and enhancing its competitiveness. They will need to be reflected in the final RPGs for those regions.
I do not need to remind the House of the changes we have made to the preparation of regional planning guidance. From being top-down statements of generality under the previous Administration, we intend that they should from now on embody an agreed spatial strategy for each region. The strategy will be agreed by the interests in the region. Those groups will integrate spatial planning with economic and transport planning and incorporate a more sustainable approach, bearing in mind the needs of local communities such as those that my hon. Friend described, and those who live, work and take their leisure in the area.
As my hon. Friend knows, RPG is subject to a public examination. Preparation of RPG for the south-east and the East Anglia is now at an advanced stage.
As the House knows, Serplan's draft RPG for the south-east has been subject to public consultation and a public examination. It is now necessary, following the public examination, for the Secretary of State to consider the panel's report and all the representations that have been made on the draft RPG. We want sustainable development in the south-east to be the basis for continued economic growth. We cannot carry on building in the dispersed pattern encouraged by the previous Government. However, as has been illuminated in the wider debates, including recent debates in the House, since Serplan published the draft RPG there are clearly some issues that need to be carefully addressed before we go forward to the final RPG.
We hope to be able to publish proposed changes to the draft RPG shortly, and my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot say more at this time about those changes. However, they will be subject to full public consultation.
My hon. Friend has made a powerful case for the Thames gateway to be extended beyond its present boundaries to include Canvey Island, and I understand her desire for that to be given the green light. There is no doubt that the whole of the Thames gateway, from London to Essex and north Kent, offers huge potential. We have a range of sites, acres of development land and a real commitment from central and local government. The Government are committed to co-ordinating the delivery of policies at a level never seen before and recognising the importance of an approach that combines environmental, economic and social objectives. We are working with partners, especially local authorities and regional development agencies, to bring together the support available and needed to make sure that the Thames gateway is developed in a way that maximises the benefits for everyone. As the economies in the Thames gateway prosper, we expect them to bring beneficial spin-offs to neighbouring areas, including those in Essex.
The proposed extension of the Thames gateway boundary to include not only Canvey Island but the whole of Castle Point plus Southend, part of Basildon and the area of Thurrock fronting the river that is not currently within the gateway is strongly advocated by Essex county council and the district authorities concerned. As my hon. Friend said, it has been raised by Serplan as part of the

1333
review of RPG for the south-east. Serplan's draft RPG emphasises that the Thames gateway remains a key regional priority and states that its designation should be extended to include Castle Point, Southend and part of Basildon. The draft RPG also identifies the extended Thames gateway, embracing south-east Essex, as a priority area for economic regeneration—a specific priority area.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Crow panel report—the report on the public examination of Serplan's report—did not consider an alteration of the Thames gateway boundary to be necessary, so there is a conflict between it and Serplan's recommendations. I know that that is one of her concerns. As I said in relation to the draft RPG as a whole, I cannot therefore comment on the merits of the proposed boundary extension at this time—I know that she understands this—because that would
1334
pre-empt the formal consultation process and the Secretary of State's consideration of the matter, which he is actively undertaking at present. However, I can say to her that the Government are under no obligation to follow the Crow report blindly. We are taking account of the panel's recommendation in the light of all the material factors and making an assessment of how the regeneration of the Thames gateway and those areas adjacent to it can best be achieved. We have before us the different views from Serplan and the district councils on the one hand and the panel on the other.
My hon. Friend has made a strong case and I have heard her very clearly. I shall ensure that her views are fully considered. I thank her for giving me the opportunity to provide that assurance and to make those points to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Nine o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Children's Social Services
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Dowd.]
2.30 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget statement in March he said that children form 20 per cent. of the country's population but represent 100 per cent. of its future. I think there is common agreement that tomorrow's prosperity will be built on the success and skills of today's children. That is why the Government are committed to ending child poverty within 20 years, and are modernising services for children and their families at every stage of their lives. All children should be able to develop confidence and a sense of responsibility for themselves and for others. The most vulnerable children need protection, care and the best possible chance of success throughout life. Every child deserves the opportunity to live in a stable and safe environment, to enjoy the best physical and mental health possible, to thrive at school and to make a successful transition to adulthood.
The Government have a strong belief that the children of today will shape tomorrow's society. That means that every single one of us has an interest in making sure that children thrive, and are helped to grow up into healthy and socially responsible adults. Children thrive best in a stable family environment. Families are, therefore, the core of our society. In recognition of that, we gave a commitment in our manifesto that we would uphold family life as the most secure means of bringing up children. In doing so, we have focused on five key areas.
First, we are improving family prosperity, through the tax and benefit systems such as, for example, in-work benefits. Secondly, we are making it easier for families to balance work and home—through the development of family-friendly employment policies, and a national child care strategy to expand the provision of early years care and education. Thirdly, we are reducing the risks of family breakdown. Fourthly, we are ensuring that all parents have access to the advice and support that they need to raise their children successfully through our sure start programme, and other initiatives. Finally, we are tackling the more serious problems of family life, such as domestic violence, juvenile offending and teenage pregnancy. Action is under way to tackle each of those issues.
Tackling child poverty is also a priority for the Government. Poverty is complex. Of course family income and prosperity are crucial, but it is also about poor housing, poor health and poor education. It is also about a lack of opportunity as a child and the lack of a job as a parent. There is a poverty of expectation that leaves many jobless parents expecting no better for their
252WH
children than they have experienced themselves. Desperate situations can often lead to desperate measures: alcohol, drugs, domestic violence and crime. Many of those factors are closely interlinked. Together, they create a crushing spiral of disadvantage—one that all too often persists throughout people's lives.
Many of these children and families will need the specialist care and involvement of professional social services. Some children need to be protected by social services. Some need the local authority to take on a parental role for them. Whatever their difficult and traumatic experiences before being taken into care, children who are looked after by local authorities are entitled to the same opportunities as all children. They are entitled to a good education, to the health care and other specialist help they need and to consistent support, advice and practical help to guide them into adult life. The majority are in care not because of what they have done, but because of family breakdown. These are children with real potential and talent, and it is our responsibility to ensure that those talents are allowed to develop and grow.
Improving children's social services is therefore part of the Government's wider strategy to tackle the problems of social exclusion and provide better support to children and their families. The social services' contribution to that work is crucial. Social services are closely involved with the sure start programme to help pre-school children, which is worth £450 million in England; with the new youth support service ConneXions, which is being announced today; and with the youth offending teams designed to cut youth crime.
However, the evidence is that too many children were failed by the services that should have been helping them. There has been too much inconsistent and poor management in children's services. For example, we know from the children's safeguards review reports and the shocking testimony of those young people who suffered abuse in children's homes that the risks for children living away from home in the 1970s and 1980s were seriously underestimated, but we cannot dismiss that as a problem of the past.
In the 1990s, evidence from the social services inspectorate and joint review reports of children's services showed continuing problems, and not only in children's homes. SSI reports and joint reviews have demonstrated inconsistency, both within and between authorities. They have sometimes shown that poor assessment, planning and case recording have led to very unfocused work with families, that decisions about who receives a service are often made on a haphazard basis and that poor planning for the children being looked after has resulted in unnecessary delays and inappropriate placements.
For all those reasons and more, in September 1998, we launched the "Quality Protects" programme, which is to help local authorities improve the management and delivery of children's social services. We announced that the programme would be supported by a £375 million new special children's grant, which is being paid to local authorities over the three years of the current spending review.

253WH
"Quality Protects" is part of our wider plans detailed in the White Paper "Modernising Social Services" to tailor services to the real needs of people and deliver them efficiently and to the highest standards. Today's public services have to be shaped around the people who use them, not the other way around. Social change, growing public expectations, an ageing population and shifts in family structures call for a modernised system of social care. That is why, when we launched "Quality Protects", we announced for the first time new Government objectives and specific targets for children's services. That major step forward has, for the first time, provided a clear framework in which to develop those crucial public services.
In particular, we want to provide protection and care for the most vulnerable children and families, which is precisely what the Care Standards Bill will do. The Bill has two key aims—first, to protect vulnerable people from abuse and neglect; and, secondly, to promote the highest standards quality in the care that people receive.
The Bill provides for the establishment of a new independent national body—the National Care Standards Commission—which will have significant responsibilities for safeguarding the welfare of children. All types of children's homes will be regulated and subject to rigorous inspections. Local authority homes that are currently exempt and small private children's homes for fewer than four children will be included. That loophole in the current law has long been considered a scandal, and rightly so. Good-quality care must be provided in all children's homes, whether in the private or voluntary sector, or in those run by local authorities. Children must be protected from abuse and their welfare promoted, whoever is responsible for running the home. In the past, problems have occurred in all types of homes, but in future, all homes will have to meet the same rigorous standards.
The Bill will introduce for the first time regulatory regimes for fostering agencies and residential family centres. The National Care Standards Commission will regulate the crucial and very specialised work of voluntary adoption agencies in a way similar to the current system operated by the social services inspectorate.
In recognition of its role in safeguarding children, the National Care Standards Commission will appoint a children's rights director, whose job it will be to ensure that children's rights and welfare are at the heart of all its responsibilities for regulating children's services. The children's rights director will fulfil a crucial function in developing the work of the commission in protecting and safeguarding the interests of the children being looked after by local authorities. We are also taking action on child protection.
Dr. Peter Brand: Will registration arrangements under the Care Standards Bill apply to children and young people in supported housing, but not in local authorities' formal care? I am thinking of vulnerable families placed in supportive environments who receive housing benefit. However, because they do so, they are not classed as receiving social care. Therefore, many such establishments—a large
254WH
proportion of which do excellent work—fall outside the remit of the inspection regime. That is a lost opportunity.
Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman raised several technical issues. He is wrong about young people receiving housing benefit being excluded from receiving social care services. That is not the case. However, if the hon. Gentleman looked at the Bill, he would see that we are trying to provide a more effective regime for the regulation and inspection of children's homes—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman tells me that he has looked at the Bill. He should therefore see what the Bill's definitions relate to.
The hon. Gentleman asked about supported housing schemes. I need to consider what he might have been driving at, and I am more than happy to discuss the issue with him later. However, the Bill focuses on providing a more effective regime for children's homes and closing some of the loopholes that I mentioned earlier and that have given rise to considerable concern. As a matter of principle, it is not right that the protection that children and young people are entitled to expect from the care system should be determined by the size of the children's home in which they have been placed. We must ensure that all children's homes providing residential care are covered by the stronger and more effective arrangements in the Bill.
Two key developments forming part of the "Quality Protects" initiatives are the revision of the inter-agency guidance "Working Together to Safeguard Children" and the development of the new framework for the assessment of children in need and their families. The aim is to ensure that the way in which we safeguard and promote the welfare of children involved in prostitution and assess their needs is consistent with the approaches used for all children.
At the end of last December, following extensive consultation, the Government published new guidance on inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. "Working Together to Safeguard Children" replaces the previous guidance published in 1991 and takes full account of new research, experience and legislation relating to child abuse.
The new guidance emphasises the importance of agencies working together to help families and children before abuse and neglect take place. It provides a clear framework for social workers, the police, teachers, health service staff and others to work together and with families in order to secure the best possible outcomes for vulnerable children and young people.
The new guidance provides several essential safeguards against abuse which apply in every setting in which children live away from home. When services are not directly provided, basic safeguards should be explicitly addressed in contracts with external providers.
In September 1999, the Department issued new draft assessment guidance focussing on assessing the needs of children and their parents' and families' capacity to respond to those needs in the short and longer term. That guidance is underpinned by the latest knowledge of the impact of adult problems, such as domestic violence, alcohol and drug misuse, mental health and sex offending, on children's development. We shall publish the final version of the assessment framework in the next few weeks.

255WH
The new "Working Together to Safeguard Children" guidance and the assessment framework form important components of a wide-ranging programme of work across Government to strengthen protection for children and improve the support given to vulnerable children and families.
Earlier, I referred to child sexual exploitation and prostitution. The Government take seriously the threat posed by those who would exploit children for sexual purposes. There are no accurate national figures on the number of young people abused through prostitution. However, Barnardos recently conducted a survey of 48 agencies in England, Scotland and Wales. It reported being in contact with 55 young boys and 267 girls under the age of 16 and 94 young boys and 338 young women aged between 16 and 18 whom its staff believed to be involved in prostitution. Of course, the actual numbers are likely to be far higher than the figure of 750 in the Barnardos survey. It is therefore absolutely essential that we have a strong and effective system in place to protect children who are involved in, or at risk of becoming involved in, prostitution.
In December 1998, the Department of Health and the Home Office published draft guidance on children involved in prostitution which sets out a new multi-agency approach, based on local agreements, to address these problems. It establishes that the primary law enforcement effort must be against abusers and coercers who break the law and who should therefore be called to account. It stresses that children who are involved in prostitution and other forms of commercial sexual exploitation should be treated first and foremost as the victims of abuse. Their needs require careful assessment. The final guidance will be issued in the spring, but we know that a lot of excellent work is already taking place across the country.
Last month, for example, at the first ever social care awards ceremony at Lancaster house, I presented Nottingham social services with a prize. It was the overall national winner for its project on a multi-agency approach to child sexual exploitation. That ground-breaking project, which is a joint venture involving the police and local voluntary organisations, is preventing many vulnerable young boys and girls from ending up or being trapped in the world of prostitution.
Another important part of the Government's strategy is the preparation of the first national plan to combat the commercial sexual exploitation of children. The United Kingdom was a leading participant at the 1996 Stockholm world congress to combat the commercial sexual exploitation of children. We agreed on an agenda for action, one of the key features of which was for each signatory state to provide a national agenda for action by the year 2000 with indicators of progress and set goals and time frames. We will meet that obligation in full. We consulted last year about what should be in the national plan. A steering group consisting of Government Departments, statutory organisations represented by the Association of Directors of Social Services and the Association of Chief Police Officers and wider voluntary organisations, including Barnardos and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, has been taking forward that work. We intend to publish the plan in the summer.
256WH
But protection is not enough. We must ensure that all children have the love, care and support that children need for the whole of their childhood and that the children for whom social services are responsible gain maximum life chances from education and other opportunities. In particular, we want to see looked-after children achieving more at school and more care leavers in training, education or employment; we want to see fewer moves between placements for children who are looked after by local authorities and the level of offending among looked-after children brought down. Where appropriate, we want to see children being adopted without undue delay and we also want to see better service for disabled children. Those are tough objectives, but we believe that they are achievable. Indeed, they must be achieved if we are not to continue letting these children down.
"Quality Protects" has been grasped with enthusiasm by all concerned. No one challenges the need to transform the quality of care and the chances in life of our most vulnerable children. The challenge for us now is to make that happen. In the programme's second year, the challenge for local authorities will be fully to implement their action plans, improve services and achieve much better outcomes for children and young people. Next year, we are increasing the grant from £75 million to £120 million and we expect to see real improvements delivered in return for those extra resources. In the third year of "Quality Protects", the grant will rise to £180 million.
The early evidence is that we are starting to deliver on our objectives. All authorities expect to be meeting their statutory duties to inspect children's homes by the end of March. We have also seen an increase in the number of adoptions and in the support that is given to care leavers. Increasingly, councils are listening to what young people have to say about their futures.
One of the key priorities for "Quality Protects" is to improve the supply and choice of placement options for looked-after children. One important choice is adoption. Research shows clearly that, in general, adopted children make good progress through their childhood and into adulthood compared with children who remain in the care system. Adoption provides them with a unique opportunity for a fresh start as permanent members of a new and stable family, allowing them to enjoy a sense of security and well-being that has so far been denied them in their young lives. The Department of Health 1998 circular "Adoption—Achieving the Right Balance" has had a strong impact on adoption practice. I am pleased to say that our monitoring shows that most local authorities have reviewed and taken action to improve their adoption services. I am also pleased that 200 more children found adoptive families in 1998–99 than in the previous year. That is approximately an 11 per cent. increase, which is good news; however, much remains to be done.
We recently launched the publication "Messages from Research—Adoption Now" which shows how adoption has changed. We know that there are now few babies needing adoption. We also know that many adopted children have faced great difficulties and that some are disabled. We are actively considering how we can promote more co-operation between statutory and voluntary bodies in this field. But we must also tackle the problem of delays in the adoption process on the

257WH
part of local authorities and the courts. We have recently commissioned research on how we can minimise such delays. It will consider evidence from authorities with different records on adoption and it will also examine the role of the courts. At the same time, the president of the family division's adoption committee is looking at measures to reduce delays in adoption proceedings in the courts.
We must modernise our adoption service to meet new circumstances. We need modern standards of service from the moment that someone expresses an interest in being an adoptive parent through to post-adoption support. Such services must be quick, supportive and professional.
We also need to ensure that good-quality foster care is available. At the moment, despite the fact that there are around 32,000 existing foster carers, there is a national shortage. I am pleased to say that work is under way to develop the first national foster care recruitment campaign. It will be run by a steering group consisting of the Department of Health, the National Foster Care Association, the ADSS and the Local Government Association. That is an excellent example of how central and local government and the voluntary sector can work in partnership for the benefit of young people. I hope that the campaign will lead more people to consider taking up the unique challenge of caring for children from other families by becoming foster carers.
To support and supplement that work we have introduced, for the first time, national standards for foster care. We have asked local authorities to put more effort into better support and retention of our foster carers. Foster care can be a challenging and demanding task. Too many foster carers give up because of a lack of support. We must invest in ensuring that foster carers receive all the training and support that they need in order to gain and develop the appropriate skills. I am delighted to say that, in the first year of "Quality Protects", local authorities allocated nearly £30 million of the £75 million that was available to them in the grant to support their local placement and adoption services. That was money well spent and I am sure that it will continue to make a big impact.
I am also pleased that services for care leavers are starting to improve. For some time we have been concerned about the support that they receive from local authorities. Every year about 5,000 young people aged between 16 and 17 leave local authority care. There has been an increasing trend towards discharging young people from care early. The proportion of care leavers aged 16 to 18 who left care at the age of 16 increased from 33 per cent. in 1993 to 46 per cent. in 1998. That is a trend that we must reverse. It has resulted in too many children leaving care without a single qualification and too many being unemployed and homeless.
The Government believe that care leavers should be able to expect support from their parent—the local authority. That is why the Children (Leaving Care) Bill gives local authorities a new duty to assess and meet their needs, from their needs for the essentials of living—accommodation and maintenance—to their needs for development. Those needs will include needs for education and for training, any special needs and the ordinary needs that any child has when learning how to
258WH
live independently: how to shop, how to manage a budget and how to cater for themselves. The Bill obliges local authorities to provide a young person's adviser and a pathway plan for all eligible young people. The latter will map out a route to independence for these young people, including a consideration of when they might be ready to leave care. There will no longer be any incentive to push young people out of care until they are ready to go.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: On that point, does my hon. Friend accept that the statutory age up to which young people leaving care are the responsibility of local authorities should be set at 21 rather than 18? Such an approach has been advocated by all leading child care organisations and by Sir William Utting, who spoke in support of it only last month. Does my hon. Friend further agree that statutory responsibility should be extended to the age of 24 for young people in higher education?
Mr. Hutton: I agree. My hon. Friend takes a close interest in these matters and he should remind himself of what we said in the document entitled "Who, Me, Survive Out There?" There are strong arguments for increasing the duty to cover young people up to the age of 21, but we have tried to make our position clear. As such a responsibility would be new and additional and would carry financial implications for local authorities, we would want to extend the current duty only when resources were available to deal with the new burden. I do not, however, disagree with my hon. Friend; of course 21 is the optimal age. The average age at which young people who are not being looked after by local authorities leave the family home is about 22. That must be addressed sooner rather than later.
As many hon. Members will know, beacon status has recently been awarded to four local authorities for their excellence in helping care leavers. The specialist leaving care teams in those local authorities have developed some excellent programmes. They are aimed at developing new partnerships with statutory and voluntary sector bodies to deliver high-quality services in housing, health and education. The authorities have also been developing innovative methods to assist care leavers in preparing and planning for adult life and have undertaken initiatives on education and employment for young people, which are aimed at providing basic skills training and intensive support to sustain young people on college and training placements. Finally, the authorities have been involving young people in shaping and influencing the development of high-quality local services.
We are determined that all authorities should give care leavers high-quality services. Local authorities were instructed to explain in their second management action plans produced under the "Quality Protects" programme how they were improving services to care leavers and putting in place plans to implement the new approach. The new arrangements for young people in and leaving care will link closely to the development of the new ConneXions service for young people aged 13 to 19, which was launched this morning. This new, joined-up, modern service will connect services provided locally to young people and will radically transform the support that they receive as they make the transition

259WH
from adolescence to adult and working life. It will also raise the expectations and aspirations of young people of all abilities and from all backgrounds by ensuring that they receive the support and advice that they need to make a success of their lives, when and where they need it.
The new arrangements are a complex and ambitious undertaking that will require a lot of detailed and ground-breaking work. We are determined to build on what works best for the future. I am especially pleased that councils have begun to listen to children and young people in their areas. Listening to children helps to protect them from harm and low expectations. If children speak up and are heard, abuse is less likely to happen. Children and young people demand and need a voice in all decisions that are taken about them. That should apply not only to the big issues such as education, health and placements, but to day-to-day big issues such as pocket money, sleepovers and bedtimes. Young people can and want to contribute to making the care system more effective. Children's participation will help local authorities provide higher quality and more effective services. It will also help them to implement one of the key responsibilities under the best value requirements. Councils must become more responsive to the people to whom they supply services, including young people.
To practise what we preach, we are organising a series of regional events that will occur later this year and at which I and senior members of the Department of Health will hear directly from looked-after children. To plan the events, we are working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the ADSS and a small project team of young people from A National Voice, the National Children's Bureau and Save the Children. The activities are designed to ensure that the views of children and young people on day-to-day issues such as pocket money, being listened to, finding a flat, support for learning at school and funding for higher and further education are heard. There will be separate discussion activities for adults. We should like the events to give children and young people locally a chance to hear about "Quality Protects" and local and national activities.
Improving services for disabled young children is a key priority for "Quality Protects". We know from inspections and research that disabled children receive a poor service. The Government also recognise the needs of parent carers of disabled children.
The Carers and Disabled Children Bill, which I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) for promoting—it has its Second Reading tomorrow—introduces direct payments for parents of disabled children to purchase the services that they have been assessed as needing. That will provide much greater choice and flexibility for those families.
Following an assessment of the needs of the disabled child and the child's family, the social services department will discuss with the family the options for receiving a service. They will be able to receive a service that is provided either by the local authority or by a provider that is commissioned by the local authority. In addition, instead of a service, the family can receive a direct payment to purchase a service of the family's choice. For example, following an assessment, it may be
260WH
decided that the family should receive support to care for their disabled child. The local authority could offer a weekend break for the disabled child every other weekend or a direct payment to cover the cost of that service. We are confident that parent carers will find that a significant step forward, and that together the new measures will make a marked improvement in the support that is provided to parent carers.
I recognise that, for "Quality Protects" to be a success, authorities need to be able to recruit and retain staff. For "Quality Protects" and the whole social care modernisation agenda, local authorities and other employers need to be able to recruit and retain staff of the right calibre and number. A high-quality work force is essential to the delivery of high-quality services.
We are well aware of the concerns expressed in the media and directly to us by local government about the shortages of professionally qualified social workers and other care staff that jeopardise our modernisation plans and "Quality Protects" in particular. It is important to see that against a general background in which the social work work force has been fairly stable. The latest data show that vacancies for social workers are at the lowest level for a decade. Vacancies have declined from 10 per cent. in 1990 to 7 per cent. in 1998. Turnover rates over the same period have also declined from 14 per cent. to 8.5 per cent. Those overall trends mask particular difficulties in some service sectors and some parts of the country, which may be exacerbated by the demands of service developments like "Quality Protects".
It is the responsibility of local authorities in the first place to address their work force needs. The Government are not the employer. We are therefore particularly pleased that the Local Government Association has recently taken an initiative to set up a work force task group with the express purpose of identifying practical measures that can have a more immediate impact.
Dr. Brand: It was good to hear that the number of vacancies has fallen, but could the Minister tell me how many social workers were employed over the same period?
Mr. Hutton: I could, but not now.
It is true that the number of people who are enrolling for professional social work training courses is declining substantially. I think that applications have dropped by nearly 50 per cent. in the past six or seven years. That is a serious worry. Fortunately, the number of students who go on to those courses has remained broadly stable. It has fallen by about 10 per cent. But we need to do more; I am not pretending otherwise, and I shall say more about that later.
The Government have a role to play. It is not just the responsibility of local authorities. We are partners in the process. We have agreed with the LGA to build on this early work, and to work on a programme of action for implementation over a longer time scale together with wider employment interests throughout the whole social care sector, not just public authorities. We are, therefore, making arrangements for a work force summit to be held by the end of March. Among the issues to be discussed at that summit will be: addressing the image and status of social care, including conditions

261WH
of service, family-friendly employment policies, and encouraging return to work among those who are professionally qualified as social workers, but who have left the profession for a variety of reasons; developing the existing work force, including the skill mix; and problems of recruiting students to social work.
The Government are already taking action to raise the quality of social workers and other social care staff. The Care Standards Bill, now being considered in another place, provides for the creation of the General Social Care Council. That body will have a statutory duty to promote high standards through codes of conduct and practice for all social care staff. We have already commissioned the initial drafting of those codes, and the council will have the necessary powers to ensure that social work training is fit for the purpose.
In the next few weeks, we expect to publish the reports of the external consultants whom we engaged to advise us on the content and delivery of professional social work training. We are currently considering our response to those reports, with a view to implementing a programme of substantial reform of professional social work training.
The Government accept that to build the ethos of excellence in social services that we all desire, we need the whole social care work force to attain the highest standards. It is salutary to remind ourselves that, of the million-strong work force in social care, 80 per cent. have no qualification of any sort. So low a level of qualification is unacceptable.
The essence of modernising social services lies in raising standards. We must have a new ethos of excellence, not excuses. We must drive up standards and drive out failure. At their best, social service authorities are capable of just that sort of excellence. That is why we shall shortly issue a quality strategy Green Paper for social services. The quality strategy is the Government's next step in a modernising agenda for social care. It will set a national framework for raising local standards, reducing unacceptable variations in practice and achieving an ethos of excellence in social services. It will build and consolidate existing initiatives to improve quality, two of which I have already mentioned: the National Care Standards Commission and the General Social Care Council. The quality strategy will propose the creation of a new institution to support the drive for quality and a social care institute for excellence. It will emphasise partnerships: with users and carers to define quality services; between the new and existing institutions in social and health care concerned with quality; and with local government and other stakeholders to develop and implement strategy, spread good practice and support change at local level.
In conclusion, "Quality Protects" is a key part of our strategy to raise the quality of social services. Through "Quality Protects", we shall work in partnership with local authorities and the voluntary sector to bring about the improvements that we need. This is a phased and monitored programme. There is no question of waiting until 2002 to achieve what must be done, because children cannot wait that long. We are taking action now to get the management and services right. Through the "Quality Protects" programme, we will help the most vulnerable children in society in ways that we have
262WH
previously been unable to help them. Our expectations for such children have been too low for far too long, and we can no longer afford to let them fail because the future costs for them and for society as a whole are too great.
3.8 pm
Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I am disappointed to see Westminster Hall so empty this afternoon for such an important debate. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the Waterhouse report, which will make an important contribution to the debate on children's services, is due to be published "shortly"—I believe that was the word that the Minister used in response to a written question from the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins). The information that I have from the House of Commons Library is that that report is due to be published on 7 February so, in some ways, it is unfortunate that this debate is taking place now. Had that report already been published, I am sure that the Chamber would be full. I expect it to prompt us to ask many questions, not necessarily in a party political way—I believe that debates in Westminster Hall are intended to be somewhat less party political than some others—but because, as the Minister said, as politicians, we must together try to do something about children's services, with their tragic history. I am sure that the report will raise important points, which we will want to debate.
Mr. Hutton: I reassure the hon. Lady that we do not intend to circumvent or truncate debate on Mr. Justice Waterhouse's report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will make a statement, and there will be plenty of opportunities for hon. Members on both sides of the House to question him and raise other issues. The timing of today's debate has nothing to do with the publication of the Waterhouse report.
Mrs. Spelman: I accept that the timing of today's debate is an unfortunate coincidence.
There is no room for complacency in discussing children's services. I have had to come up to speed on this subject at fairly short notice and I was struck by the history of one inquiry after another investigating abuse of children in care. I was left depressed by that, and by the thought that, tragically, more may emerge. We shall probably have to deal with the outfall from serious abuse cases for many years.
There is no question but that the "Quality Protects" programme and the resources directed to it by the Government are helpful, and it would be churlish to say otherwise. It is still early days, but good progress is being made, above all in getting agencies to work together. Paramount is the genuine sense that the most important group in all this—the children—will be listened to.
The Minister, in a debate about the special grants for children's services under the "Quality Protects" programme in July, admitted:
"More recently, social services inspectorate reports and joint reviews have demonstrated that the quality of children's services is inconsistent".—[Official Report, Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 22 July 1999; c. 3.]
I went, for the most up-to-date statistics available, to the Department's website. The most recent figures in the bulletin of provisional statistics for children looked after

263WH
by local authorities are for the year ending 31 March 1999. Sadly, they reveal plenty of inconsistencies. The average number of children looked after in the local population per 10,000 children is 47, but it varies from just eight per 10,000 in Rutland to 124 per 10,000 in Kingston upon Hull. We can readily understand that in terms of a correlation with social deprivation or social breakdown in different places, but I was much more alarmed by the variation that was shown in the quality of services.
The Minister has mentioned the concern that exists about the impact of frequent changes of placement for looked-after children. The Department has set a national target of 16 per cent. for the number of children with three or more placements in a year. My eye was immediately caught by the figure of 38 per cent. for my local authority, Solihull, compared with the national average of 19.3 per cent. for the year ending 31 March 1998. I looked into the matter and found that, although a small local authority might have the average number of available foster places, it would lack the range necessary to provide a good match. The lesson was learned that a small authority must strive for an above average number of foster places to get an adequate range. Matching is the key to stability in placing children, especially those aged 14 plus who are probably the most difficult to place.
Mr. Brian White: Does the hon. Lady accept that there can be a problem with remoteness in larger authorities? Milton Keynes went from being under Buckinghamshire county council to being a new, much smaller unitary authority. Under the original arrangements, the problems had resulted from remoteness and the fact that decisions were taken well away from where people actually lived.
Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman knows better than I that a range of difficulties is associated with large authorities. But living on the shoulder of a large authority in Birmingham, I am well aware of such comparisons and contrasts. On balance, it is undoubtedly more difficult to provide quality services in larger authorities, and to deliver a joined-up approach within local government, because of the scale involved. The silo walls between departments somehow seem that much higher in larger authorities. The hon. Gentleman's point was well made.
I am pleased to note from the figures submitted to the Department on Monday that my local authority's change of strategy in seeking actively to increase the number of foster places available to get the good match has reduced the average frequency of placement among children in its care to the national average. It shows that lessons learned and applied can deliver the results needed.
The flow of children in and out of care reveals the lack of real progress made with older children, especially boys, who are the most difficult to place back in the community. I encountered a strange attitude to children aged 14 plus among the professionals who deliver the service. I was told that, in their view, it was inappropriate to try to place children in foster or adoptive care at that age. I find that attitude difficult to understand. In Northern Ireland, there is a unique register of the 50 older children a year requiring a family.
264WH
By a proactive approach, it has proved possible to place children happily in an adoptive setting, even those aged 14 plus. We may successfully be able to apply lessons learned from Northern Ireland in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The lottery of provision can be harsh for the life chances of looked-after children. One of the major models for the purposes of contrast is local authorities that successfully place children with foster parents and subsequently find the children a long-term stable environment with adoptive parents. At the end of March 1997, nearly 11,000 children were placed in local authority care and in registered children's homes in England, but only 1,500 were adopted from public care. Almost half those came into care because they had been neglected or abused, and half were placed in care before they were a year old, half of whom were babies under one month. Four out of five were never returned to their natural parents. On average, children waited two years after coming into care before they were placed with families that would later adopt them. I am pleased that the number of adopted children has risen by 11 per cent. in the past year, but there is still a long way to go.
I challenge local authorities to become more proactive about helping children out of institutional care and into long-term, stable family environments. That might involve returning children to their natural parents with adequate support, or finding adoptive parents for them.
There is much in the expression "adequate support". I am sure that hon. Members will have had experience of constituency cases similar to my own. I had a case just last month of a child aged nine who suddenly appeared on the doorstep of his former neighbour. The child was barely clothed and without shoes, having run away from home after yet more physical abuse of the sort that the former neighbour had witnessed before the child's family had moved away. The child begged her to look after him. Social services became involved, and asked the neighbour to take the child in because no suitable foster place was available. She agreed to do that but, because she had three children of her own and was of limited means, she asked for financial provision for the child. She came to me because the financial provision was intermittent—she might receive a cheque but then nothing for another six weeks, which made it difficult to plan the household budget. She is aware that the child needs psychological help, and has flagged that up to social services. The child had had no formal education at school from the age of five. Social services holds her responsible for getting him to school every day, but it is difficult to keep him there. She is convinced that he needs psychological help, but it is not forthcoming.
Despite going through the hoops of all the checks to become a registered foster carer, she still does not receive the financial support that she was promised at the outset. That is a good illustration of the way in which, despite all the fine words, the system fails such people, as we practitioners on the receiving end of such circumstances know.
There have been repeated and urgent calls for an overhaul of adoption laws, to which we, the official Opposition, have added our voice. Adoption services vary widely across the country, as parents seeking to adopt are all too aware. The British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering was commissioned by the

265WH
Department to study the adoption policies of 115 local authorities. Some had a strict policy of refusing foster carers the right to adopt children, even when they had a good settled relationship. Such an anomaly is difficult for the ordinary person to understand.
I have another constituency case that highlights the problem caused by the inconsistent application of rules between local authorities. A couple who already had four children of their own, but who regularly used to foster disabled children, were asked to take in a new-born baby because the young mother was unwell. They fostered the child for two years because of the delays that ensued over the suitability and capability of the mother to take the child back, and the uncertainty over the child's future.
Two years is a long time in a child's life. That time might be crucial for the child to establish a bond with the adults looking after it. The couple had fostered the child for two years and had come to the point of enfolding it into their family, although they had not wished to adopt at the outset. Having reached the perfectly intelligible human position of not wanting the child whom they had cared and loved to go through the experience of being torn away from the family, they offered to adopt. However, they hit the hard rule that, having been foster carers, they could not adopt the child.
Such anomalies make nonsense of the present adoption laws. I welcome the sign that the Government are considering harmonising some of the rules between local authorities. Parents on the receiving end of our adoption system are all too aware of the anomalies because they compare notes with people living in other local authority areas. They find that what has been denied them has been made available to friends or relatives in other parts of the country. The inequality by postcode must be seriously addressed.
The general lack of resources for recruiting potential adoptive parents from ethnic minorities is ill matched with the desired aim of social services to place a child in the adoptive care of people of the same ethnic origin where possible. The inconsistency must be examined.
The number of adoptions before the 11 per cent. increase was a quarter of what it was two decades ago. Children who entered care after the age of five waited an average of five years before being adopted. Many adopters find that they have little financial or other support for the children whom they have adopted. It is time to rethink the way in which children are treated in our system of social care. When the Waterhouse report is finally published, there will be important lessons to learn. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) will take a great personal interest in the outcome of that report, which he was instrumental in initiating when he was at the Welsh Office.
The Government will need to measure the proposals in the Children (Leaving Care) Bill and the Care Standards Bill against the failures that occurred in children's homes in north Wales. Naivety is a factor in the inadquate protection of children in care. It is born of the simple fact that normal people find it almost impossible to get their minds around the lengths to
266WH
which the depraved will go to prey on children. Many of us in public life have been guilty of naivety in relation to the need to protect children more thoroughly.
The NSPCC is right when it says that the key to protecting children in care is independence. I support its call for an independent UK children's commissioner who has statutory powers to act as a child protection and welfare watchdog. How will the new UK children's rights director fit the role that the NSPCC envisages for an independent commissioner? Perhaps the roles are similar. I want the Minister to assure me that the director will be truly independent.
Indpendence is the key from the top to the bottom of the system. The NSPCC also calls for an independent visitor for all children in care. That person should be a safe, adult, trained friend with a child's best interests at heart. In another place, the noble Lord Hunt of Kings Heath gave the desirable specifications for people who might fulfil the role of a young person's adviser. The list included social workers, foster carers, teachers, careers advisers and, at the bottom, voluntary workers. The voluntary sector should not be marginalised from the independent role of an adviser to a young person. Many of the other people are seen as authority figures by children and are linked to the system that they believe has failed them. What about appointing properly trained adults who have been in care? They would understand what it is like. Having got out and got on with their lives successfully, they could offer a role model to young children that might help them to get away from the downward spiral of lack of educational attainment, unemployment, homelessness and crime that all too often occurs in life after care.
How independent are aspects of "Quality Protects"? As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) in last July's debate explained:
"One problem is that the same management who failed to tackle the needs of children in our area"—
Hillingdon—
"have also prepared the management action plans"—[Official Report, Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 22 July 1999: c. 7.]
under the "Quality Protects" scheme. When a local authority is the substantial provider of care, it is imperative that the assessment of the adequacy of that provision is independent. Perhaps that could be provided by a neighbouring authority.
Another dreadful case of child abuse in residential care came to light by the intervention of a neighbouring local authority. A person who was appointed to run a children's home in the borough of Lambeth subsequently applied to be a foster parent in the neighbouring local authority area of Wandsworth. It was only when Wandsworth was making the customary checks that it was discovered that the applicant had a criminal record of sexual offence. It alerted the neighbouring authority to the problem, but it was a matter of years before anything was done. A conviction in court was successfully achieved only last year, in Liverpool. That is a salutary example of how exposed and vulnerable children can be at risk for long periods, even when a neighbouring local authority is aware of a problem. A large number of children suffered through the lack of independence in the process and it was a long time before the matter came to court.

267WH
The most important thing about the independent assessment is that it must be seen to work, and whoever conducts it must have teeth. That is where an independent commissioner would have a clear role. The care system may be safer today, but it is not safe enough. One abused child in care is one too many. We all have a responsibility towards children in care and we must do everything in our power to improve the present system and to ensure that we do not let them down.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should inform hon. Members that a Division may occur at 4 o'clock. In such an event, I shall suspend our sitting for 15 minutes and ask hon. Members who wish to continue to participate to return promptly.
3.31pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate in Westminster Hall. The opportunity to debate for some three hours a matter as important as children and social security, which would not in the normal run of events receive the scrutiny that it deserves, is welcome. Indeed, it is a shame that there are so many empty seats when we are discussing such a vital topic.
For 15 years before entering the House, I worked in children's services and latterly managed residential care, foster care, adoption and day care services for children in Lancashire. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) about the Waterhouse inquiry. It is obviously essential that the House should debate the report in full when it is published. I am glad, however, that today's debate precedes that inquiry.
In all of our discussions about children and social services, we are tempted to stress only the very real and serious problems of social care, but I should like to redress that balance in some respects. I do not know of any hon. Member who has come away from a meeting of the all-party group for children and young people in care and leaving care, of which I am chairman, without having been enormously impressed with the knowledge, ability, commitment and sheer intelligence and resilience of the young people who have attended and who have come through the care system. There are terrible cases of young people who have been failed and let down by that system, with disastrous results for their lives. However, we should always acknowledge, bearing in mind the parlous circumstances in which the care service has been, the many young people who have come through with courage, resilience, intelligence and fortitude. Such people have often made great successes of their lives and been a great credit to themselves. I shall not name the young people who have been involved with the group for fear of omitting some who have also made excellent contributions. Children and young people in care are a great resource; I look forward to their benefiting more from the care system and thus being able to give more to the country in future.
I want to say some positive things about people in social work. I winced when the hon. Member for Meriden was talking about institutional care, which brought visions of the workhouse and Oliver Twist. That is very far from the experience of the dedicated people who have given their lives to working in
268WH
residential care, creating a homely, caring environment in ordinary streets and towns where some young people choose to be, rather than staying at home, going into foster case or being adopted.
It is important to reflect on the social work task when we consider the subject. It is tempting to say that all Members of Parliament do constituency work so we are all, in a sense, social workers, because we give advice. Recently, a teacher told me that social work was what teachers did in their free time after school had finished. I do not agree with those views of social work; the task is much larger than that, and fundamentally different from it. Social work is a craft and a skill. I was not good at it, but I know some people who are. They are people whom I respect absolutely; they listen well, with more than just their ears, they pick up subtleties, they are intuitive, they build professional relationships and they have an unconditional, positive regard for some of the most unlikely people.
Social workers keep an unerring eye on the best interests of a child when they are under pressure themselves from all sides, including their own organisations, and they do so even when they are verbally or physically threatened by other organisations. Social workers do the most delicate work with the most vulnerable people, helping them to face and sometimes to embrace the most difficult decisions that people will ever have to take, such as the decision to give a child up for adoption.
They have to decide when parenting is not good enough and a child needs to be removed from home, and when circumstances have changed enough for a child to go back home. They encounter the most vile abuse and neglect and stay sane and decent; they have a sense of humour and an ability to be creative and imaginative. They have to be able to write a report that clearly expresses the truth and to give evidence that stands up. They can put up with smart barristers and with ignorant, insensitive people who are in responsible positions. They can build trust with people who have every reason to be distrustful of them, of adults, of authority; they are people who can keep enduring, and keep on keeping on.
Good child care social workers should be well paid, intelligently supervised, properly valued and supported by employing organisations. They need first-class post-qualification training and time to recuperate and recharge. If some people that I know were listening to the debate, they would probably anticipate the sound of pigs' wings flapping through Westminster Hall, but until Members of Parliament show that they value social workers—I was so pleased to hear the Minister speak of the social care institute for excellence—we shall never have the high-class service that vulnerable children need.
Yesterday, I asked some former colleagues for their comments on the current situation in children's social services. I have also been reading the Children Act report, an excellent publication that summarises much of the research that has been carried out into the workings of the Children Act 1989 between 1995 and 1999. Some of the views that were expressed to me yesterday resonate with the views set out in the report. The report says:
"Commitment to working in partnership with parents was strong but sometimes led to excessive attempts to rehabilitate children home."

269WH
That is similar to the view expressed to me that there can be too much commitment to partnership with parents, especially in cases involving drug or alcohol dependency. In such cases, workers feel that too much emphasis is often placed on the needs of parents, sometimes to the detriment of the children.
Mr. White: Does my hon. Friend realise that one of the problems that social workers encounter is trying to fit their priorities into the priorities of other agencies? Often, the most difficult hurdle to overcome is to get other agencies to recognise the issues that affect them.
Mr. Dawson: I certainly do recognise that and I shall return to that issue later.
Perhaps most worrying is the refocusing agenda. We heard from the Minister about how child protection services are being developed and revised in light of research findings, with a recommendation that there should be a refocusing of children's services away from what was regarded as an over-emphasis on child protection conferences and statutory child protection measures towards a more family-oriented and preventive service.
We are at an early stage in that process, but I have heard many concerns expressed that the refocusing of services is clouding the issues of child protection without necessarily helping children or parents. That may be related to issues of resources. Certainly, people talk about a lack of resources and a lack of trained social workers. People talk about the length and drawn-out nature of care proceedings and about an apparently genuine confusion about section 8 orders under the Children Act 1989. Apparently, in my constituency, there is no use at all of child assessment or family assistance orders. Of course, the Act is only as good as the local authority that implements it. That is only a snapshot, but it is a very recent one and one that comes from very experienced and capable people.
I promise not to take up the rest of the afternoon and to conclude my remarks by the time that we go to vote, but I think that the messages from inspection contained in this recently published report are instructive, and I should like to speak about some of them. In doing so, I shall come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White).
The document speaks of an overwhelming impression of lack of strategic planning across local authorities. I can relate to that impression, bearing in mind the huge departments that deal with education and social services and which are based in the same local authorities but often appear to live in different worlds. Sometimes they will work with the same individuals but have completely different priorities and there will be a dramatic lack of communication. Even with a lot of good will, we must recognise the problems of trying to match the objectives of shire county councils with those of district councils, of co-ordinating the policies of health trusts with those of local authorities and of matching the different disciplines of psychology, psychiatry and social work amidst key procedures to protect children and to prioritise need.
What passes for policy making often ends up driven by finance rather than dealt with as carefully costed social work priorities. We should bear in mind the ease
270WH
with which a fad or ideology can drive policy that should be rooted in the participation of children and parents and in the rich knowledge and experience of people at the coalface, who are doing the fieldwork in children's homes and foster care. Such policy should be driven by a Government who are committed to improving quality standards in care. A stifling bureaucracy and sheer lack of vision often undermine flexibility and creativity in local authorities. I am heartily glad that the Secretary of State has put local authorities on their mettle to plan and deliver much better services.
The Children Act report also mentions a lack of long-term perspectives in care plans and refers to crisis-driven work. In my experience, a lot of care work was crisis driven and done with an absolute emphasis on child protection. However, we have heard that, when services are refocused, sheer lack of resources, skill and flexibility often leaves worrying gaps through which children might fall.
One success story referred to throughout the Children Act report is family centres, which in my experience have been very successful. They can get closer to parents than statutory powers and can provide the skilled and intensive work that so many families need. We are still a long way, however, from achieving the networks of family centres that we must have. I was disappointed that the supporting families document, which was excellent in all other respects, signally failed to mention the role and work of family centres. I duly took the matter up with the Home Secretary.
Lack of long-term planning undermines placements and adoption, which is the epitome of careful planning and permanence. Adoption is a very important option for children and is easily the best way of catering for the long-term security needs of some children. I have placed children for adoption, and I do not suppose that I shall ever do anything more important. I have also assessed prospective adopters. However, I would not want adoption to be thought of as some sort of panacea as there are lots of other options. We need high-quality residential care. We have heard from the Minister about the importance of supporting foster care properly with better professional support and about the importance of financial support for foster carers. Local social workers need more opportunity, more time and more support to carry out the careful work with families and children that allows them to be safely reunited. The vast majority of children who enter care go back home. It is important to make that return home stick. Children cannot bounce in and out of the care system throughout their childhood.
There are serious concerns about adoption. Government guidance has been sensible and in line with what people would regard as basic good practice. In some quarters, there is the idea that social workers and local authorities are ideologically opposed to adoption. I do not know enough about social workers or local authorities to deny that, but I suspect that problems with adoption have more to do with the mundane reality of chronically overstretched social workers who have to deal with day-to-day priorities. Adoption is a difficult long-term process. It involves finding the correct adopters and making the placement, which is playing God in itself, and preparing children for that move.

271WH
We need a new Adoption Act. The Adoption Act 1976 predates the Children Act 1989. We should bring adoption firmly in line with the 1989 Act. There should be a statutory duty to provide better support for parents and children post adoption. Some of the worst cases are when adoptions break down. Adolescent years are often challenging. Adopted children might have an idea their parents are much better than the lot they have been stuck with. That is a real challenge. Those cases are tragic.
We need better support for all placements. Foster carers need training and realistic financial help. Residential workers should have real career prospects. They receive training, but unless they are absolutely dedicated, they leave the sector as quickly as possible to go into fieldwork. If they do not, they will end up working long anti-social hours. But residential workers provide the best opportunity to build long-term relationships with children and perform good, creative social work. Their role is fundamental to the system. Until we sort out that problem, the residential care sector will continue to be prone to scandal.
We do not have enough placements. The Minister talked about the reduction of placements for children aged 16 and over. That reveals a disgraceful statistic. In 1992, 12,200 children in placement were aged 16 or over; by 1998, there were only 9,400. Maths is not my strength, but that is nearly a 25 per cent. reduction in placements for children aged 16 and over. Thousands of young people have been ejected from care on to the streets or into inadequate accommodation. There is another worrying statistic. One local authority has 26 per cent. of its cases unallocated. It is creating an appalling rod for its own back because there is a child care tragedy waiting to happen.
The Government face a shocking legacy of neglect. There is a serious staffing problem. The service has been denigrated for too long, and is riven with crisis and scandal. We need to move on and I am so pleased to hear about the proposal for a work force summit. It is commendable that the Government are starting to address these issues.
There is provision in the Care Standards Bill for a general social care council, and new provision for training and post-qualifying training. "Quality Protects" enjoins all local authorities to be good corporate parents and reminds me of that universal measure of all things in social work for children—the question, "Would this be good enough for my child?" When that is taken to heart, it clarifies things right away. There is no stronger message to give to people in local authorities in positions of responsibility, so that they may be held accountable. We need serious investment. We need management action plans. We need the closest scrutiny of those plans and of the work of local authorities to ensure that they deliver and that, where they do not, someone else does. Some things need to go further. The commitment to care leavers needs to be developed now, not just at some unspecified time in future. The commitment and the investment in "Quality Protects" must go on and on and on.
Splendid initiatives such as A National Voice need to be encouraged. The voices of children and young people who are looked after should be heard in every local authority and throughout the Department of Health. It is great that the Government have employed young
272WH
people from care in the Department of Health. That should be an exemplar for local authorities throughout the land. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Meriden talk about the employment of care leavers as mentors and independent visitors to young people in care. There is a vast untapped resource of skill, experience and commitment. We should use that absolutely.
However, at the end of the day the Government need to emphasise that the profession of social work with children and families is good work, as well as hard work. Many people in it, despite all the scandals, the lack of resources and the problems, do great work. They can be encouraged to do even better and we can get more people to do more. I hope that we can attract many more to something so often vilified but which is an appropriate and rewarding career for the very best people in this country.
3.58 pm
Dr. Peter Brand: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) who spoke not only sensitively but with knowledge and common sense. That should be valued. I was especially pleased that as chair of the all-party group he reminded us that there are often good outcomes from care. We tend to forget that sometimes.
The Minister was right when he said that children are our future. How we treat our children determines our future. It is good to be reminded of the cycle of deprivation—of people who do not have the expectation of a job because their parents and grandparents did not have a job. The abused so often go on to be the abusers. Children treated as criminals often end up as criminals. It saddens me when I go around the prisons in my constituency, especially Camp Hill, to see how many inmates who are locked up for minor crimes come from a background in care or one where they were not cared for.
That is the theme of this afternoon's debate. It is about caring for those children. Being in care is a technical term and at times the care element has been missing. Children's social services, like all other social services, depend on teamwork between people of different disciplines and backgrounds. That is especially important for children's social services. There must be close relationships between education departments, health services and the police.
4 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.15 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We have a bare quorum. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) was speaking when the sitting was suspended for the Division.
Dr. Brand: I was talking about teamwork, and I am sorry to have lost some of the team on the way.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre spoke about teamwork. We are often extremely good at producing joint strategic macroplans: indeed, everyone

273WH
thinks that they are wonderful. Those plans are supposed to influence what happens in the various agencies that contribute to the joint planning process. My experience as a family doctor is that, on the whole, people working together at the client-patient level work brilliantly as a team, as they have a common interest in looking after individuals with certain needs. However, my experience is somewhat soured by the lack of a direct connection between the global strategic plan—which usually sounds so good—and the resources devoted to the work at the user-client level. There tend to be blockages at intermediate management level, where people hold budgets for individual resources. Despite all the fine words we hear in the House and the fine aspirations of joint planning, like a shuttlecock, individuals' needs are bounced between education, health and social work departments, often driven by police departments.
Matters have moved in a positive direction in the past few years. I commend the Minister on the initiatives that are being taken. I was ashamed to be a member of a community which, until 10 years ago, had no place of safety for an emotionally disturbed 13-year-old boy, apart from the local police station. The adult psychiatric services would not have him, and our only residential home could not cope with him. Being on an island, we could not ship him to a mainland unit that would take him then and there. Such an occurrence was not infrequent: that must be shaming for a society such as ours.
I am pleased to say that this debate is a sign that we are taking seriously the needs of our children and young people, but we still have some way to go. We are still overly driven by crisis intervention. It is right that a child's safety should come first. However, I sometimes worry about resources in children's units being concentrated on child protection teams rather than used to support and protect children and, more importantly, support families and children as a joint unit. Bewildering things happen to families once children or young people get in touch with or are allocated to a child protection unit. The children are safe, as they are taken into care or out of the difficult situation, but their families are often left without an advocate of their own. There are few opportunities for the families to access a social worker so that they can have things explained to them by someone who to them appears to be more neutral than the person who removed the child in the first place.
Changing access to legal aid may make it more difficult for people to get legal advice in a timely way, especially when very small children are taken into care when physical abuse is suspected. In a career of 20-odd years, I had two cases in which babies were taken into care as a result of non-explained accidental injury. Following a lot of legal advice, matters went to superior courts at a very late stage. That was because, initially, the parents did not know that, once their child had been in care and fostered for a little while, they were at risk of not being able to challenge an adoption decision. In both instances, further medical evidence was submitted to demonstrate that there was a medical explanation for the possible injuries that were detected.
274WH
It is absolutely right that the safety of children comes first. However, resources must be available to ensure a balanced approach so that parents have access to advice and justice. Children are supported by the child protection team and local authority and have a guardian ad litem. Parents often have no one from whom to seek advice and frequently get into a catch-22 situation: unless they admit to something, they will not even be considered for a rehabilitation package with the child. In the majority of cases, that may be the right approach, but it is extraordinarily harsh in relation to cases such as the two that I mentioned. I genuinely believed those parents, although I do not have the skills that a social worker with more experience of such cases has. My findings were endorsed by the courts, yet those parents had been at risk of never seeing their child again. That is not right, so I hope that the Minister will tackle the matter.
Once children are taken into care, it is vital—especially for slightly older children—that the care assessment includes a diagnosis of the problem. Social workers are skilled in assessing the social make-up of a family and the risk elements within it. They also need to find whether the child itself has particular psychological or emotional needs so that an appropriate placement is made. At the moment, emergency action is often taken, a child is placed and it is hoped that the placement will work out. When difficulties associated with the child emerge, a series of placements starts in the hope that eventually the child will end up as a square peg in a square hole and be looked after.
Resources to assess children with psychological or psychiatric problems are desperately lacking. The tribal divide between psychologists and psychiatrists is an enormous hurdle. It is the exception to find a team that works together, rather than as two departments at war, each using valuable resources inappropriately, often not in the interests of the child, and competing with each other. I see some nodding heads, so my experience is not unique. The Department must address that matter. We must determine who should be the lead agency and how to encourage teamwork.
When the child is in care and, we hope, placed in an appropriate foster home, the future must be considered. I am much encouraged by the various initiatives in care management planning that are emerging. It would be helpful if that process were speeded up to provide uniformity in planning so that children taken into care by one authority could go to another after the assessment procedure, and people would know what language was being spoken. It is important to realise that, although fostering is excellent, it covers a wide spectrum of ways to fulfil needs. All foster parents are caring and universally motivated, but they do not all have equal skills or the aptitude, the time or economic resources to do the job. Opportunities are missed because various categories of foster parent may be treated differently.
I agreed with the Minister's predecessor who said that foster caring should be a vocation. That is absolutely appropriate in the majority of instances, but if a foster family is asked to take on one or two particularly difficult children with emotional or physical needs, they need to give more care than one would give one's own child. Those people should be compensated for their lack of employment opportunities and paid for the

275WH
expertise that they acquire. It is not uncommon for those who have worked in our psychiatric or psychology services to want to help on a one-to-one basis and to foster children. Their expertise is an enormous asset. They can provide an alternative to placing a child in a residential home or an expensive residential facility for emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children.
I make a plea that we become more flexible about considering alternative placements. There is no reason why some residential schools could not be used for some children with particular learning or emotional difficulties, provided that the school can cope. That can often be much cheaper than waiting for arrangements to break down and placing children in specialist units which may cost up to £120,000 a year.
I also make a plea that we consider the role of grandparents. It is extremely difficult for grandparents to foster children. It is difficult to bring up children on a state pension. Grandparents are often the only relatives that the child knows, and such placements can often be appropriate. We all know of such examples from our constituencies. I know of a grandparent whose grandchild is in residential care in Birmingham, but Birmingham social services will not even assist the grandparent—or worse, will not ask Isle of Wight social services to assist the grandparent—to discover whether the placement would be appropriate. That is an extraordinary waste, not only of public money but, moreover, of an opportunity for the child. The boundaries, not only in departments and local authorities, but among local authorities, must be looked at.
Adoption is often the best permanent, stable solution for children. I agree with the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), that it is nonsense to preclude foster parents from becoming adoptive parents. It is almost as though a fostering stream is being protected without considering the fact that adoption is often an appropriate placement.
Mr. Dawson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the nonsense of having such an apparently strict rule, but does not he agree that there is a clear distinction between fostering and adoption, and that it is sometimes important to give foster carers a clear message that the foster placement that they are undertaking is not a prelude to adoption because that is not part of the child's care plan?
Dr. Brand: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The problem is that there is another part to the equation: fostering should not involve the permanent care of a child—for two, three, four or five years—because that is extremely unkind if the option to adopt exists. Adoption must always be in the interests of the child, rather than in that of the service.
The Select Committee on Health studied the way in which migrant children used to be treated. The emotional, economic and other pressures that were put on parents to give up their children for adoption are horrifying. Such treatment is not unique to migrant children or to the past. Young women are still put under pressure. They are not told about the benefits that may be available and are pushed—perhaps not by social services departments, but by other organisations—to
276WH
give up their children for adoption. I know that many women still feel guilty about having given in to the awful pressure that they were put under some 30 years ago. We owe those women an apology for not protecting them and allowing them to choose to look after their own child. Whatever happens to the benefit system, I hope that women will not be put in the invidious position of being told that the only way in which their child will be properly cared for is if they give it up for adoption. That cannot be acceptable in a country such as ours.
I was glad to hear the Minister say that his aspiration is to instruct local authorities to care for care leavers until the age of 21. I am afraid that I have gone off aspirations; people either do things or they do not. Merely to have that aspiration is disappointing, given that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) gave a commitment to the Select Committee that the current situation was unsustainable and that any proper parent, including a local authority, would not abandon their children until they had finished further education. The money involved would not be great because of the other benefits and methods used to support such children.
There is not enough liaison between the policy making of the Department of Health and the decisions on local authority funding of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the one hand and the Department of Social Security on the other. Because of the amazing complexity of the situation, we are in danger of gearing our care towards the most easily accessible funding stream. That is the thinking behind my earlier question.
With regard to the funding of supported housing for young care leavers, for example, if the excellent and well-thought-out foyer projects are to depend on housing benefit funding, they will not qualify as residential institutions—for want of a better word. The emphasis would not be on the supported element of the housing that they provide. It appears that they will not come under the supervision of the new inspectorate, which saddens me. These places ought to be giving social support to those who live there—that is their purpose—so they should be brought within those regulations.
We have talked about children who were formerly in care, but the title of today's debate is "Children's Social Services". There is a lot that social services departments, in conjunction with education and health departments, can do to avoid children being formally placed in local authority care. There are particular problems with children who have educational or behavioural difficulties because, as I said, there is still a lot of shuttlecock diplomacy, especially with children who have behavioural or autistic spectrum disorders. Education departments say, "It is not for us because it is not a special educational need", and social services say, "Well, they're in school, so it's not for us to support them." Those parents and their children are getting a raw deal because no one has thought out whose responsibility the children are.
I want to make a plea for the children of my relatives, friends, and neighbours. We sometimes forget that all children have needs, not just the unfortunate ones with special care needs. We need to have a little more input to meet the aspirations and needs of all the children in our communities, through youth clubs—although they are now a bit passé—and outreach workers for those who

277WH
are involved in minor vandalism, drugs or glue sniffing. It is important that we put on the street people who are trusted by young people.
We must do something about allowing young people to make a noise and occasionally let their hair down. The best social provision in my home village is the bus stop, because it is the only place where they can all meet. They are a bloody pain sometimes, but when we complained that they had made a mess of the bus stop, they all turned up one Saturday morning and painted it. They have taken ownership of the bus stop because it is their social gathering place. Supporting that sort of thing informally is probably much more cost-effective than funding yet another youth club somewhere, which might give them access to social interaction one night a week.
We must become much more imaginative. It is good that the Minister and his group are travelling around the country. I suggest that he obtains slots on local radio and gets some of the more outrageous DJs to take part in the process, because until we hear what young people want—I do not know what they want, but I am always happy to listen—we will not target the often minor resources, which nevertheless have an enormous impact, as appropriately as we should.
Although the debate is about social services, I must commend our police authorities who often do much more imaginative work than our local authorities do through social services. They recognise the value of some of those extraneous activities that we middle-aged citizens might not necessarily appreciate and certainly would not want to take part in. There is a need for all young people to explore, find out about themselves and become the citizens of the future.
4.40 pm
Mr. Brian White: I came here to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a brief question. I have no expertise in this and I am not driven by either support for or hatred of social workers, but given the topic and what my local authority has done I thought that I would expand my question into a few comments.
First, I welcome what my hon. Friend said in his introduction. There are a lot of positive initiatives, which I welcome. Like most hon. Members, I have heard horror stories. One of the key messages is that taking children into care has an impact not only on the child but on the rest of the family and the extended family, with all the attendant pressures. There was a group of families in my constituency whose children were taken into care. They got very angry about it and created a group called Families Fight Back, and a number of initiatives were started as a result. That brought home to me a number of the issues that have been raised today.
My local authority was one of the new unitary authorities created in 1997. In the run-up to the creation of Milton Keynes unitary authority and the transfer of Buckingham social services, we carried out a number of consultation exercises, which included children and young people. One clear message that emerged was that the old style of the social services department with its
278WH
silo here, the education department with its silo there, and the housing department with its silo somewhere else was not the right way to organise things. We do not have a housing department, a social services department or an education department; we have a learning and development department, which brings together children, social services, education and economic development because they are all linked, and one person is responsible for it.
We then put adult social services in with housing, because there are many links between housing and adult social services. I believe that we are the only authority in the country to do that. Complications are caused because certain Acts require there to be only one director of social services. But the idea was to create a community of interests so that psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers were all in the same team and dealing with problems in schools. It was no surprise that, during the discussions, the then leader of the council and the current leader of the council—one a housing officer and one a teacher, who came from two totally different viewpoints—both came to the same conclusion. Ironically, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who was the leader of the opposition, came to the same view, but from a health point of view. It was quite an interesting exercise in consultation and cross-party working. To be fair to the Tories, they also agreed the structure, so this is not an attack on them.
One interesting feature that emerged when the social services functions were transferred was that not all the children who were on the register had an allocated social worker—the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) was making. A report identified serious problems that the old shire county social services departments had created over the years. One of the lessons of the creation of unitary authorities and smaller social services departments is that those who carried on the old shire county social services continued the problems into the new unitary authorities. Research needs to be done into that changeover and the opportunities, missed or taken, in the reorganisation of a social services department.
One of the critical points to emerge was that the IT systems were just not up to date. One lesson that I learned was that the investment that was required was needed several years ago, but it must be made available now. I have nothing but praise for the vision of the senior managers of the new authority, who are bringing educational practitioners and social workers into that way of working which crosses and breaks down boundaries.
Interestingly, the hospital trust, the community health trust and now the new primary care group, which is going for trust status, together with the local social services and education departments, have created something called a health forum. It has joint chairs and will tackle issues of cross-departmental and cross-organisational partnership. Although Utting recommended that, unfortunately the Government chose not to accept his recommendation. Perhaps, however, there is hope for the future.
That link with education is important, as is a link into economic development. It is not just about being in schools; it is about jobs and the quality of life. Families that have jobs and are prospering have much better life chances than those with the problems that were being

279WH
picked up by social services. It is critical that organisations, such as the new learning and skills councils and regional development agencies, link back into what children's services are providing. Too often, they think only in terms of their own area, but learning and skills councils can provide tremendous opportunities for 16-year-olds, for example. They must not be allowed to neglect children in care, or to disregard the input that children's social services can make. I hope that when the Government set out the terms of reference for learning and skills councils, they make that point.
One of the problems that many authorities have had over the years is the loss of funding for youth services. I entirely agee with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) that many local authorities have had to switch resources from youth clubs to outreach work and community development. Again, in my experience, that leads to innovative ideas on the ground about how to get young people to interact socially. There are various examples of such ideas throughout the country, but it is important that the informal links that tend to be created do not get lost in regulations; they should be encouraged. The Government's best value programme for local authorities will be a tremendous opportunity for the user's voice to be heard so that the necessary synergies can be created.
More problems arise from the fact that many placements are made away from the local area. This comes back to the point that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) was making about social services. Out-of-town or out-of-county placements can cause real problems, particularly when children are continually moved from authority to authority. The point has already been made, but we must tackle that problem. Although I welcome the fact that targets are to be set, many social services departments have not yet got to grips with this.
Another problem, which Families Fight Back brought to my attention, is the speed of the courts in decision making. There are feelings of isolation, loss and of not knowing what is going on when cases go to court. Moreover, people often do not understand the consequences of decisions that are taken around that time. Families who have made decisions for the best of reasons find, six or nine months down the line, that those decisions have unexpected and unintended consequences. Communication at that early stage of involvement needs to be worked on.
As I said, Families Fight Back was created by families whose children have been taken away. It began with a whinge: "The local authority's terrible; it's taken my kids away." Then the local authority, in conjunction with Families Fight Back, entered into a project, supported by NCH Action for Children, to create an advocacy group for families going through that process. Many lessons have been learned by the local authority's social services department and other sections. The project is still running. The key matter to have emerged so far is the lack of support for families, which leads to children being taken away. It is critical that advocacy and support for families and children, and the impact on friends and relatives are taken into account.
The Minister mentioned sure start, which is a brilliant scheme promoted by the Government. Unfortunately, that scheme is limited to pilot areas and two roll-outs. It has yet to reach the whole country, so many people have
280WH
not seen it and are saying, "What's sure start got to do with us?" I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister takes note of that, as it is critical that the Government speed up the roll-out of sure start so that it goes to every part of the country. It has real benefits which are not yet reaching everyone.
Partnership is a key word in our debate. It is not just a buzz word, but represents a genuine challenge. It is easy for the Government to change policies, but extremely hard for them to alter an organisation's culture. Sure start is about changing the culture in which children's social services operate. We should not underestimate vested interests or the resistance to change. We must recognise the benefits of changing a culture. Even when we do not seem to be achieving our goal, we must push on.
The question of poverty was raised earlier. A key problem in my constituency is the large number of people who are not on income support, but are on an income level just above that. They, therefore, do not get access to child care tax allowance or income support housing benefit, and have serious problems with available support. The change from income support to the income level just above it poses a critical challenge to the Government. I am sure that they will address it, but it is crucial that children in those families get the support that they need.
I mentioned the isolation in the project that I described. That isolation was physical, as some families were from rural areas and felt isolated from the town. We must improve how we tackle the social services' role in dealing with children from rural areas. Since Norman Tebbit famously spoke about "getting on your bike" and finding a job, family circumstances have changed. Families are often isolated. They live a long way from their extended family and their roots may give rise to difficulties. Coming from Milton Keynes, which is built on that premise, I am more aware of the problem than others, but in many areas, the lack of family support is a serious concern. Isolation within the family and not being able to talk to people is also a problem and should be tackled.
I am anxious about the role of guardians ad litem, whom it is difficult to recruit. That narrows the experience and breadth of such people, as only one social class or a particular type of person applies for such a role. I am anxious that we should increase the number of people who are prepared to be guardians ad litem and improve their support and training.
One of the best initiatives introduced by the Home Office concerns parenting skills and parenting orders. The project showed that parents do not have enough support. Many problems would not have existed if they had had decent parenting skills, but they had nowhere to turn to in order to acquire them. There are a few such facilities in the mediation services and the voluntary sector, but many families do not know that they exist when they need them or when they would be of most benefit, and thus they repeat their mistakes time and again. We need to break that cycle.
The Government proposal is part of the modernising government agenda. Issues affecting children should be based on proper research and on the facts, as the recent Performance and Innovation Unit report stated. It is

281WH
crucial that research on the matter continues to be up to date and that decisions are taken, and policies made, on the basis of that research.
It is important that all Government Departments sing from the same hymn sheet. The Home Office and the Department of Health have taken a good lead, as has the Department for Education and Employment, through its early years learning programme. On the receiving end, each initiative has 90 per cent. commonality with the others, but there are some matters on which that commonality is lacking, and confusing messages are being sent. It is crucial that the modernising government agenda ensures that Departments' initiatives are coordinated, so that any confusion, or overlap, is eliminated. Massive strides have been made in that respect since the Government took office, but there is more to be done.
Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend accept that he is making a powerful case for a children's rights commission to bring together initiatives relating to children, to be a focus for children's rights and to ensure that Government action is co-ordinated?
Mr. White: I would come to that conclusion, if I had my hon. Friend's expertise. He has long championed the case for a children's rights commission, which was taken up in the report of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I agree with his suggestion.
I conclude by saying that I am saddened by press vilification of social workers. Whether or not they take a child into care, they are accused of getting it wrong. Social workers must be more valued and the difficulty of their job must be recognised. It is important that action is taken in partnership. When the Minister introduces regulations in the national framework, he should allow scope for local diversity to deal with the conditions in each locality and with local innovation. It would be a shame if there were no such innovation from the bottom. I hope that the Minister will accept the need for local innovation and diversity.
4.58 pm
Mr. Hutton: Only four other hon. Members have taken part in the debate and they have all made high-quality contributions, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). There is no substitute for front-line experience; he has that in spades, and it showed.
Several important messages and themes emerged from the debate. One issue that we are trying to grapple with and to make progress on is the years of indifference towards children's social services, which are crucial. For all the reasons that hon. Members identified in the debate, they have not received the attention, in terms of policy development and of resources, that they have been crying out for for years. The touchstone—the crucial area—where deficiencies have repeatedly been displayed, is the public care system. For many years, insufficient attention and resources have been given to children who are looked after by local authorities, and Governments have failed to deal with the matter satisfactorily.
282WH
I take comfort from what has been said today, and what social services departments throughout the country tell me, that we are beginning to turn a corner. The consensus is that we have a long way to go, but we have made a start and I am confident that the "Quality Protects" programme will make a lasting difference to how children's social services are delivered. It is not just in the public care system that children's social services need to be transformed and modernised; there are a range of different scenarios and areas, some of which have been alluded to by hon. Members, where a change is needed in how care is delivered.
We must consider how to link the delivery of children's social services with crucial, front-line public services and services delivered by voluntary organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) spoke eloquently about the changes in the local authority in his constituency. There will be further such changes in the next five to 10 years. There will be a significant broadening of the way in which social services are delivered both for children and other client groups, and that will be very exciting. The best type of service delivery, as the hon. Member for Isle of White (Dr. Brand) said, can make connections between different key services, such as education, health and social services.
The hon. Members for Isle of Wight and for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) spoke of their worries about mental health services for children. I did not refer to that subject in my long opening speech, so I shall do so now. We are investing £90 million in the current spending review period to provide a basic capacity in core child mental health services, which do not exist in some parts of the country, as the hon. Gentleman said. That is a tragedy that has ruined the lives of many young people who have not been able to use those services.
As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight and others said, the best way to deliver those services is in a spirit of partnership and co-operation in the statutory sector. We want social care and health care professionals to work together, not in isolation. They should spend more time crossing the boundaries that exist between the two services rather than patrolling them. When staff spend their time patrolling the boundaries, we do not get the service delivery that we expect and which young people should receive.
Much wisdom and common sense have been shown this afternoon about these important issues. In addition to trying to focus attention on developing children's social services in a consistent and coherent way for the first time, we are trying to make connections. That is why the new support service will be a very important development, why our initiatives on child and adolescent mental health services are central and why some of the other changes that hon. Members have referred to will be important. We want primary care to be increased and to be delivered in conjunction with social services and social care. That is a sensible model and we are hopeful that there will be progress in all those areas.
I shall refer briefly to specific matters that have been raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Meriden referred to her anxieties about adoption law, and the case for reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre also referred to that matter when he

283WH
called for closer co-ordination in the application of the Adoption Act 1976 and the Children Act 1989. Notwithstanding some of the difficulties that have been expressed, there are grounds for optimism. I am not entirely convinced that there is something fundamentally wrong with the construction of the adoption law. I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre about the need for closer synergy between adoption law and the Children Act 1989, but we are right to focus on the practices used in social services departments as there are a number of areas where improvements can be made.
The Government have never ruled out the need for change to the Adoption Act 1976, and we have an open mind about that. In the meantime, we are trying to focus attention in social services departments on improving adoption practice. There have been many regrettable examples in which that practice was not right and in which ideology has got the better of common sense. We must find a way of ensuring that that does not happen in future. Many hon. Members have made it clear that the only interests that we should serve in adoption issues are those of the children. There are no higher interests at stake, so we must ensure that the children's interests come first at all times.
The hon. Member for Meriden expressed concerns about the quality and adequacy of the management action plans that are being prepared in the context of the "Quality Protects" programme and called for an element of independent inspection. I assure her and other hon. Members that, as part of the prcoess, the management action plans are scrutinised independently by officials in my Department, including the social services inspectorate. We have a network of new regional development workers who work closely with local authorities to ensure that management action plans are of the right quality. We have repeatedly made it clear to local authorities that if the plans are not satisfactory there will be no question of paying the grant. We shall not make grant allocations unless we are satisfied that the plans are sufficiently robust, and local authorities understand that. None of the management action plans failed that test the last time that they were considered, and we do not want any to fail this time. We want the benefits of the "Quality Protects" progamme to be felt in every local authority in the country. As I said, we have told local authorities that there will be no question of paying their grants if their management plans are not up to it. I hope that the hon. Member for Meriden will be reassured about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre expressed concerns about the working together guidance. I assure him that there is no question of those working together procedures diminishing the focus on child protection—I will not let that happen. We consulted widely on the amended working together guidance, and I was reassured to see that it drew strong support from the organisations consulted, including local authorities and children's organisations. We made a great effort to ensure that there was no such lack of focus. I am pleased also with the response given to the guidance by social services and other interested organisations.
284WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre made several good points about residential care workers, especially in relation to the importance of children's residential care workers. We recognise that imporance, which is why we are introducing a new post-qualification award for residential children's services. That is a very important initiative. At a wider level, we must build into social services a lifelong learning and training culture. I do not think that such a culture has been in place, which is one of the most substantial weaknesses in social care and must be addressed. Many hon. Members will be aware that the training organisation for personal and social services is currently consulting on a new national training strategy for social services, in which we are taking a close interest. It is an employer-led strategy, which is perfectly appropriate, as it deals with responsibilities that are ultimately for employers.
It is a priority to improve the qualifications of the social care work force as a whole, especially in the area identified by my hon. Friend. That must be seen as part of a national effort to improve the training infrastructure in social care so that on-going career development and training will become the norm for social care professionals as it is for other care professionals. People working in the field of health care would also accept such a need, and we are working with health profession bodies to ensure that such a system becomes better established; the same logic applies to social care. I think that my hon. Friend and I are at one about that.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight asked me about the number of social workers and I can reassure him about that. In 1988, there were 28,000 qualified social workers or whole-time equivalents in England, and in 1998, that figure rose to 33,500, so we are making progress. However, there are concerns about certain parts of the country and certain specialisms, where it is right for both employers' organisations and the Government to work out how to address the problems. I accept that one of the background issues that we must consider and resolve is the poor image of social workers. Social workers always get the blame when things go wrong and they very rarely get the credit when they take the right decisions. We must strike a better and fairer balance, certainly in the press and in the House, in recognising the achievements of social care, which are many.
Today we have spoken about children and social services and, in my opening remarks, I emphasised the outstanding work that has been done in Nottingham by the police, social workers and other agencies, working together to rescue children from child prostitution. That is the most miserable and evil trade but, working together, Nottingham social services, the police and other agencies have saved dozens of young boys and girls from that wretched life. We should celebrate that and recognise and reward that sort of work where we can. That is the sort of effort that we need to make to promote social care as a noble and caring profession, which is crucial for a decent society.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight raised certain concerns about partnership working. I hope that I have resolved those issues. I agree with him about the need to improve support for foster carers. In particular, we need to consider how we can support foster carers out of

285WH
hours, because it is not much help to foster carers to find that they cannot obtain support if things start to go wrong at 9 o'clock at night. We are considering how we can improve those services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East referred to changes in the way in which social services are being delivered. Those sound like promising developments, which we will follow with interest, but it struck a chord with me when he said that we needed a change of culture. I agree with him. We need a change of culture not only in children's services but across the board. Wherever possible, we need to get away from the "council knows best" paternalism that does not encourage independence or allow people to take control of their lives. Good social care professionals are not in favour of either of those results; they do not want to trap people in dependency and they want people to take more control of their lives. In framing legislation and policy, we must ensure that we give front-line professionals the tools to do their jobs
286WH
more effectively. I agree that resources are part of the solution, but so are policy, legislation and inculcating and developing the proper culture and practices.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre was very supportive of our plans to establish a new social care institute of excellence. That will have an important role in spreading good practice and establishing an authoritative central body to help solve problems on the front line. In general terms, this has been a positive and constructive debate. We have much to do and we are not in the position from which we would like to start—something that is especially true of the public care system—but we must start from here whether we like it or not. We are making progress and the Government want to continue that progress, not for the sake of the organisations and services involved, but for the sake of young people because we in the House have a moral and ethical responsibility to promote their welfare at all times and in all places.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Five o 'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Senior Salaries Review Body
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the report and recommendations of the Review Body on Senior Salaries on the Greater London Authority. [107864]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Review Body on Senior Salaries report on the initial pay, expenses, pensions and severance arrangements for the Mayor of London and members of the London Assembly is published today. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House. The Prime Minister and I are grateful to the Chairman and Members of the Review Body for their work.

  The main recommendations of the Review Body with regard to pay are:

  Salary

  £

  Mayor

  84,385

  Deputy Mayor

  51,743

  Assembly member

  34,438

  The Review Body recommended that pay levels should be uprated annually beginning on 1 April 2000 by the same percentage as the average of the movements in the mid-points of the nine senior civil service pay bands below permanent secretary and that an independent review of pay levels should take place in 2002 and then at intervals of three years.

  The Review Body also recommended that a Mayor of London, Deputy Mayor or an Assembly member who is also an MP, an MEP or a salaried Office-Holder in the House of Lords should receive an abated salary in respect of his or her GLA role equal to one third of the relevant GLA salary; the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Assembly members' pension arrangements should be provided through the Local Government Pension Scheme; and that severance payments should be made only to the Deputy Mayor, and only if he or she loses that role other than at an election. The Review Body also expressed the view that members of the Authority should receive travel and subsistence payments similar to those available to staff of the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  The Government have decided to accept the Review Body's recommendations on pay, expenses, pensions and severance arrangements in full. We recognise that it has been extremely difficult to evaluate the weight of responsibilities for unique positions which do not yet exist. In particular, the Review Body concluded that there was currently insufficient evidence about additional
  648W
  responsibilities of the Chair of the Assembly and of membership of a functional body to reach a view on whether there should be additional remuneration for these roles.

  The Government acknowledge the uncertainties, and have therefore decided to invite the Review Body to carry out an early review of remuneration and pensions. This review would begin nine months after the new Authority became fully operational. It would therefore progress on a basis of fact and experience rather than on the inevitable current basis of anticipation of roles and responsibilities. The statutory guidance on ethical standards, issued under section 66 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, will require the Authority to have due regard to the SSRB's recommendations in deciding future salaries.

  Game Managers and Pigeon Fanciers
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to address the concerns of game managers and pigeon fanciers with respect to predation of game birds and racing pigeons by birds of prey; and if he will make a statement. [108604]

  Mr. Mullin
  The issues arising from the recovery of some bird of prey populations and their impact on game bird and moorland management and on racing pigeons have been addressed by the UK Raptor Working Group.

  This group, jointly chaired by my Department and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and comprising experts from the fields of bird conservation, game management and pigeon racing, has funded significant research and considered information from a wide range of sources including leading authorities and relevant specialists. The group has now agreed a package of recommendations and submitted its final report to UK Ministers. Copies are available in the House Libraries.

  I welcome the publication of these recommendations and hope they will help provide an integrated solution to the problems presented by birds of prey to game bird managers and pigeon fanciers. Implementation of these recommendations will of course be a matter for the devolved administrations and I will be asking English Nature for advice with respect to implementation in England.

  Water Industry Act 1999
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the use of his powers under the Water Industry Act 1999. [108816]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have today published "Water Industry Act 1999: Delivering the Government's Objectives", which will be available in the Library of the House, or from the Department's website (www.environment.detr.gov.uk).
  649W
  This document is the final part of a series of publications associated with the Water Industry Act 1999. It comprises:
  guidance to the Director General of Water Services on matters he is required to take into account when approving water company's annual charges schemes
  Regulations, protecting vulnerable groups, and prescribing conditions where metering is permitted, which were laid on 22 December.
  responses to consultation on both the guidance and the regulations, and regulatory appraisals for each set of regulations.

  The proposals in this document deliver the Government's key water charging objectives: fair and affordable water charges—particularly for vulnerable customers—and the sustainable use of water supplies and protection of the aquatic environment.

  The guidance sets out the Government's approach to key water charging issues. It encourages water companies to develop charging systems that are fair and affordable, and take account of environmental considerations. Customers should expect stable and predictable bills, and charges should be transparent and closely related to services provided.

  The Water Industry (Charges) (Vulnerable Groups) Regulations 1999 offer new, additional protection to customers who might face hardship affording their bills because they use large amounts of water for essential purposes and pay on a measured basis. Customers will qualify for assistance if they are in receipt of income related benefits or tax credits (Income Support, Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Working Families Tax Credit, Disabled Person's Tax Credit, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit) and either

  (a) they have three dependent children under the age of 16; or

  (b) they have a medical condition requiring significant extra water use (these are defined as kidney failure requiring home dialysis, abdominal stomas, desquamation, weeping skin disease and incontinence).

  Customers in these circumstances will be entitled to pay the average charge for the company that supplies them, rather than their actual measured charge. This represents a significant new step to tackle water poverty.

  The Water Industry Act 1999 restricts water companies' powers to impose meters on customers. However, the Government accept that metering may be acceptable in some circumstances, such as when a customer is using a large volume of water for discretionary purposes. The Water Industry (Prescribed Conditions) Regulations 1999 therefore set out conditions when companies will continue to be permitted to require customers to have water meters. These include circumstances such as automatic garden watering, automatic replenishment of a large pond or swimming pool, very large baths, high consumption showers and certain types of water softening unit. These Regulations also give the Secretary of State power to permit metering in designated areas of water scarcity. No such areas are designated at present. Any application for designation would need to be considered by the Secretary of State, consulting the Director General of Water Services, the Environment Agency and bodies representing customers in the relevant area.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many schemes in the targeted programme of trunk road improvements will start in 2000–01. [108704]

  Mr. Hill
  A start will be made in 2000–01 on 13 of the 37 schemes in the targeted programme of improvements announced in "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England"—six more than previously planned. The acceleration of six schemes by bringing their starts forward from 2001–02 reflects our commitment to modernising the country's transport system. All the schemes in the targeted programme were assessed using the New Approach to Appraisal against our criteria of safety, environmental impact, economy, accessibility and integration.

  The full list of starts now planned for 2000–01 is as follows:

  A1: Willowburn-Denwick Improvement, Northumberland

  A6: Great Glen Bypass, Leicestershire

  A6: Clapham Bypass, Bedfordshire1

  A11: Roudham Heath-Attleborough, Dualling, Norfolk1

  A27: Polegate Bypass, East Sussex

  A41: Aston Clinton Bypass, Buckinghamshire

  A43: Whitfield Turn, Brackley Hatch Improvement, Northants

  A43: Silverstone Bypass, Northants

  A43: M40-B4031 Dualling, Oxon/Northants1

  A66: Stainburn and Great Clifton Bypass, Cumbria1

  A500: Basford, Hough, Shavington Bypass, Cheshire1

  A650: Bingley Relief Road, Bradford1

  A1033: Hedon Road Improvement, Hull.

  1 Start previously planned for 2001–02.

  In addition to these 13 schemes work is planned to start later this year on the privately financed Birmingham Northern Relief Road and we are at the final stages of letting the design, build finance and operate contract for improvements to the A13 in East London. Work will also start soon on widening the M2 between the A2 at Cobham and junction 4 at Rochester.

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made with the secondary legislation setting out detailed arrangements for the Greater London Authority elections. [108703]

  Mr. Hill
  I intend to lay a number of orders and the elections rules to give effect to the following decisions.

  Early voting

  I shall shortly be laying the necessary secondary legislation to allow voters who wish to vote in person, but cannot do so on 4 May, to vote early. The order will provide for voting in one or two locations in each borough on 27, 28 and 29 April 2000, between 7 am and 9 pm daily. The precise locations of early voting polling stations will be publicised locally and voters will complete ballot papers in the normal way. This will be a new option, and is in addition to postal and proxy voting, which will also be available.
  651W
  Elections rules

  Consultation on the detailed elections rules is now complete and these will be laid shortly. As well as providing for all aspects of the running of the elections these will provide for the hours of polling to be between 7 am and 9 pm. They will also provide for the following levels of deposits and signatures for candidates.

  Each Mayoral candidate will be required to gather 330 signatures—ten from each London borough and the City of London—in support of his or her candidacy. They will also be required to pay a deposit of £10,000, which would be forfeited if a candidate fails to obtain 5 per cent. of the vote.

  Assembly candidates will not be required to collect signatures in support of their candidacies. In respect of deposits, there will be different arrangements for the different categories of candidate. Parties with a list of candidates, and independent candidates contesting London-wide list seats, will be required to pay a deposit of £5,000, which will be forfeited if they fail to obtain 2.5 per cent. of the vote.

  Candidates contesting Assembly constituencies will pay a deposit of £1,000 which will be forfeited if they fail to obtain 5 per cent. of the vote.

  Election expenses

  Following consultation on the proposed limits for candidates' and third parties' election expenditure, I will lay a draft order shortly setting out the following maximum spending limits for the GLA elections:

  £420,000 per mayoral candidate;

  £35,000 per candidate contesting an assembly constituency;

  £330,000 per party or independent candidate contesting the London-wide list.

  £25,000 per third party supporting or opposing mayoral candidates;

  £25,000 per third party supporting or opposing London-wide list candidates, including independent candidates; and

  £1,800 per third party supporting or opposing assembly constituency candidates.

  These limits will enable candidates and parties to fight effective campaigns, at either the London-wide or the constituency level.

  Some political parties have expressed concern that candidates in GLA elections, in common with local elections generally, are not entitled to a free mailshot. We believe that a free London-wide mailing would be particularly vulnerable to abuse by unscrupulous candidates seeking to gain advertising at the tax payers expense for the cost of a deposit. Following the consultation exercise we have lowered the proposed limits to provide a more level playing field for less well resourced parties and independent candidates, and will allow parties with both a Mayoral candidate and a London-wide list to pay for a single election mailshot to every London household should they wish to.

  The order is subject to affirmative resolution in each House of Parliament. If approved, the limits will come into force on the day after the day on which the order is made. Candidates' limits will cover any expenditure as defined in section 76 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
  652W
  Disqualification

  An order will be laid in draft before each House of Parliament specifying the offices and appointments, the holders of which will be disqualified from being elected or being the Mayor or an Assembly member. This order supplements the disqualification arrangements already contained in section 21 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and other legislation.

  We intend the GLA to be an inclusive authority, which works in partnership with other organisations on London's behalf. We are therefore keeping to a minimum those offices and appointments which a person will not be able to combine with membership of the GLA. The order will specify only those offices which are required to be or seen to be politically impartial; are with a body which will scrutinise the GLA or one of the functional bodies; or are with a body which may exercise a quasi-judicial role over the GLA or a functional body. I have today placed in the Library of the House a list of offices and appointments which will be designated in the order. Conflicts with public offices, whether of interest or of time pressures, will also be covered in the statutory guidance on ethical standards to which the Authority will be required to have regard. I intend to publish this guidance shortly.

  Staff Bonuses
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies spent in total on extra bonuses above usual payments for staff working over the New Year period; what were the(a) maximum and (b) minimum bonuses paid; how many people received the (i) maximum and (ii) minimum payments; and if he will make a statement. [104666]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The total spent in DETR(Central), its agencies and associated bodies is not yet known as some payments have still to be processed. The figures in the table are provisional and are based on the additional costs incurred above the usual overtime and on call payments over the New Year period (31 December to 3 January):

  £

  DETR(Central)

  3,513.35

  MCA

  429.45

  HSE

  15,727.00

  Total

  19,669.80

  About half of this relates to on call payments for staff on standby at home. Those staff who attended worked, in general, in emergency planning rooms, IT divisions, Press Office, Private Office and building maintenance and security divisions.

  In addition to this, in DETR(C) some special bonuses will be paid to staff who made a particular contribution at this time. As at 31 January, four payments have been made totalling £1,400. The following agencies did not have any staff working over the New Year period: the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, the Rent Service, and the Vehicle Certification Agency.
  653W
  The information in respect of the following agencies could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost: the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Planning Inspectorate, Government Office, the Vehicle Inspectorate and the Highways Agency.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what measurements have been taken of discharges of materials harmful to bathing water quality from the River Ribble into the Irish sea over the last(a) 12 months, (b) 24 months and (c) 36 months; [106365]

  (2) at what points along the River Ribble water quality has been tested; and what the results of these tests have been, for (a) the last 12 months, (b) the last 24 months and (c) the last 36 months. [106362]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: Water quality has been extensively tested at many points and at various times along the River Ribble and elsewhere as part of the comprehensive programme of studies into problems with compliance with the EC Bathing Water Directive along the Fylde coast. The main purpose of the programme has been to determine the inputs of faecal contamination to the area, and their patterns of dispersion and impacts on bathing waters, in order to establish the need for further improvements to the sewerage infrastructure. Measurements have also been taken to develop a water quality model of the River Ribble and its estuary. I will arrange for the Environment Agency, North West Region to send my hon. Friend a copy of their report on these issues.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent measures the European Union authorities have requested to ensure compliance with mandatory EU bathing water standards along the Fylde coast. [106367]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The EC Commission has not requested any measures additional to those under way by the Environment Agency and North West Water.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the reasons for the failure of North West Water's recent bathing water improvement schemes to raise the level of compliance with mandatory EU standards along the Fylde coast. [106364]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: Recently completed investment schemes have improved water quality in the Ribble Estuary, although these have not yet brought compliance with the EC Bathing Water Directive along the Fylde coast. The Environment Agency considers that further improvements are required to treatment and storm water management at Wigan/Skelmersdale and to stormwater management at Southport and combined sewer overflows in Preston to ensure compliance at Southport and Lytham with the EC Bathing Water Directive. The Agency is currently investigating the possibility that compliance problems in the Blackpool area are caused by contaminated groundwater from beneath the town.
  654W
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions have taken place with businesses in the North West about monitoring discharges into(a) the River Ribble and (b) the Irish sea. [106361]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The Environment Agency has monitored each of the significant discharges in the area thought to impact on bathing water quality along the Fylde coast. The main focus of discussion has been on steps to reduce sewage discharges operated by North West Water but the Agency has been in contact with other dischargers where it appears that they may be implicated in the problems of compliance with the EC Bathing Water Directive.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assurances he has received from North West Water and the Environment Agency that the latest investment programme to improve bathing water quality along the Fylde coast will result in compliance with EU directive standards. [106368]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The completed improvement schemes and further planned improvements are considered necessary to ensure compliance with the EC Bathing Water Directive along the Fylde coast. Whether these works will be sufficient to ensure compliance or whether additional measures will be required will be clearer as the results of current investigations into the causes of failure become available and are assessed.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the possible contribution of animal and avian waste to bathing water quality along the Fylde coast. [106363]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The Environment Agency's current assessment is that animal and avian waste is unlikely to make a significant contribution to the overall bacterial load, in terms of compliance with the EC Bathing Water Directive. However, the Agency is undertaking further studies to refine this assessment.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent measures have been required of North West Water to ensure compliance with mandatory EU bathing water standards along the Fylde coast. [106366]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: Recent measures required of North West Water and completed in 1999 were the provision of ultra-violet disinfection in Southport, Hesketh Bank, Preesall and Preston sewage treatment works; a substantial increase in the stormwater storage associated with the Fylde tunnel; improved stormwater arrangements at Fairhaven/Lytham, Hesketh Bank, Harrowside and Preston works; and closure of the works at Hambledon with transfer of flows to Fleetwood.

  Further works required as soon as possible include treatment enhancement and stormwater management at Southport and combined sewage overflows in Preston. All these measures are considered necessary to ensure bathing water compliance in the area.
  655W
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with the relevant EU authorities about water quality and beach pollution in the last 12 months. [106360]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: My Department has regular and frequent contact with the EC Commission to discuss bathing water quality including progress on improving compliance along the Fylde coast with the EC Bathing Water Directive.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent assessment has been made of the possible impact on bathing water quality along the Fylde coast of(a) agricultural runoff and (b) discharges by businesses other than North West Water into the River Ribble. [106355]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The Environment Agency estimate that the contamination load of agricultural runoff and other non-water company discharges into the River Ribble is small, in terms of compliance with the EC Bathing Water Directive, compared to discharges by North West Water. But to determine whether contamination from animals can be significant in some circumstances, studies are being undertaken to discover the geographical origin of animal faeces, including the forensic examination of washed-up material to determine the diet of the producer animal; and bacterial "fingerprinting" to determine whether there are any types characteristic of particular animal species.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures of bathing water quality have been taken at(a) Blackpool, (b) Fleetwood and (c) Thornton Cleveleys in (i) the last 12 months, (ii) the last 24 months and (iii) the last 36 months. [106358]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: All bathing waters are measured 20 times between May and September each year against the quality requirements of the EC Bathing Water Directive. Results for the bathing waters at Blackpool, Fleetwood and Cleveleys over the past three years are as follows:

  Number of samples passing the mandatory coliform bacteria standards (19 or more is a pass)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Blackpool South

  11

  15

  16

  Blackpool Central

  16

  14

  15

  Blackpool North

  18

  18

  16

  Fleetwood

  16

  20

  20

  Cleveleys

  18

  20

  19

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initial assessment he has made of the impact on bathing water quality on the Fylde coast of the treatment plant at Fleetwood. [106359]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The plant at Fleetwood, which treats sewage which was previously discharged untreated at several points close to the Fylde coast, was a necessary first stage of the bathing water quality improvement programme. Water quality
  656W
  monitoring studies by the Environment Agency show that the treated discharges from Fleetwood into the Lune Deeps have a negligible adverse impact on Fylde coast bathing waters.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions his Department has had with North West Water and the Environment Agency on enforcement of bathing water quality by the European Commission. [106356]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The Department has regular and frequent contact with North West Water and the Environment Agency on measures to ensure bathing waters in the area achieve the required EU standards.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the results are of the QSR for the Irish sea. [106357]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The Quality Status Report for the Celtic Seas (which covers the Irish Sea) is being prepared by the OSPAR Commission for the protection of the marine environment of the North East Atlantic. The Commission plans to publish it in June, along with the other four regional Quality Status Reports (on the Arctic, the North Sea and English Channel, the Bay of Biscay and the deep Atlantic) and the holistic Quality Status Report on the North East Atlantic as a whole.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many deaths were recorded in the United Kingdom construction industry in the last 12 months. [107291]

  Mr. Meacher
  The table shows the provisional figures for fatalities in the construction industry for 1998–99. Final figures, which should be available in May 2000, may be slightly higher because fatalities include deaths up to a year after the date of an accident.

  HSE is working with the construction industry, trade unions, clients and other stakeholders to reduce the toll of accidents and ill-health through a wide range of initiatives, in particular the "Working Well Together" Campaign.

  Fatalities in construction as reported to HSE and Local Authorities, 1998–99 1

  Number

  Employees2

  48

  Self-employed

  18

  Members of the public

  4

  Total

  70

  1 Provisional

  2Including trainees

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect of Government policies on the long-term performance and profitability of the construction industry since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [107847]
  657W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Steadier growth in the economy and the introduction of expenditure plans that cover a full three years will free the construction industry from the damaging stop-go cycle that has so constrained its performance in the past. It will also provide a more secure base for innovation and improved profitability in the future. The Government are also encouraging the industry to radically improve its performance through implementing the recommendations of the Construction Task Force as set out in "Rethinking Construction".

  It is too soon to assess what impact these initiatives are having on the long term performance and profitability of the industry. However, as a part of our drive to encourage radical change, we published last April the first set of standard, industry wide, key performance indicators (KPIs). If, as we intend, these are widely adopted by the industry they will provide an effective means of measuring progress in future.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what gross construction output as a proportion of gross domestic product was during 1998–99; and what the average was for European Union member states. [107849]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In England in 1996 (the latest year available for England), gross construction output was about 8 per cent. of gross domestic product. Comparable figures for the EU as a whole show that construction made up about 12 per cent. of gross domestic product in that year.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the annual growth of the construction industry in each of the last 10 years. [107850]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Annual growth of the construction industry in England in each of the last 10 years has been as follows:

  Percentage

  1988

  21.5

  1989

  17.5

  1990

  5.0

  1991

  -8.6

  1992

  -9.3

  1993

  -2.1

  1994

  7.3

  1995

  6.1

  1996

  6.8

  1997

  6.4

  1998

  7.5

  Source:

  Housing and Construction Statistics, DETR

  A40 (Cheltenham)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his decision to refuse Gloucestershire County Council's bid for funding for a route to bypass the A40 through Cheltenham. [107563]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government Office for the South West wrote to Gloucestershire County Council on 16 December 1999 explaining why my Department was unable to accept the A463 Shipton Solers to Air Balloon scheme for support in the 2000–01 Local Transport Capital 658W
  Settlement. The County Council has been advised to consider alternative solutions including looking at the feasibility of dealing with the safety issues by a combination of smaller scale schemes.

  Alba Proteins
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the decision in the appeal by Alba Proteins against conditions imposed on their plans by Eden District Council. [107578]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department published on 13 January this year a revised version of the statutory guidance relating to air pollution control from animal rendering processes: Process Guidance Note PG6/1(00)— The Processing of Animal Remains and By-Products. The parties to the Alba Proteins appeal will shortly be invited to comment on how any changes in policy, outlined in this revised guidance note, may affect the appeal. Following consideration of their comments, the Secretary of State should then be in a position to announce a decision.

  Credit Ratings
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the credit rating of companies seeking to tender for services provided by his Department is checked before the contract is awarded. [107740]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Decisions on a bidding company's financial standing take account of latest available audited and interim accounts and any other relevant published information, which may include credit and debt rating. These checks are undertaken on contracts where the risk of early termination would place a financial and operational risk on my Department.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how often the credit rating of companies supplying services to his Department is checked. [107751]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  During the period of a contract my Department will generally carry out checks into a company's financial standing if it has reason to believe that any of its contractors may be in financial trouble.

  En Route Centre, Swanwick
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if there are sufficient air controllers trained and ready to operate the new En Route Centre at Swanwick from the date of opening. [108029]

  Mr. Mullin
  NATS has carried out detailed planning of its requirements for air traffic controllers and the transitional arrangements for training controllers on the new system. NATS is confident that it will have sufficient appropriately trained and validated controllers to operate the new centre from the date of its opening.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the exact date on which the National Air Traffic Services facility at Swanwick will open. [108024]
  659W
  Mr. Mullin
  NATS continues to work towards the introduction into operational service of the New En-Route Centre in the winter of 2001–02.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the National Air Traffic Services at Swanwick will be fully operational at the time of its opening. [108028]

  Mr. Mullin
  Yes, the New En-Route Centre will be fully operational at the time of its opening.

  Air Accidents Investigation Branch
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many recommendations of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch have been implemented in the last 10 years. [108033]

  Mr. Mullin
  The recommendations of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch are in a variety of formats, including suggestions that reviews or research be carried out: for this reason there is no standard definition of whether a recommendation has been implemented or not. The Civil Aviation Authority has recorded its responses to those recommendations addressed to the Authority in terms of "fully accepted", "partially accepted" and "not accepted". Since 1 January 1990, 473 recommendations to the Authority have been fully or partially accepted and 66 not accepted.

  It is not possible to give comparable information in respect of those safety recommendations addressed over the last 10 years to other organisations, such as foreign aviation authorities, as they may respond in a variety of ways. The CAA has agreed that, in future, its annual Progress Report on safety recommendations addressed to the Authority should include such information as is available on actions taken by other bodies in response to safety recommendations, in order to provide the public with a more complete picture of progress on all AAIB safety recommendations.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many recommendations made by the Air Accident Investigation Branch relate to the Manchester 737 accident. [108034]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Air Accidents Investigation Branch's report on the accident to the Boeing 737, G-BEJL, at Manchester Airport on 22 August 1985 was published as Aircraft Accident Report 8/88 on 13 March 1989; it contained 31 safety recommendations.

  Aircraft Inspections
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many 737 aircraft have been inspected by independent inspectors. [108027]

  Mr. Mullin
  Civil Aviation Authority Surveyors inspect selected aircraft each year in accordance with a policy, and associated programme, published in Airworthiness Notice No. 30(CAA Aircraft Survey Programme—All United Kingdom Registered Aircraft). This survey programme is independent of the operators' inspections carried out as part of the scheduled maintenance programme.
  660W
  In the year ending 1999, 77 Boeing 737 aircraft were surveyed by CAA.

  Air Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many aircraft, operating on behalf of United Kingdom airlines, flying for hire and reward and not on the United Kingdom register flew into and out of British airspace in 1999. [108079]

  Mr. Mullin
  During 1999 UK airlines leased 48 foreign registered aircraft for planned periods, varying in length from less than one week up to 12 months. Of these, 43 were leased with crew. In the same year, foreign registered aircraft carried out 249 unplanned substitution flights on behalf of UK carriers whose own aircraft became temporarily unavailable.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Safety Regulation Group of the CAA will publish guidelines on wiring and flight fire. [108025]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Civil Aviation Authority and other accredited UK and international bodies have published requirements and guidelines concerning aircraft wiring and the prevention of in-flight fire and smoke for many years.

  The UK airworthiness codes already prescribe mandatory requirements for electrical wiring design and installation which are intended to prevent the aircraft as whole being put at risk in the event of wiring faults or serious malfunction of the electrical system or any connected equipment. In particular, there is a requirement that wiring must not be able to create a fire or smoke hazard under temporary or continuous fault conditions. Demonstration of compliance with these requirements is required for all aircraft. Also, British Standards Institute and European aeronautical cable specifications and standards define flammability and toxicity requirements for aircraft wiring, as well as defining standardised methods of testing aircraft wire.

  In addition to the mandatory requirements, CAA have also published guidelines on electrical wiring and electrical protection. For example, the CAA Civil Aircraft Airworthiness Information and Procedures (CAP562) contain instructions on inspection and testing of electrical circuits, installation and maintenance of electrical cables, protection against electrostatic discharge, care and maintenance of electrical power supplies, electrical cable failure and procedures for resetting thermal circuit breakers.

  These requirements and guidelines are well established and well known throughout the UK aviation industry. In addition, the CAA proposes to submit to the Joint Aviation Authorities by September 2000 a consolidated version of its established guidelines concerning aircraft wiring and the prevention of in-flight fire and smoke, for promulgation throughout the JAA member states.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many instances of pressure on commercial pilots to lower safety standards have been registered in the confidential reporting system in the last 12 months. [108031]
  661W
  Mr. Mullin
  The UK Confidential Human Factors Incident Reporting Programme (CHIRP) is run by the CHIRP Charitable Trust. The January 2000 edition of CHIRP's publication "Feedback" contains a "Key Word analysis" of reports received in 1999, which indicates that the key words 'commercial pressure' appeared in 7 per cent. of the 141 reports received that year in the flight deck category. The analysis notes that in view of the voluntary nature of the reporting process, the results have no statistical significance.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to ensure that rudders of UK-registered 737 aircraft are fault free. [108026]

  Mr. Mullin
  The United States' Federal Aviation Administration is the regulatory authority responsible for overseeing the safe design of Boeing aircraft and for issuing information necessary to maintain their continued airworthiness. The Federal Aviation Administration has issued Airworthiness Directives covering both inspections of the Boeing 737 rudder system as well as revisions to flight crew operating procedures. These directives are intended to reduce the likelihood of possible rudder system faults compromising the aircraft's safety.

  The United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority requires that any Federal Aviation Administration directives applicable to Boeing 737 aircraft are complied with by UK operators and carries out regular surveys to monitor, and if necessary, enforce compliance. Although the Authority reserves the right to vary Federal Aviation Administration directives for the UK fleet, it has had no cause, to date, to impose additional requirements with respect to the Boeing 737 rudder system.

  Helicopter Inspections
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is a requirement for helicopter inspections to be carried out by operations inspectors who are trained helicopter pilots; how many operations inspectors are trained helicopter pilots; and if he will make a statement. [108032]

  Mr. Mullin
  There are no international standards governing the qualifications of civil aviation authority inspectors, but the International Civil Aviation Organisation "Manual of Procedures for Operations Inspection, Certification and Continued Surveillance" recommends that to carry out a flight inspection of an aircraft, an inspector should be qualified in that type of aircraft.

  In the United Kingdom, all helicopter flight inspections, together with technical evaluations of the helicopter, equipment, and operation are undertaken by Civil Aviation Authority Flight Operations Inspectors who possess a current Airline Transport Pilots Licence (Helicopters), and have had considerable commercial operating experience often including management or training duties. Not only are proficiency checks undertaken, but regular line flying duties in a variety of roles are carried out by all helicopter Flight Operations Inspectors.

  The CAA has 13 specialist helicopter Flight Operations Inspectors.
  662W
  There are some aspects of helicopter operations which can be audited or checked by suitably trained Inspecting Staff, who nevertheless do not hold a professional helicopter pilots licence. For example examination of pilots duty hours and training records would not necessarily require professional piloting expertise in order to evaluate their validity and integrity.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the expenditure on(a) staff and (b) office accommodation of each of the regional development agencies. [107942]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The planned expenditure for 1999–2000 for each of the Regional Development Agencies on staff and on accommodation are as follows:

  £

  Regional Development Agency

  Staff

  Accommodation

  North West Development Agency

  4,400,000

  500,000

  One North East

  4,388,000

  649,000

  Yorkshire Forward

  5,629,000

  929,000

  Advantage West Midlands

  2,979,000

  813,000

  East Midlands Development Agency

  3,396,000

  1,135,000

  East of England Development Agency

  2,975,000

  285,000

  South West of England Regional Development Agency

  4,147,000

  2,321,000

  South of England Development Agency

  2,846,000

  1,269,000

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what budget is available to the regional development agencies for implementing their sustainable development programmes. [107944]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) have not been given specific budgets to implement sustainable development policies. The RDAs have a statutory duty to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the UK, and it is integral to their Regional Strategies and action plans. The RDAs' contribution to sustainable development will be delivered through the implementation of these plans, and of their programmes and projects.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what timetable he has given the regional development agencies for their contributions to an integrated transport system in the regions. [107940]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) have a keen interest in integrated transport issues in their regions. They are providing an important input into the regional transport strategies which are being prepared as part of the Regional Planning Guidance (RPG). The timetable for the preparation of RPG varies by region.

  The regional planning bodies are also considering the transport implications of RDAs' regional strategies. Similarly, the regional transport strategies should inform and assist the RDAs in the implementation of their own Strategies.
  663W
  RDAs have also been invited to feed their ideas on integrated transport into the 10-year plan for investment in transport, currently being developed by my Department.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that the regional development agencies deliver their plans for sustainable development on time. [107943]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) were not required to develop specific sustainable development plans. The RDAs' contribution to sustainable development is integral to their regional strategies and action plans, and will be delivered through the implementation of these plans, and of their programmes and projects.

  The Government will shortly be issuing guidance on Regional Development Sustainable Development Frameworks which will be high level vision statements for sustainable development in the regions. The RDAs will play a key role in producing the frameworks but will not take the lead.

  Local Government
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 2000,Official Report, column 145W, on local government, what meetings he and his ministerial colleagues have had with the New Local government Network on the Government's modernisation agenda. [108380]

  Ms Armstrong
  Ministers have met the New Local Government Network on a number of occasions. A range of topics on the Government's modernisation agenda have been discussed.

  Home Improvement Agencies
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the awarding of section 169 grant for home improvement agencies. [108219]

  Mr. Mullin
  Grant is payable to local authorities under section 169 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to support the running costs of home improvement agencies operating in their areas. My Department is currently considering authorities' applications for the renewal of grant in 2000–01, and will announce the allocations as soon as possible.

  Bournemouth International Airport
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how long the Government Office of the South West took to decide whether or not to call in the planning application submitted by Bournemouth International Airport for a new passenger terminal; and if he will make a statement. [108340]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The planning application which Bournemouth International Airport submitted to Christchurch Borough Council on 28 November 1997 was referred to the Government Office for the South West on 664W
  21 July 1999. The application was called in for the Secretary of State's own determination, after careful consideration of all the issues, on 20 December 1999.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the performance of the Government Office of the South West against the target of reaching 80 per cent. of decisions on whether or not to call in planning applications within three weeks and 100 per cent. of cases within seven weeks in the last 12 months. [108339]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  During 1999 the Government Office for the South West issued 85 per cent. of decisions on whether or not to call in such applications within three weeks, and 88 per cent. within the secondary target of seven weeks.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many decisions on whether or not to call in planning applications were reached after more than seven weeks since May 1997. [108338]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The total number of decisions for 1998 and 1999 is 294. Prior to 1998, the information was not collated on computer and, as a result, the figure for 1997 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his latest estimate of the number of people sleeping rough in England. [108341]

  Ms Armstrong
  On 15 December 1999 the Government published their latest estimate of the number of people sleeping rough in England. This estimate showed that, as at June 1999, there were 1,633 people sleeping rough in England on any one night, of which 635 were in Greater London. Copies are available from the House Libraries. We will be publishing shortly updated figures for Central London, following recent single night street counts.

  Oath of Allegiance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many letters he has received since 1 May 1997 on(a) constituency matters and (b) other matters of Government policy from each of those Members of the House who have not taken the oath of allegiance. [108402]

  Ms Armstrong
  I am not able to provide this information to my right hon. Friend as correspondence between Members and Departments is treated in confidence unless the originating Member chooses to make such issues public.

  PM10 Emissions
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will introduce a new target for PM10 emissions; and if he will make a statement. [108334]
  665W
  Mr. Meacher
  I announced the publication of the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on 19 January. When launching the Strategy, I explained that work is already in hand which will allow us to consider a new objective for particles towards the end of this year. This work includes consideration of particles' health effects: the costs and benefits of reducing levels of particles in air; and the effects of recent policy developments on particle levels.

  Recycling
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the percentage of municipal waste that will be recycled by(a) 31 December 2001, (b) 31 December 2005 and (c) 31 December 2010. [108337]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have set a goal of at least 30 per cent. of household waste to be recycled or composted by 2010. The Government are also committed to achieving 25 per cent. as soon as possible, and hope to do this by 2005.

  The latest municipal waste recycling and composting figure for England and Wales is 8 per cent. (based on 1997–98 data).

  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions have been made under section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for the illegal release of Schedule 9 plants. [108300]

  Mr. Mullin
  Prosecutions under section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are brought by the police, and it is not a requirement for them to notify this Department of any such prosecutions. The Department has no record of any section 14 prosecutions in respect of plants.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many licences have been issued under section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for release of Schedule 9 plants. [108299]

  Mr. Mullin
  In the last five years one licence has been issued under section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 for the release of Schedule 9 plants. This was for an experimental release of Japanese knotweed, "Fallopia japonica", at a single site in Cheshire to assess the plant's competitive abilities against native weed species.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his estimate is of the cost of controlling invasive plants which are(a) scheduled and (b) unscheduled under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [108301]

  Mr. Mullin
  Information about the cost of controlling invasive plants, whether scheduled or not, is not co-ordinated centrally and therefore is not available.

  PPG23
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to announce changes to PPG23. [108336]
  666W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The waste planning elements of PPG23 have already been dealt with and published under PPG10—Planning and Waste Management (September 1999). We propose to revise the remainder of PPG23 in two stages: the first dealing with contaminated land, and the second dealing with the planning aspects of pollution control, including air quality and water quality. We aim to issue a draft for consultation on contaminated land and planning issues to coincide with the entry into force of regulations and guidance on the new regime for the management of contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, expected in April 2000. Preparation of a consultative draft on planning and pollution control will follow the implementation of Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) under new Pollution, Prevention and Control Regulations, expected in May 2000.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Competition Commission (Media)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer the proposed merger of United Newspapers and Carlton to the Competition Commission. [108182]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will decide whether or not to refer this case to the Competition Commission in the light of advice he has received from the Director General of Fair Trading. He will announce his decision as soon as is practicable.

  Car Dealership Exemptions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it is his policy that the exemption which allows exclusive car distribution and dealership arrangements will end in October 2002. [108177]

  Dr. Howells
  The provision permitting car manufacturers to operate selective and exclusive distribution networks on certain conditions, commonly known as the cars block exemption, is a European Commission Regulation (Regulation (EC) 1475/95). The European Commission is currently reviewing its operation in order to draw up an evaluation report by the end of this year. This report will in turn provide a basis for discussions involving the Commission and the member states on what, if anything, should replace the block exemption when it expires on 30 September 2002. We wish to ensure that the review is undertaken in as thorough and transparent a way as possible.

  The UK Government's policy towards the block exemption will be informed by the findings of the Competition Commission about its effects upon the market for new cars in the UK.

  Government Chemist
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received the 1999 report of the Government Chemist. [108814]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have just received the third annual report of the Government Chemist and copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Post Office Reform
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has appointed advisers to support the implementation of the reforms described in the White Paper on Post Office Reform. [108811]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have appointed Deloitte & Touche to provide support for the implementation of the financial provisions set out in the Post Office White Paper (CM 4340) and Herbert Smith to provide legal advice on any commercial issues arising from implementation of the reform package. Both appointments were made after competitive tenders.

  Telecommunications Act
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish proposals for reform of the Telecommunications Act 1984; and if he will make a statement. [108815]

  Mr. Byers
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I propose to publish a White Paper later this year setting out the Government's proposals for reform of the framework of communications legislation. This will include proposals for changing both the Telecommunications and Broadcasting Acts as a basis for legislation when parliamentary time allows. The White Paper will accordingly be broad in its scope, covering both infrastructure and content issues. It will draw on responses to the options for reform of the broadcasting and telecommunications framework set out in the Government's June 1999 statement, "Regulating Communications: The Way Ahead" and will take full account of emerging conclusions from the current review of the European Union regulatory framework for communications. The work will be taken forward by a joint DTI/DCMS team to ensure a coherent and consistent approach to the regulation of the converging communications industries.

  Oil and Gas Licensing
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce the 9th Round of Landward oil and gas licensing. [108813]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I am inviting applications for Petroleum Exploration and Development licences over unlicensed areas in Great Britain in the 9th Round of Landward Licensing.

  The closing date for applications has been set as 5 May. I hope to be able to make an announcement about licence awards as soon as possible after that once all applications have been thoroughly considered and assessed.

  While much smaller than its offshore counterpart, there is an active oil and gas industry searching for and exploiting Britain's onshore petroleum resources. The award of licences will enable companies to explore for and exploit the petroleum resources of Great Britain, which include conventional oil and gas, mine vent gas and coal bed methane trapped in coal seams.
  668W
  I hope this current invitation to apply for petroleum licences will sustain the momentum created by its predecessors and allow further discoveries to be made.

  Cabling
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences for the laying of cable routes through the boroughs of Maidstone and Swale he has granted since May 1997; and how many applications for licences are under consideration. [107605]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since May 1997, 53 licences have been granted conferring statutory rights to lay cable routes in the public highway anywhere in the United Kingdom. Eight further national licence applications are under consideration.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations he has received from(a) individuals and (b) representative bodies since May 1997 relating to the laying of cable routes through (i) Kent and (ii) Maidstone and Swale Borough Council areas. [107606]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since May 1997, the Department has received a total of 13 representations about telecoms cabling in Kent: 11 from individuals and two from representative bodies, one of which referred to cable laying in Swale.

  Departmental Expenditure and Running Costs Limits
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes will be made to the departmental expenditure limit and running costs limit for his Department and the Office of Fair Trading in the current financial year. [108982]

  Mr. Byers
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the voted element of the Departmental Expenditure Limit for the Department of Trade and Industry will be increased by £61,879,000 from £3,181,682,000 to £3,243,561,000. The net provision of Class IX Vote 1 will be increased by £43,696,000, which results from:

  (i) an increase of £59,700,000 in the net provision for Coal Health liabilities, which has arisen exclusively from a forecast shortfall in Coal Pension Fund Surpluses which are appropriated in aid;

  (ii) a reduction of £5,970,000 in the provision for the Coal Authority grant in aid;

  (iii) an increase of £14,000,000 in the gross expenditure provision for the Aerospace budget in order to facilitate the repayment to Rolls Royce plc of certain amounts that have been overpaid by that company, which is offset by an increase of £14,000,000 in the appropriations in aid provision;

  (iv) the transfer of £10,000,000 from the Local Competitiveness budget to the Inland Revenue (Class XVI Vote 4) for providing payroll support for new employers;

  (v) the transfer of £34,000 from the Coal Health Liabilities budget to the Department of Social Security (Class XII Vote 3) to facilitate access to miners' medical records held by the Benefits Agency.

  669W
  The opportunity of a Supplementary Estimate is also being taken to switch resources between certain lines of the Vote and to accommodate an increase of £300,000 in the appropriations in aid provision for the Departmental Capital budget as a result of the sale of a property, together with an equivalent increase in the gross expenditure provision for that budget.

  The net provision of Class IX Vote 2 will be increased by £18,183,000, of which £16,183,000 represents the take up of End Year Flexibility entitlements as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393W, and £2,000,000 represents a transfer of provision in respect of work commissioned of the British Antarctic Survey, which is part of the Natural Environment Research Council, by the Ministry of Defence. This is offset by an equivalent reduction in the provision for Class VI Vote 1 (Defence: operational and support costs, logistics services, and systems procurement and research). The opportunity of a Supplementary Estimate is also being taken to switch resources between certain lines of the Vote and to accommodate an increase in the amount of recovered VAT, together with an equivalent increase in costs incurred on the Vote.

  The overall increase of £61,879,000 for Class IX Votes 1 and 2 will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  In addition, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the voted element of the Departmental Expenditure Limit of Class IX Vote 7—the Office of Fair Trading—will be increased by £725,000 from £30,722,000 to £31,447,000 and the gross running costs limit will be reduced by £400,000 from £24,184,000 to £23,784,000. The increase in the Departmental Expenditure Limit results from the take up of End Year Flexibility entitlement of £725,000, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393W. The reduction in the gross running costs limit is offset by an increase of £400,000 in the provision for "Direct Expenditure: Other current". The increase in net provision will be charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to review the sale of fireworks. [108373]

  Dr. Howells
  The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 introduced comprehensive controls on the types and sizes of fireworks which can be sold to the public. I have no plans to introduce further controls on fireworks or to review the existing Regulations.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the Scottish Executive on the impact of the Seattle round 670W
  of negotiations of the World Trade Organisation on Scotland; and what consultation he has undertaken with bodies in Scotland in relation to the WTO. [107466]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 2 February 2000]: There was no agreement in Seattle among WTO member governments on the terms for the launch of a new Round of trade negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stated that the Government's position following the Seattle Conferences in the debate in the House on 9 December 1999, Official Report, columns 1022–94. As the Government remain committed to the launch of a new comprehensive Round of trade negotiations, the existing consultation processes it has in place remains valid. This includes a consultation exercise launched last year covering all of the UK. We will continue to hold meetings with people from across the UK including business, NGOs and trade unions at both official and ministerial level. While we have received no formal representations from the Scottish Executive in relation to Seattle, we will be keeping in touch with the First Minister and DTI officials will continue to have contacts with Scottish Executive officials on the range of issues.

  Lomé Convention
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment he has made of the impact of WTO rules on the workings of the Lomé Convention. [107468]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 2 February 2000]: The Government are aware that the tariff preferences available under the Lomé Convention are incompatible with the rules of the WTO in so far as they discriminate between developing countries and thus require a waiver from GATT Article I. The current waiver expires in February 2000 along with the Convention itself and will have to be renewed by agreement with other WTO member governments for the preferences to continue. We strongly support the WTO, which is why we argued for a new, WTO-compatible approach to EU trade relations with Lomé countries after the current Convention expires.

  Both the EU and our Lomé partners have agreed in principle with this approach, which will enter into force after a transitional period of eight years, during which time the current trade arrangements will be rolled over, and a new WTO waiver sought for this rollover period. The Government believe that this approach will give Lomé countries the best chance of integrating more fully into the multilateral trading system, thereby promoting their sustainable development and contributing to poverty eradication.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the volume of imports of(a) beef and beef products and (b) lamb and lamb products in each year since 1995. [107134]

  Ms Quin
  I have been asked to reply.

  Official Overseas Trade Statistics show that the volume of imports of (a) beef and beef products and (b) lamb and lamb products during 1995–98 and January to October 1999 were as shown in the table.
  671W

  UK imports of beef and sheep meat 1995–98 and January to October 1999

  Tonnes 1

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  January-October 1999

  UK imports beef

  254,892

  210,362

  250,156

  208,818

  192,450

  of which:

  Carcase meat

  130,710

  123,117

  154,943

  123,099

  114,353

  Meat and offal preparations

  101,508

  73,117

  79,752

  73,502

  67,655

  Offal

  22,674

  14,128

  15,461

  12,217

  10,443

  UK imports of mutton and lamb:

  142,823

  146,627

  137,936

  128,238

  104,040

  of which:

  Carcase meat

  128,681

  132,754

  127,352

  116,946

  93,376

  Meat and offal preparations

  287

  546

  359

  829

  456

  Offal

  13,856

  13,326

  10,225

  10,463

  10,207

  1 Product weight

  Mozmbique
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much coal was imported from Mozambique in the past three years; what the transport arrangements are for coal supplied by Mozambique; and if he will make a statement. [107920]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Figures for 1999 as a whole are not yet available, but in the first three quarters of 1999 it is estimated that 19,000 tonnes of coal were imported into the United Kingdom from Mozambique. Prior to 1999, this information was not disclosed because the data were commercially sensitive. Customs and Excise has a duty not to disclose details relating specifically to an individual trader's activity. Information is not collected on the mode of transport used for imported coal.

  Hollis Industries plc
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 2000,Official Report, column 208W, if he will list the reasons for the timing of his written answer informing the House of the outcome of the Hollis Inquiry. [108392]

  Mr. Byers
  It was a written question which I replied to as soon as possible.

  TransTec
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those companies which are under investigation by officials into allegations of misuse of Government grants which were subsidiaries of(a) TransTec plc and (b) Hollis Industries. [108390]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to her on 25 January 2000,Official Report, column 206W.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if inspectors investigating TransTec plc will issue an interim report. [108388]

  Mr. Byers
  These are independent inspectors. They can issue an interim report if they wish.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will revise the guidance he has given to inspectors investigating TransTec plc to include allegations of misuse of his Department's grants awarded to TransTec and its subsidiary companies. [108386]
  672W
  Mr. Byers
  There is no need to do to so as they already have such a power.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the procedures being followed by his officials investigating allegations of misuse of Government grants awarded to TransTec plc and its subsidiaries. [108389]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department's inquiries are aimed at establishing the nature and extent of the allegations and the further action that should be taken in relation to those allegations.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 2000,Official Report, column 205W, what action he plans to take as a result of departmental interviews with Mr. Ayriss and Mr. Dickinson. [108394]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department's inquiries are still in progress.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will revise the guidance he has given to inspectors investigating TransTec plc to include the reorganisation of the company in 1991. [108387]

  Mr. Byers
  As I have already stated on 25 January 2000,Official Report, column 208W, if the independent inspectors conclude that there are matters earlier in the company's history which merit investigation then they have the power to do so.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 25 January 2000,Official Report, column 206W, if he will list the minuted meetings held by his Department and representatives of TransTec plc in (a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997, (d) 1998 and (e) 1999. [108393]

  Mr. Byers
  The Company Law and Investigations Directorate has had no minuted meetings with representatives of TransTec.

  Press Releases
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Government Press releases his Department issued in each year from 1995 to 1999. [106561]
  673W
  Mr. Byers
  The number of Press releases issued by the DTI were:

  1995: 908

  1996: 973

  1997: 877

  1998: 1,064

  1999: 1,063

  Construction Industry Scheme
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer the Construction Industry Scheme arrangements and their impact on the construction plant hire industry to the Director General of Fair Trading. [104891]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Inland Revenue is aware of the concerns of the construction plant hire industry about the Construction Industry Scheme. The Office of Fair Trading has brought

  £

  Take up of end of year flexibility in respect of an underspend against EC attributed aid

  105,878,000

  Increase in respect of humanitarian assistance to Kosovo

  58,000,000

  Increase in respect of humanitarian assistance to East Timor

  3,250,000

  Increase in respect of payments under the Gibraltar Social Insurance Fund

  13,100,000

  Increase in respect of contributions to the IMF trust fund for HIPC countries

  33,300,000

  The increase will be a charge on the Departmental Expenditure Limit reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

PRIME MINISTER

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what derogations Her Majesty's Government have applied for in respect of the United Kingdom's membership of the Council of Europe and its hosting of appeal courts empowered to uphold the death penalty in other countries; and if he will make a statement. [107625]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: The United Kingdom has no derogations in respect of its membership of the Council of Europe. In cases where the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council acts as an appeal court for an independent state, including states which impose the death penalty, it does so as an integral part of the judicial structure of that state rather than of the United Kingdom. It is for these states to decide whether they wish to continue to use the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as their final court of appeal. Her Majesty's Government cannot interfere in the judicial processes of another state. But this in no way implies that the United Kingdom condones the death penalty: the United Kingdom regularly raises these issues, bilaterally and with European Union partners, with such states pressing their Governments to abolish the death penalty.
  674W
  the issue of alleged unfairness to the attention of the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue is continuing to consult with representative bodies about areas of the scheme which are causing difficulties. The Office has advised the Revenue that they will not be investigating the matter further.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what changes will be made to the departmental expenditure limit running costs limit for her Department in 1999–2000. [108706]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, for Class VIII, Vote 1: Department for International Development, the Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000 will be increased by £213,528,000 from £2,297,090,000 to £2,510,618,000. This increase is the net effect of:

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General what proposals there are to amend the Attorney-General's Department's Departmental Expenditure Limit and Running Costs Limit for 1999–2000. [108702]

  The Solicitor-General
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates for Class V, Vote 4 (The Crown Prosecution Service) and Class V, Vote 6 (HM Procurator General and Treasury Solicitor), the Attorney-General's Department's Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000 will be increased by £6,596,000 from £335,295,000 to £341,891,000.

  The Crown Prosecution Service's Running Costs Limit will be increased by £496,000 from £227,625,000 to £228,121,000. This increase is required to fund preparatory work to modernise the Crown Prosecution Service information technology infrastructure.

  HM Procurator General and Treasury Solicitor's Running Costs Limit will be increased by £5,600,000 from £4,735,000 to £10,335,000. Appropriations in aid will also be reduced by £3,400,000. This will fund expenditure arising from the closure of the Government Property Lawyers Agency on 30 September 1999, which was announced to the House by answer to a Parliamentary Question on 11 November 1998, Official Report, column 187W.

  The increases will be offset by the surrender of £589,000 of the Attorney General's Department's End Year Flexibility of £612,000 as announced by the Chief

  675W
  Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393W. £93,000 of this will be transferred to the Home Office in respect of the CPS contribution towards the cost of Integrating Business and Information Systems in the Criminal Justice System (IBIS).

  The remainder of the expenditure will be charged to the Reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

DEFENCE

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the items in the National Assets Register sold by his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies since 11 February 1999, stating in each case the amount of money realised; if he will estimate the total amount raised from such sales to date; and if he will make a statement. [104483]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is currently not held in the format to link assets as shown in the National Asset Register with those assets subsequently declared as surplus to requirements and sold by the Disposal Sales Agency (DSA), and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on surplus sales of equipment and stores is contained in the DSA's 1998–99 Annual Report and Accounts held in the Library of the House. The 1999–2000 Annual Report and Accounts will be made available to the Library of the House before the summer Recess this year.

  Information on the sale of Defence Estates Buildings and Lands is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Synthetic Aperture Radar
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the ultra-wide band synthetic aperture radar programme; what has been the cost of the system to date; and if he will make a statement. [106158]

  Dr. Moonie
  I assume that the question refers to the Remote Minefield Detection System (REMIDS) Technology Demonstrator Programme, which is investigating the development of a sensor to detect minefields and mined areas for military purposes. It is using Ultra-Wide Band Synthetic Aperture Radar (UWB SAR) as a preferred technology.

  Tests carried out in 1998 at short range from a ground vehicle proved the potential effectiveness of a UWB SAR in the detection role, and successfully detected plastic and metal targets representative of mine-like anti-tank ordnance. The equipment is currently in an early prototype stage and the tests did not represent a realistic environment. However, sufficient information has been generated to proceed with confidence with work on a more powerful airborne system.

  Approximately £390,000 has been spent to date.

  East Timor
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlay the decision to deploy the Gurkha Regiment to East Timor; and if he will make a statement. [107851]

  Mr. Spellar
  We decided to participate in the operation in East Timor in support of the decisions of the international community and our long standing ally and friend Australia. The decision to deploy the Gurkhas to East Timor was taken principally because they were based in Brunei and therefore already acclimatised and able to deploy quickly. Moreover, some Gurkhas also speak Malay, which is closely related to the Indonesian language and was of considerable use during the operation. The deployment of Brunei based Gurkhas also minimised potential overstretch implications.

  Departmental Fees
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which fees his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies collect; how much has been raised and will be raised from each of these fees from 1989–90 to 2004–05; and which of these fees count as negative expenditure. [107979]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), gave him on 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 63W.

  Walk-on Equipment (Chinook)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the value of walk-on equipment. [108054]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 2 February 2000]: I assume that the question relates to walk-on equipment which may be carried on the Chinook Mk2, such as binoculars, cameras and computers. The presence of such equipment would depend on the purpose of a particular flight and no general statement of value would be meaningful.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recommendations in the Chinook Mk2 test were made on the use of in-flight UHF transmitters and walk-on equipment; and if they were written into the CIA release. [108053]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 2 February 2000]: It was recommended that, because of the vulnerability of the automatic flight system to the Ultra High Frequency band, particular care should be taken when introducing UHF on-board transmitters to the Chinook as Special Trial Fits or walk-on equipment. The Controller Aircraft Release for the Chinook Mk2 in January 1994 stipulated that no canyon-board equipment was cleared for use. No electronic equipment had been introduced to the aircraft by Special Trial Fit.

  WRVS
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has undertaken with the AWS and WRVS regarding the line management
  677W
  accountability of WRVS employees; what advice he has received; what decisions have been taken; and if he will make a statement. [107840]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 2 February 2000]: The Ministry of Defence is currently engaged with the Womens' Royal Voluntary Service (WRVS) in negotiating the renewal of their contractual relationship. The WRVS, like the Service Sound and Vision Corporation, the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute and the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association (Forces Help), is a charitable-based organisation working in partnership with the Services. WRVS employees, working with the Army are line managed and appraised annually by their National Director and the Commanding Officer of the Unit to which they are assigned. The WRVS maintains a regular dialogue with the Directorate of Personal Services (Army). This process ensures that the WRVS is apprised of developments in Welfare Policy and practices in the Army.

  Welfare is a function of the Chain of Command within the Army. The Army Welfare Service (AWS) fulfils only one part, albeit an important part, of the overall delivery of welfare support within the Army. They are an in-house organisation providing specialist support and advice to Army individuals, their dependent families and the Chain of Command. Their activity is focused on the LAND Command component of the Army, although they can provide a point of contact for the Army based elsewhere. Where the AWS operate alongside the WRVS, they do so in partnership, each bringing particular and complementary skills to the overall welfare delivery. There is no direct line management relationship between the AWS and the WRVS.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes will be made to his Department's budget, departmental expenditure and Operating Cost limits for 1999–2000. [108701]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government have decided that, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class VI Vote 1 Defence for 1999–2000, the following changes should apply:

  (a) The overall limit will increase by £584.282 million from £22,283.085 million to £22,867.367 million.

  (b) The Ministry of Defence Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £582.9 million from £22,280.341 million to £22,863.241 million.

  (c) The Ministry of Defence Operating Cost Limit will be increased by £778.972 million from £15,918.341 million to £16,697.313 million.

  This will cover the additional expenditure incurred by UK forces on operations in Kosovo and Bosnia during the current financial year which are estimated at just under £400 million and £112 million respectively. The figure also includes full take-up of the Ministry of Defence's entitlement to End Year Flexibility of £74 million.

  The Supplementary Estimates will also provide for changes in the general pattern of expenditure, including adjustments between the Defence Procurement Agency's equipment programme and the operating costs programmes.
  678W
  As the increase in the Defence Expenditure Limit will be met from the Reserve, which is part of the Government's overall spending plan, it will not add to the planned total of public expenditure in the current year.

  Oath of Allegiance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many letters he has received since 1 May 1997 on(a) constituency matters and (b) other matters of Government policy from each of those Members of the House who have not taken the oath of allegiance. [108409]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information requested cannot be provided as correspondence between MPs and the Department is treated in confidence unless the originating MP chooses to make such issues public.

  Services Recruits
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of recruits to the(a) Royal Navy and (b) armed forces passed the initial physical fitness tests in (a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [107965]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

TREASURY

  Health Spending
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much spending on health has increased since 1 May 1997; and by what proportion of GDP health spending will increase by 2002. [106882]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Since we took office the Government have increased spending on the NHS by 10.4 per cent. in real terms. We estimate that by 2002 health spending will be around 7 per cent. of GDP.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the prospects for convergence between United Kingdom and European interest rates in the medium term. [106898]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Our policy is as set out in the Chancellor's October 1997 statement, including five economic tests which will have to be met before any decision to join can be taken.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he has taken of the impact of the level of interest rates on the economy of the north east of England in deciding the level of public expenditure in the region. [106912]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The north east of England, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to create a platform of economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment.

  Pesticides Tax
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he estimates he will raise from his proposed tax on the use of pesticides. [106899]

  Mr. Timms
  On 1 February, the Government welcomed the voluntary proposals on reducing the environmental impacts of pesticide use brought forward by the British Agrochemical Association and announced that, subject to further detailed discussions on these proposals, the Chancellor will not proceed with the introduction of a pesticides tax in the Budget.

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people who will pay extra stamp duty in 2000–01 as a result of the 1999 Budget. [106900]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  About 95,000 transactions will be affected as a result of the 1999 Budget measures on stamp duty on land and property.

  VAT (Building and Maintenance)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the rate of VAT levied on building, renovation and maintenance work. [106901]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Treasury Ministers have received a number of letters about the rate of VAT on building, renovation and maintenance work.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the building industry on VAT on house repairs, renovation and extension work. [106920]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None.

  Football Clubs
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a tax redistribution arrangement based on turnover for professional football clubs. [106902]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 December 1999,Official Report, column 297W.

  Single Currency
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on future British membership of the single European currency. [106903]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer regularly discusses the Government's economic policy with Cabinet colleagues. The Government's position on the single currency remains as set by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement to the House of Commons on 27 October 1997,Official Report, columns 583–88.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the value of sterling on trends in manufacturing output in the past 12 months. [106904]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There is strong evidence to suggest that manufacturers on the whole are coping well with the strength of sterling. Manufacturing output rose by 1.1 per cent. in the three months to November, compared to the previous three months, while export volumes have risen significantly through 1999.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much additional expenditure has been directed exclusively to pensioners since May 1997. [106905]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  From May 1997 until the financial year 2001–02, the Government have made available an additional £4 billion in real terms exclusively for pensioners. We have introduced the Minimum Income Guarantee which will be uprated by earnings growth through the remainder of this Parliament and Winter Fuel Payments of £100 per year per pensioner household. This year, we will introduce free TV licences for pensioners aged 75 and over and pensioners will receive free access to National museums in England where there are currently charges. The Government's Transport Bill contains proposals to guarantee pensioners at least half-price fares on buses in return for passes costing no more than five pounds.

  NHS (Hypothecated Funding)
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the benefits of applying hypothecated funding to the NHS. [106906]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Chancellor announced in his Pre-Budget Report that there was a strong, ongoing health case for year-on-year real terms increases in the price of cigarettes to support the Government's objectives to reduce smoking and tackle cancer and coronary heart disease, and that any additional revenue raised from real increases in tobacco duties would in future be spent on improved healthcare.

  Savings Tax (EU Directive)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there are any circumstances in which it would be his policy to agree to the European Commission's Draft directive on the Taxation of Savings. [106907]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have made clear that there can be no agreement to any draft directive on the taxation of savings as long as it risks damaging European Union financial markets.

  IR35
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress he is making in the introduction of IR35 changes. [106908]
  681W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The proposed legislation will take effect from this April. It will ensure that workers in service companies pay tax and NICs on a basis which is fair in comparison with other employees.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the summit he held on 21 December with the churches and charities on debt relief for the world's poorest countries. [106909]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor and Secretary of State for International Development met with representatives of religious faiths and non-governmental organisations at 11 Downing Street on 21 December to discuss the latest progress under the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative and to share views on how to move the campaign for debt relief forward.

  The Chancellor also reported that the UK would be providing 100 per cent. relief on the debts owed by the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries to the UK's Export Credit Guarantee Department.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an assessment of the impact which United Kingdom interest rates have had on economic activity in the manufacturing industry of the United Kingdom in the past 12 months. [106910]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Manufacturing output rose 1.1 per cent. in the three months to November compared to the previous three months, and has been on an upward trend since spring last year. Performance has been much better than expected.

  Departmental Expenditure Targets
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the individual departmental expenditure limits targets for the second and third years of the comprehensive spending review period. [106911]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government's plans for departmental expenditure limits for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are set out in "Modern Public Services for Britain: Investing in Reform" (Cm 40411).

  Taxation
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much extra tax will be paid in the four years from May 1997 as a result of the three Budgets since July 1997. [106913]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the extra tax that will be paid in the period up to May 2002 as a result of his Budget measures since May 1997. [106918]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The effects of the last three Budgets on Government tax revenues and expenditure were published in table 2.2 of the July 1997 Financial Statement and Budget Report, and table 1.3 of the March 1998 and March 1999 Financial Statement and Budget Reports.

  Road Fuel Duty
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to discuss the levels of road fuel duty on diesel with finance ministers of other EU member states; and if he will make a statement. [106915]

  Mr. Timms
  None.

  Scotland
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact in Scotland of the working families tax credit and the minimum income guarantee. [106916]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that in 2000–01, the first full year of the Working Families Tax Credit, about 130,000 families in Scotland will be in receipt of the credit. Currently a family with someone in full-time work and with one child has a minimum income guarantee of £200 a week.

  Economic Growth (South-East)
  Mr. White
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the prospects for economic growth in the south-east. [106919]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's latest economic forecast for the UK economy was published on 9 November 1999 as part of the Pre-Budget Report. The South East, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is expected to continue to benefit from the long-term action we have taken to lock in economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the expected change in after-tax income by earners who earn(a) 50 per cent., (b) 75 per cent., (c) 150 per cent., (d) 200 per cent. and (e) 300 per cent. of median incomes as a result of the 1p reduction in income tax to be implemented in April. [106886]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A great many factors can affect an individual's after-tax income—and this Government have introduced measures designed to boost take-home pay and increase the net incomes of families with children. The cut in the basic rate is one of those measures. Families with children will on average be £740 per year better off as a result of the last two budgets.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 113W, (1) on what is his estimate of the number of people whose taxable incomes will exceed £100,000 per year in (a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03; [107799]

  (2) on what is his estimate of the numbers of people who had taxable incomes of over £100,000 in each year from 1979–80 to 1999–2000; and if he will estimate for each year from 1990–91 onwards the additional revenue which would have accrued from a basic income tax rate of 50% on taxable income over £100,000 per year. [107800]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of people with taxable incomes over £100,000 is estimated to be around 204,000 in 2000–01, 227,000 in 2001–02 and 243,000 in 2002–03.
  683W
  These estimates are based on the 1997–98 Survey of Personal incomes and are consistent with the November 1999 Pre-Budget Report forecast.

  I regret that it would be possible to provide reliable estimates for the number of taxpayers with taxable incomes above £100,000 and the tax yield from charging a rate of 50 per cent. for taxable incomes above £100,000 only at disproportionate cost.

  However, the number of people with total incomes above 100,000 are set out in the table (for years between 1979–80 and 1999–2000).

  Financial year

  Number of taxpayers 1 with total income above £100,000

  Numbers based on survey of personal incomes

  1979–80

  2,000

  1979–80

  1980–81

  4,000

  1980–81

  1981–82

  5,000

  1981–82

  1982–83

  7,000

  1982–83

  1983–84

  8,000

  1983–84

  1984–85

  10,000

  1984–85

  1985–86

  17,000

  1985–86

  1986–87

  25,000

  1986–87

  1987–88

  33,000

  1987–88

  1988–89

  55,000

  1988–89

  1989–90

  78,000

  1989–90

  1990–91

  81,000

  1990–91

  1991–92

  104,000

  1991–92

  1992–93

  95,000

  1992–93

  1993–94

  103,000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  118,000

  1994–95

  1995–96

  126,000

  1995–96

  1996–97

  154,000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  186,000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  207,000

  1997–98

  1999–2000

  227,000

  1997–98

  Prior to 1990–91 most married couples were counted as one taxpayer

  Unemployment (East Midlands)
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of his economic policies on levels of unemployment in the east midlands. [106893]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In the East Midlands region, as in the rest of the UK, we have created a sound platform of economic stability that will help us attain our objective of stable levels of growth and employment. Since the general election, employment in the East Midlands is up, unemployment is down, long-term unemployment is down by two-thirds and youth unemployment by three-quarters.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect the new Construction Industry Scheme arrangements will have on the construction plant hire industry. [104892]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The purpose of the new Construction Industry Scheme, which took effect on 1 August 1999, is to tackle tax fraud and evasion across the industry as a whole. The Inland Revenue are continuing to consult with representative bodies about areas of the scheme which are causing difficulties.
  684W
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Construction Plant Hire Association. [104893]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue are continuing to consult with representative bodies about the new scheme and the areas of difficulty which have been brought to their attention. They are considering all the points which have been made to them.

  Transport Spending
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any real terms increases in spending on public transport and the road network that result from real terms increases in revenues from fuel duties will be in addition to the planned increases in real terms spending on transport that were announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [107980]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Yes, within the total of managed expenditure determined by the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if any real terms spending on the NHS that results from real terms increases in revenues from tobacco will be in addition to the planned increases in real terms spending on the NHS that were announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review; [107982]

  (2) if spending on public transport and the road network during the period of the second Comprehensive Spending Review, excluding any increases in spending that result from real terms increases in revenues from fuel duties, will not be cut in real terms. [107981]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him on 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 569W.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what help is being given to those wood fibre particleboard and wood fibreboard producers who will be adversely affected by the climate change levy. [107938]

  Mr. Timms
  Sites in these sectors which are covered by the Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive, as defined by reference to Part A of the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations, will be eligible for an 80 per cent. discount from the levy if they sign up to a negotiated agreement to improve energy efficiency that meets the Government's criteria.

  More generally, all firms in these sectors will benefit from the other modifications to the design of the climate change levy announced by the Chancellor in the Pre-Budget Report, including the lower overall rates of the levy; the exemptions for electricity generated from 'new' forms of renewable energy and 'good quality' combined heat and power plants; and the trebling of support for energy efficiency measures under the levy package.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 31 January; and if he will make a statement. [108322]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer attended the Economic and Finance Council of Ministers.

  The Portuguese Presidency presented their work programme. The main emphasis will be on preparation for the Special European Council at Lisbon, which will set a new agenda for economic policy reform. Other key themes of the Presidency are continuing work on economic policy co-ordination, including the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, promoting the single market, particularly in financial services, improving financial management, and tackling money laundering.

  The Presidency also undertook to continue work on the tax package. The Chancellor emphasised the importance of continuing to take measures that genuinely combat harmful tax competition, through the work of the Code of Conduct Group, as work is taken forward on the conclusions of the Helsinki European Council, which established the very clear principle that all citizens resident in the EU should pay the tax due on all their savings income.

  As part of Stage III of EMU, member states are obliged to submit stability (for the Outs) and convergence (for the Ins) programmes annually, as updates to their original programmes submitted in March 1999. The deadline was end December 1999, and the programmes are now being examined by ECOFIN Ministers over three meetings. The programmes for Sweden, Greece, Finland, Ireland and the Netherlands were discussed and agreed.

  Bank Accounts
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the percentage of adults who have bank accounts. [108213]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Various surveys indicate that the percentage of adults who have either a current account or a savings account is in the range 91 to 94 per cent.

  Euro
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies his Department has carried out to quantify(a) the trade and competition effects of the United Kingdom entering the euro and (b) the impact of the euro on trade and competition in the Euro Zone. [108374]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government have set out five economic tests which define whether an economic case can be made for membership of EMU. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said we will make another assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of working age people were in employment in the spring quarter of(a) 1998 and (b) 1999. [108355]
  686W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Frank Field, dated 3 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on proportions of working age people in employment.
  Estimates from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), the main source of labour market data on individuals, give the proportion of working age people in employment for spring 1998 as 73.4 per cent, and for spring 1999 as 73.9 per cent. These estimates are seasonally adjusted and are taken from Table 2a of the ONS Labour Force Survey Quarterly Supplement Vol. 6, which is held in the House of Commons Library.
  Employment rates express the total of working age in employment as a percentage of all of working age. Working age is defined as men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59.
  People aged 16 or over are classed as in employment by the LFS if they have done at least one hour of paid work (as an employee or self-employed) in the week prior to their LFS interview or if they have a job that they are temporarily away from. People who do unpaid work in a family business and people on Government-supported training and employment programmes are also included according to the International Labour Organisation convention.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what proportion of working-age people lived in a household where no adult worked in(a) 1998 and (b) 1999; [108354]

  (2) what proportion of children aged under 16 years lived in workless households in 1998 and 1999. [108351]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Frank Field, dated 3 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary questions on working age people in workless households and children aged under 16 in workless households.
  In August 1998 the ONS introduced Labour Force Survey (LFS) databases especially designed for analyses of labour market data on households. Workless households in the LFS are defined as households with no-one in employment. People aged 16 or over are classed as in employment by the LFS if they have done at least one hour of paid work (as an employee or self-employed) in the week prior to their LFS interview or if they have a job that they are temporarily away from. People who do unpaid work in a family business and people on Government-supported training and employment programmes are also included according to the International Labour Organisation convention.
  The estimates below have been restricted to working-age households, which are defined as households including at least one person of working age, i.e. a man aged 16 to 64 and a woman aged 16 to 59.
  For spring 1998, the estimate of the proportion of working-age people living in workless households was 13.0 per cent. For spring 1999 it was 12.6 per cent. For spring 1998, the estimate of the proportion of children aged under 16 living in workless households was 18.2 per cent. In spring 1999 it was 17.6 per cent. Both sets of figures were published in an article in the January 2000 issue of Labour Market Trends(pp 25–34) which is held in the House of Commons Library.

  Life Expectancy
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the healthy life expectancy of people aged 65 years. [108356]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Frank Field, dated 3 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the healthy life expectancy of people aged 65 years.
  Healthy life expectancy combines mortality and morbidity into a single index. Using the General Household Survey question on self-reported general health, ONS has calculated that in England in 19951 a woman aged 65 could expect to live a further 13.2 years in good or fairly good health, and a man aged 65 could expect to live a further 11.4 years in good or fairly good health. This compares with total life expectancy figures at age 65 of 18.4 and 14.8 years for women and men respectively.
  The full set of results from this analysis and the methodology used will be published in the ONS journal, Health Statistics Quarterly, later this year.
  1 Using data for 1994–96

  Conceptions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rate of conceptions to women aged under 18 years of age per 1,000 women aged 15 to 17 years of age in 1998. [108353]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Frank Field, dated 3 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the rate of conceptions to women aged under 18 years in 1998.
  Figures for 1998 are not yet available. The conception rates for women aged under 18 in England and Wales for 1990–1997 are shown in the table:

  Year

  Conceptions to women under 18 per 1,000 women aged 15–17

  1990

  47.7

  1991

  44.6

  1992

  43.6

  1993

  42.5

  1994

  42.0

  1995

  42.0

  1996

  46.4

  1997

  45.9

  Amusement Machine Licensing Duty
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been received in revenue from Amusement Machine Licensing Duty in each of the last five years. [108312]

  Mr. Timms
  The figures for receipts in the last five calendar years from Amusement Machine Licence Duty are as follows.
  688W

  £000

  Year

  Receipts

  1995

  113,014

  1996

  129,719

  1997

  132,943

  1998

  142,127

  1999

  162,157

  Fiscal Policy
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make reducing inequality a central feature of his fiscal policy. [106894]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are committed to building a fairer and more inclusive society in which everyone can contribute to and benefit from economic prosperity. In the Pre-Budget Report, the Chancellor set out the long-term ambition for the next decade to halve child poverty as a step on the way to abolishing child poverty within a generation. Measures in the last two Budgets will lift around 800,000 children out of poverty.

  Pensioners should also share fairly in the nation's increasing prosperity. The Pre-Budget Report announced Winter Allowance for every pensioner household for the rest of the Parliament, free TV licence for older pensioners who are most likely to be poor, and will uprate minimum income guarantee in line with earnings for the rest of the Parliament.

  Oath of Allegiance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters he has received since 1 May 1997 on(a) constituency matters and (b) other matters of Government policy from each of those Members of the House who have not taken the oath of allegiance. [108412]

  Mr. Timms
  Correspondence between MPs and Departments is treated in confidence and is not a matter of public record.

  Knitted Goods Sales
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the timetable for the publication of the Office for National Statistics 1998 figures for manufacturers' sales of hosiery and other knitted goods to the public. [106914]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Detailed product data from the 1998 quarterly Products of the European Community (PRODCOM) survey of manufacturers' sales of knitted and crocheted articles were published on 28 September 1999.

  Provisional results of the 1998 Annual Business Inquiry (ABI) will be published on 11 February 2000. This News Release will contain values for turnover, purchases and gross value added for the textile and textile products industry. More detailed industry results, including those for the manufacture of knitted and crocheted articles, will be published around August 2000.

  Contingencies Fund (Kosovo)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what drawings have been made from the Contingencies Fund in relation to events in Kosovo in the past 12 months. [106896]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  No advances from the Contingency Fund have been made to Departments involved in the peacekeeping, humanitarian and refugee programmes for Kosovo in the last 12 months. There was though in June an allocation from the Reserve for £10 million additional humanitarian assistance, and the Spring Supplementary Estimates which will be the subject of separate written answers providing a further £536 million for Kosovo-related spending from the Reserve.

  VAT (Energy-saving Materials)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies the Treasury has undertaken on the(a) cost and (b) financial, social, economic and legal effects of reducing VAT on energy-saving materials and technologies. [108302]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs carried out just such a review in 1997. They published "Helping the Less Well-off Save Energy, The Scope for a Reduced Rate of VAT' in November 1997, a copy of which is available from the Library of the House. It can also be seen on the Customs and Excise website at:http://www.hmce.gov.uk/bus/vat/green.htm

  We introduced a 5 per cent. VAT rate for grant funded installations of energy-saving materials as a direct result of this report.

  Customs and Excise
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to HM Customs and Excise departmental expenditure limit and running costs limit for 1999–2000. [108698]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are currently no plans to change the overall departmental expenditure limit of HM Customs and Excise. However, subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XVI, Vote 3 (HM Customs and Excise: administration), the running costs limit will be increased by £9,001,000 from £792,115,000 to £801,116,000. The increase is required to cover the effect of accounting classification changes on the department's IT current expenditure.

  The increase will be entirely offset by a reduction in capital provision. It will not therefore add to either the departmental expenditure limit or the planned total of public expenditure.

  Inland Revenue
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the Inland Revenue's departmental expenditure limit and running costs limit for 1999–2000. [108697]
  690W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the Supplementary Estimate for Class XVI, Vote 4 the Inland Revenue Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000 will be increased by £10,053,000 from £2,168,461,000 to £2,178,514,000. The Inland Revenue running cost limit will also be increased by £5,663,000 from £2,168,840,000 to £2,174,503,000.

  The increase is mainly due to the transfer of £5,610,000 running costs and £4,390,000 capital from the Department of Trade and Industry, Class 9, Vote 1 for the provision of payroll support to new employers.

  The increase will be offset by transfers or charged to the DEL reserve and will not add therefore to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Public Sector Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees(a) opted-out of or (b) did not take the option to join contributory public sector pension schemes in the period 1988 to 1994 inclusive. [108002]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Complete data are not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost. In the review of mis-selling of personal pensions it was estimated that around 300,000 employees may have opted out of the main public service pension schemes in this period. This figure excluded the Local Government Pension Scheme and the schemes for police and fire brigades which are administered on a decentralised basis by local authorities.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many employees were reinstated to non-contributory public sector pension schemes in the financial years 1996–97 to 1998–99 inclusive; [107999]

  (2) how many employees were reinstated to contributory public sector pension schemes in the financial years 1996–97 to 1998–99 inclusive. [108003]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Complete data are not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost. The numbers for the main public service schemes excluding those administered on a decentralised basis by local authorities are shown in the table. Information is not available on pension schemes in the wider public sector. The Armed Forces Pension Scheme is the only non-contributory public service pension scheme. Very few reinstatements were completed prior to 1997–98.

  Mis-selling review—number of reinstatements into public service pensions schemes

  1997–98 1

  1998–99

  Non-contributory scheme

  —

  —

  Armed Forces

  2

  8

  Contributory schemes

  —

  —

  Teachers

  1,626

  4,078

  National Health Service

  3,290

  22,448

  Northern Ireland Teachers, NHS etc.

  290

  801

  Civil Service2

  16

  66

  Scottish Teachers and NHS

  757

  1,832

  Total

  5,981

  29,233

  1 Includes small number of reinstatements made in 1996–97

  2 Employee contributions to the PCSPS are refundable in certain circumstances.

  691W
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees(a) opted-out of or (b) did not take up the option to join non-contributory public sector pension schemes in the period 1988 to 1994 inclusive. [107998]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Armed Forces Pension Scheme is the only non-contributory public service pension scheme. Entry to the scheme is automatic on employment. 83 employees opted out of the scheme in the period 1988 to 1994.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many press releases his Department issued from 1995 to 1999. [108183]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 2 February 2000,Official Report, column 636W.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Child Care
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of planned Ofsted inspections of child minders on the provision of child minding services. [105988]

  Ms Hodge
  Transferring the responsibility for child minding and day care regulation to the new and distinct Early Years Directorate in Ofsted will enable the best of the present regulatory system for child care to be brought together with that for nursery education inspections. This will help create greater coherence and integration and will lead to improvements in the quality of child care and early years education services. The new Directorate will deliver its services through a national and regional structure supported by a local presence.

  Establishing new national standards will ensure consistency across the country. The present system has led to widely varying interpretations; a national framework delivered at a local level will ensure greater clarity and consistency for providers, including child minders. In addition, local authorities will continue to provide training, guidance and advice to child minders and prospective child minders to encourage them to meet the relevant standards for registration.

  Parents will have access to open information from Ofsted reports and this will enable them to make better informed choices. This will ensure that parents have greater trust and confidence in the quality of the child care services available locally.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed dated 12 October 1999, relating to a constituent living in Shilbottle, Northumberland, on the subject of a student loan. [107286]
  692W
  Mr. Blunkett
  A reply was sent on 1 February 2000. I am sorry for the delay in replying to the right hon. Member.

  Seed Challenge Capital (Essex)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total allocation of Seed Challenge Capital for schools within Essex County Council in the next financial year; and how many schools within Essex County Council are eligible to bid for funds under the scheme. [107758]

  Jacqui Smith
  The total allocation of Seed Challenge Capital for schools within Essex County Council in the next financial year is £650,909. All maintained schools are eligible to bid for funds under the scheme. The next financial year, 2000–01, is a pilot year for Seed Challenge. If it is successful in building partnerships and raising additional funding, we will consider expanding the scheme in future years.

  Computers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on how many occasions in each of the past five years computer systems in his Department have been illegally accessed by computer hackers(a) within and (b) outside his Department. [106223]

  Mr. Wills
  There have been no successful attempts to gain illegal access to DfEE systems in the past five years from either within or outside my Department.

  Degree Courses
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students enrolled for degree courses in each year since 1995. [108009]

  Mr. Wicks
  The available information is given in the table. 1997 entrant numbers may have been inflated because entrants who might otherwise have taken a gap year decided not to as they were influenced by the knowledge that fees would be introduced with effect from 1998. Comparable data for 1999–2000 will be published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency in April.

  Entrants to first degree courses in higher education institutions in the UK 1

  Year of entry

  Entrants

  1995

  348,211

  1996

  349,130

  1997

  358,560

  1998

  350,321

  1 Full-time and part-time courses, excluding the Open University and HE students in FE colleges

  UCAS figures covering full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses only, show that the number of UK domiciled applicants accepted for entry increased by 1.6 per cent. between autumn 1998 and autumn 1999.

  Foreign Seamen
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many foreign seamen have received work permits in the last 12 months. [108022]

  Ms Hodge
  No foreign seamen have received work permits during the last 12 months.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many inner-city schools have access to playing fields for sport. [108134]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Destinations of first degree graduates from higher education institutions in the United Kingdom six months after graduation

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Number

  Percentage1

  Full-time employment

  78,940

  44.5

  93,561

  49.2

  97,163

  50.2

  99,982

  51.0

  Part-time employment

  8,099

  4.6

  8,297

  4.4

  8,167

  4.2

  8,317

  4.2

  Further training

  36,848

  20.8

  37,612

  19.8

  36,858

  19.1

  37,338

  19.1

  Unemployed

  15,194

  8.6

  14,381

  7.6

  12,354

  6.4

  10,440

  5.3

  Other2

  38,443

  21.7

  36,405

  19.1

  38,928

  20.1

  39,833

  20.3

  Total number of graduates with known destination

  177,524

  100.0

  190,256

  100.0

  193,470

  100.0

  195,910

  100.0

  1 Constituent parts may not sum to total because of rounding

  2 Includes overseas students returning overseas and graduates not available for employment

  Montserrat
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with the British Council regarding the higher education awards to students from Montserrat studying in the United Kingdom. [108139]

  Mr. Wicks
  Officials from my Department meet from time to time with the British Council, who administer the Montserrat Emergency Award Scheme, to discuss the scheme's effectiveness, guidance on eligibility criteria, numbers of Montserrat students involved and the associated funding required. The scheme began in 1997, following volcanic activity on Montserrat, and provides students with bursaries to help meet the costs of their higher education tuition in England and Wales. My Department is providing £1.322 million to support 198 students in the current financial year.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary school and (b) secondary school pupils are estimated to be in classes of 30 or more pupils for each year from 1990–91 to 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [107790]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Information on class sizes in January is currently being collected for the year 1999–2000 and provisional estimates will be published in a Statistical First Release in April 2000. Figures for the year 2000–01 will not be collected until the next Annual census exercise is undertaken in January 2001.

  Graduates
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of graduates in the UK gained full-time employment within two years of graduating in each year since 1995. [108008]

  Mr. Wicks
  Information on the destinations of graduates is collected annually by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), and shows the employment position of students six months after graduation. This information is given in the table.

  Recent research undertaken by the Institute for Employment Research which tracked the longer term career paths of graduates was published in "Moving On-Graduate Careers Three Years after Graduation" and showed that approximately 90 per cent. of students graduating in July 1995 were in employment in December 1998.

  Number of pupils in maintained primary and secondary schools in classes of size 30 or more taught by one teacher—199I to 1999—position as at January—England

  Classes of 30 or more

  All classes

  Primary

  1999

  1,827,600

  4,051,806

  1998

  1,927,842

  4,054,801

  1997

  1,842,141

  4,025,162

  1996

  1,750,781

  3,966,235

  1995

  1,625,305

  3,908,390

  1994

  1,519,753

  3,813,285

  1993

  1,412,153

  3,719,076

  1992

  1,320,492

  3,625,346

  1991

  1,306,768

  3,577,523

  Secondary

  1999

  571,634

  2,890,610

  1998

  519,363

  2,845,146

  1997

  461,780

  2,808,509

  1996

  437,576

  2,766,832

  1995

  399,990

  2,735,880

  1994

  387,807

  2,666,538

  1993

  355,731

  2,572,728

  1992

  328,578

  2,509,381

  1991

  308,747

  2,466,025

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the available information on(a) primary and (b) secondary school class sizes in Somerset for each of the years 1995–96 to 1999–2000. [107791]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  A summary of class size information in maintained Primary and Secondary schools in the Somerset local education authority area for
  695W
  the academic years 1995–96 to 1998–99 is shown in the tables. Similar information about classes in Somerset for the academic year 1999–2000 is currently being collected and will be available from September.

  Number of classes and pupils taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in the Somerset local education authority area—1996 to 1999—position as at January—England

  Size of class

  1999

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1–20

  Number of classes

  113

  129

  134

  137

  Number of pupils

  1,716

  2,018

  2,156

  2,120

  21–30

  Number of classes

  793

  759

  787

  786

  Number of pupils

  21,221

  20,223

  21,004

  20,818

  31 to 35

  Number of classes

  412

  417

  385

  396

  Number of pupils

  13,431

  13,574

  12,443

  12,840

  36 to 40

  Number of classes

  53

  45

  45

  21

  Number of pupils

  1,941

  1,651

  1,653

  768

  41 and over

  Number of classes

  0

  2

  0

  1

  Number of pupils

  0

  83

  0

  41

  All classes

  Number of classes

  1,371

  1,352

  1,351

  1,341

  Number of pupils

  38,309

  37,549

  37,256

  36,587

  Number of classes and pupils taught by one teacher in maintained secondary schools in the Somerset local education authority area Position as at January—England

  Size of class

  1999

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1–20

  Number of classes

  313

  297

  366

  352

  Number of pupils

  4,431

  4,296

  5,324

  5,128

  21–30

  Number of classes

  731

  737

  718

  712

  Number of pupils

  19,172

  19,230

  18,722

  18,572

  31–35

  Number of classes

  150

  136

  118

  110

  Number of pupils

  4,855

  4,340

  3,803

  3,504

  36–40

  Number of classes

  3

  4

  1

  2

  Number of pupils

  108

  145

  37

  74

  41 and over

  Number of classes

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Number of pupils

  0

  0

  0

  41

  All classes

  Number of classes

  1,197

  1,174

  1,203

  1,177

  Number of pupils

  28,566

  28,011

  27,886

  27,319

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the number of pupils in(a) primary school classes and (b) secondary school classes with over 30 pupils for each English county from 1991–92 to 1999–2000; and what percentage these numbers represent of the total (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools population for each such county. [107792]
  696W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information is shown in the tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Information on classes as taught in England in January 2000 is currently being collected and provisional national figures will be published in a Statistical First Release in April.

  Teacher Competencies
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 28 January 2000,Official Report, columns 386–87W, on teacher competencies, (a) how the proposed standards for teachers wishing to cross the proposed new performance threshold will be determined and (b) when the Hay McBer report will be considered. [108423]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The standards for the performance threshold will be determined by the Secretary of State in the light of comments from School Teachers' Review Body consultees. A draft was proposed in the technical consultation document on pay and performance management, published in February 1999. It is being further developed in the light of responses received during the consultation on the technical consultation document and in the light of research by Hay McBer into the characteristics of effective teaching. Recommendations about the performance threshold standards were an early output of that research.

  DfEE expects to receive the final report from Hay McBer on the characteristics of effective teaching at the end of February 2000. The full report will look at the characteristics of effective teaching at different stages of the profession, including post-induction and Advanced Skills Teacher. DfEE will want to consider, with the profession, how this framework might be used to support teachers' continuing professional development.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of(a) primary school per pupil standard spending assessments and (b) secondary school per pupil standard spending assessments for each English county for each of the years 1990–91 to 2000–01 in real terms using 1998–99 prices; and if in each case he will rank these from highest to lowest per pupil expenditure. [107787]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I will place tables in the Library that give the figures requested for the 34 Upper Tier Authorities1 based on the final Standard Spending Assessment allocations for 1990–91 to 2000–01. These have not been adjusted for any changes in local authority function over the years and may not be directly comparable due to the effects of local government reorganisation.
  1 Upper Tier Authority is a DETR term used to define county/shire councils.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans he has to review the levels of(a) primary school and (b) secondary school standard spending assessments across English counties; and if he will make a statement; [107788]
  697W
  (2) if he will make a statement on his assessment of whether funding of (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Somerset on the basis of standard spending assessments is presently fair and equitable in relation to such funding levels across the rest of English education authorities. [107793]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government are well aware that there is widespread concern about the fairness of the current formula for funding local authorities. The Government announced in November 1998 a review in partnership with local government to look for a way of distributing revenue support grant which is simpler, more stable, more robust and fairer than the present arrangements for Standard Spending Assessments. The Government will be issuing a Green Paper on options for change by the Summer.

  School Funding (Somerset)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many bids have been received from schools in Somerset since 1 May 1997 for all centrally allocated spending, classified as(a) capital funding, (b) Standards Fund funding and (c) other funding; how many of such bids have been (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful; and if he will make a statement. [107789]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Centrally allocated funds, including the Standards Fund and funding for capital work, are usually distributed on a formula basis or as a result of bids from Local Education Authorities, not via bids from individual maintained schools. Non-maintained special schools can bid directly for capital grant, but there are no such schools in Somerset. Until March 1999 grant maintained schools bid to the Funding Agency for Schools (FAS) for capital grants on a rolling programme. Between May 1997 and March 1999, 13 bids from grant maintained schools located in Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset were successful. The FAS maintained no record of the number of unsuccessful bids. Schools in Somerset have also led two successful bids for setting up Education Action Zones.

  Teacher Redundancies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teacher redundancies in maintained schools there were(a) during the academic year 1999–2000 and (b) in the previous five academic years. [108314]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of teacher premature retirements on the grounds of redundancy1 from the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sector in England and Wales by financial year2 is in the table:

  Year

  Number

  1994–95

  2,400

  1995–96

  3,300

  1996–97

  2,900

  1997–98

  2,300

  1 Data on teachers taking severance on the grounds of redundancy are not held centrally.

  2 Data for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 are not available.

  Educational Achievement
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the working-age population had a qualification in(a) 1998 and (b) 1999. [108350]

  Mr. Wicks
  The proportion of the working age population in the United Kingdom to have any qualification, as measured by the Labour Force Survey, was 82.1 per cent. in 1998 and 82.9 per cent. in 1999.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of children(a) from the Indian sub-continent and (b) from the rest of the world wrongly refused settlement by his Department on the basis of not being related as claimed, who are now able to prove their relationship through DNA testing. [107293]

  Mrs. Roche
  I regret that there is no reliable way of assessing the numbers of such children, who were refused entry clearance in good faith on the evidence available at the time.

  Mr. Rouea Gargan
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will conduct an investigation into his Department's loss of Mr. Rouea Gargan's passport, ref. G1008833. [107053]

  Mrs. Roche
  I am very sorry that Mr. Gargan's passport appears to have been lost. Several searches have been conducted by the Integrated Casework Directorate (ICD) in an effort to locate Mr. Gargan's passport and documents. The ICD will continue to search for them and if they are recovered in the short term, his passport will be endorsed and returned to him. The issue of compensation in connection with his replacement documents will be addressed as soon as possible.

  In the meantime, Mr. Gargan has now been issued with a letter facilitating his readmission to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the correspondence of 18 August 1999 and 22 November 1999 from the hon. Member for Torbay regarding Mr. Rouea Gargan, a constituent; and if he will make a statement. [107055]

  Mrs. Roche
  I wrote to the hon. Member today. I am sorry for the delay.

  Credit Ratings
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the credit rating of companies seeking to tender for services provided by his Department is checked before the contract is awarded. [107742]

  Mr. Straw
  In assessing a company's capability for providing services to the Department over the period of a contract, its financial status and background will be checked using information which will include latest
  699W
  audited accounts and other relevant published details such as credit and debt rating. These checks are undertaken on contracts where early termination would place a financial and operational risk on the Department.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often the credit rating of companies supplying services to his Department is checked. [107748]

  Mr. Straw
  Once a contract has been let, the Department will carry out checks only if it has reason to believe that any of its contractors may be in financial difficulty.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the proportion of freedom of information requests for information which will be turned down because of the cost; and if he will make a statement. [108085]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under the Freedom of Information Bill, a fee may be charged by a public authority, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State. The regulations will set an 'appropriate limit', whereby if the cost of complying with the request exceeds that limit they would be exempt from that obligation under clause 11 of the Bill. These regulations are currently being prepared and it is intended that they will be circulated in draft as soon as possible. However, without pre-empting the regulations the Government's view have been that the 'appropriate limit' should be the same as the £500 threshold for disproportionate costs which currently applies to parliamentary questions. It is not possible to make accurate projections of the number of requests that will fall outside this limit at this stage. However, I am confident that the percentage of cases where the exemption is claimed and the applicant refused will be very small.

  It is, of course, possible that this threshold would be exceeded on occasions where, for example, an application required a significant amount of work on the part of the authority in drawing the information together. In such circumstances, the authority would still be required to consider the disclosure of the information, under clause 13 of the Bill, if to do so would be in the public interest. Therefore, even if the 'appropriate limit' is exceeded, it is still possible, because of the nature of the information, that it will be disclosed.

  Wormwood Scrubs
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make an announcement on the future of HMP Wormwood Scrubs; and if he will make a statement. [108080]

  Mr. Straw
  Following the publication of the Chief Inspector of Prisons report on Wormwood Scrubs in June I asked him to undertake a six month follow-up inspection to check on progress. The Chief Inspector is expected to commence this follow-up inspection shortly. I will make an announcement after I have received the Chief Inspector's report and given due consideration to his recommendations.

  War Crimes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people residing in the UK have been investigated for war crimes; and if he will make a statement. [108082]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  376 individuals were investigated by the former War Crimes Unit at New Scotland Yard after the introduction of the War Crimes Act 1991. In addition, one person (Konrad Kalejs) temporarily present in the country was investigated by the Metropolitan police earlier this year. I am not aware of any other such investigations.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to introduce the provisions of the Representation of the People Bill relating to the rolling electoral register. [107918]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I would like to bring this change into force in time for the next annual registration canvass in the autumn, together with those relating to the sale of the register and other registration changes. But the timetable will depend on the progress of the Representation of the People Bill through Parliament; agreement on the content of the subsequent regulations and their precise drafting; and parliamentary approval of those regulations under the affirmative resolution procedures.

  British Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current waiting time for case workers to commence to process applications for British citizenship. [108108]

  Mrs. Roche
  The average waiting time for applications decided in December 1999 was 19 months.

  Oath of Allegiance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he has received since 1 May 1997 on(a) constituency matters and (b) other matters of Government policy from each of those Members of the House who have not taken the Oath of Allegiance. [108408]

  Mr. Straw
  Correspondence between Members and Departments is treated in confidence unless the Member concerned chooses to make such issues public. I am therefore unable to provide the information requested.

  Immigration and Asylum
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made on consultation with regard to implementation of the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 relating to(a) civil penalty, (b) flexibility and passenger information, (c) facilities to be provided by port operators and (d) charging for additional immigration services. [108705]

  Mrs. Roche
  Constructive and detailed discussions are proceeding with representative organisations. As part of that process, consultation papers relating to each of these provisions have been circulated to those representatives and others in the industry. I have placed copies of the documents in the Library.

  Police Officer Numbers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to place the announcement of twice-yearly police officer number figures for England and Wales on a regular timescale; if the latest figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [108081]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are no plans to announce changes to police numbers within a specific timescale. The figures are published as soon as all police forces have submitted the relevant information and it has been validated. Police numbers as at 30 September 1999 will be issued shortly.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many extra police officers there will be in Somerset in each of the next three years as a result of his recent statement of intent to increase national police officer numbers by 5,000; and if he will make a statement. [107796]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are currently assessing the bids which all forces have made under the recruitment scheme of the Crime Fighting Fund to determine whether they meet the criteria laid down in the bidding guidelines which were issued to forces and a copy placed in the Library on 2 December 1999. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be announcing the results shortly.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the(a) establishment and (b) actual available officer numbers for (i) each English police force and (ii) each Avon and Somerset divisional force for the latest period for which statistics are available; and if he will make a statement. [107841]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is for chief constables to determine the number of officers in each force, within the resources available. The latest available information on the number of officers in each English police force is set out in the table.

  Figures showing the authorised strength and actual strength of the eight territorial divisions in the Avon and Somerset Constabulary are are also shown. This information has been provided by the chief constable.

  Police numbers—England for 31 March 1999

  Force

  Strength as at 31 March 1999 1

  Avon and Somerset

  2,999.3

  Bedfordshire

  1,041.3

  Cambridgeshire

  1,274.4

  Cheshire

  2,070.6

  City of London

  778.1

  Cleveland

  1,415.6

  Cumbria

  1,126

  Derbyshire

  1,758.6

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,887

  Dorset

  1,279.1

  Durham

  1,567.9

  Essex

  2.890.5

  Gloucestershire

  1,104.1

  Greater Manchester

  6,809.9

  Hampshire

  3,473.4

  Hertfordshire

  1,723.7

  Humberside

  1,974.4

  Kent

  3,200.8

  Lancashire

  3,244.8

  702W

  Police numbers—England for 31 March 1999

  Force

  Strength as at 31 March 1999 1

  Leicestershire

  1,993.2

  Lincolnshire

  1,139.6

  Merseyside

  4,211

  Metropolitan Police

  26,073.1

  Norfolk

  1,381.4

  Northamptonshire

  1,137.5

  Northumbria

  3,840.2

  North Yorkshire

  1,336.5

  Nottinghamshire

  2,224.6

  South Yorkshire

  3,168

  Staffordshire

  2,237.6

  Suffolk

  1,190,2

  Surrey

  1,661.9

  Sussex

  2,846.8

  Thames Valley

  3,748.1

  Warwickshire

  907.7

  West Mercia

  2,024.7

  West Midlands

  7,320.8

  West Yorkshire

  4,982

  Wiltshire

  1,151

  1 Full-time equivalents

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary—police numbers by divisions as at 30 September 1999

  Force division

  Authorised strength

  Actual strength for 30 September 1999

  Central Bristol

  348

  341

  South Bristol

  243

  238

  North Bristol

  247

  245

  South Gloucestershire

  253

  254

  Bath and North East Somerset

  209

  209

  East Somerset

  238

  239

  West Somerset

  282

  280

  North Somerset

  197

  196

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the total number of police officers in England and Wales on 31 January. [108292]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on police numbers is collected twice a year (March and September). Police strength figures as at 31 March 1999 were 126,096; figures as at 30 September will be published shortly.

  Police Officers (Sick Leave)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are on long-term sick leave in(a) each English police force and (b) each Avon and Somerset divisional force for the latest period for which such statistics are available; if he will restate these figures to show them as a proportion of total establishment officer strength in each case; and if he will make a statement. [107842]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information about the number of police officers on long-term sick leave is not held centrally. The table shows: the total number of police days lost in 1998–99 due to long-term sick leave for all forces in England and Wales; and the percentage of working days in that year lost as a result of long-term sick leave.

  The same information is not held centrally for each division of Avon and Somerset Constabulary.
  703W

  Police days lost due to long-term sick leave—1998–99

  Average police strength

  Total working days assuming 228 per officer based on average strength

  Police days lost due to long-term sick leave

  Percentage of working days lost to long-term sick leave

  Avon and Somerset

  3,012

  686,736

  15,813

  2.3

  Bedfordshire

  1,041

  237,407

  9,563

  3.6

  Cambridgeshire

  1,295

  295,260

  9,117

  3.1

  Cheshire

  2,111

  481,308

  16,958

  3.6

  City of London

  790

  180,120

  6,021

  3.4

  Cleveland

  1,471

  335,388

  10,703

  3.3

  Cumbria

  1,160

  264,480

  5,726

  2.2

  Derbyshire

  1,777

  405,224

  13,268

  3.3

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,946

  671,592

  17,236

  2.6

  Dorset

  1,303

  297,084

  7,055

  2.4

  Durham

  1,552

  353,856

  8,871

  2.5

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,044

  238,032

  5,950

  2.5

  Essex

  2,936

  669,408

  21,124

  3.2

  Gloucestershire

  1,113

  253,764

  7,721

  3.1

  Greater Manchester

  6,913

  1,576,164

  64,372

  4.1

  Gwent

  1,250

  285,000

  9,300

  3.3

  Hampshire

  3,470

  791,160

  19,763

  2.5

  Hertfordshire

  1,752

  399,456

  9,312

  2.4

  Humberside

  2,021

  460,788

  8,609

  1.9

  Kent

  3,269

  745,332

  18,668

  2.6

  Lancashire

  3,331

  759,468

  22,601

  3.1

  Leicestershire

  2,037

  464,436

  12,626

  2.8

  Lincolnshire

  1,171

  266,988

  8,140

  3.1

  Merseyside

  4,373

  996,930

  42,234

  4.4

  Metropolitan police

  26,566

  6,057,048

  188,602

  3.2

  Norfolk

  1,426

  325,128

  7,654

  2.4

  North Wales

  1,416

  322,848

  9,561

  3

  North Yorkshire

  1,360

  310,080

  9,761

  3.2

  Northamptonshire

  1,167

  266,094

  6,261

  2.4

  Northumbria

  3,854

  878,598

  32,218

  3.7

  Nottinghamshire

  2,248

  512,544

  20,725

  4.1

  South Wales

  2,989

  681,492

  33,385

  4.9

  South Yorkshire

  3,165

  721,506

  18,966

  2.6

  Staffordshire

  2,279

  519,498

  20,291

  4

  Suffolk

  1,195

  272,460

  5,688

  2.1

  Surrey

  1,680

  383,136

  9,496

  2.5

  Sussex

  2,962

  675,336

  16,794

  2.6

  Thames Valley

  3,822

  871,491

  33,478

  3.9

  Warwickshire

  925

  210,786

  7,066

  3.4

  West Mercia

  2,033

  463,524

  9,273

  2

  West Midlands

  7,250

  1,653,000

  55,721

  3.3

  West Yorkshire

  5,053

  1,152,084

  36,821

  3.2

  Wiltshire

  1,169

  266,532

  5,612

  2.3

  England and Wales Total

  125,695

  28,658,567

  897,125

  3.2

  Young Offenders (Avon and Somerset)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the number of young offenders within the Avon and Somerset area who have committed(a) five offences or more, (b) 10 offences of more, (c) 20 offences or more and (d) 50 offences or more; and if he will make a statement. [107844]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The exact information requested is not held centrally. However, information is available on the number of recordable offences for which a 1998 sample of persistent young offenders had been convicted.

  This indicates that a total of 173 individual persistent young offenders were sentenced on one or more occasions during 1998 following apprehension by the Avon and Somerset police. Of these 33 had been sentenced for a total of between five and nine recordable offences, 64 had been sentenced for between 10 and 19 recordable offences, 65 had been sentenced for between 20 and
  704W
  49 recordable offences, and 10 had been sentenced for 50 or more recordable offences. The remaining individual had been sentenced for four recordable offences.

  We define persistent young offenders as having at least three previous convictions and being apprehended for a further offence within three years of their most recent previous sentence.

  Avon and Somerset Police
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers in the Avon and Somerset force are(a) allocated to policing within the Bristol area and (b) on standby for policing within the Bristol area; and if he will make a statement. [107843]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Chief Constable that three territorial divisions police the Bristol area. At the end of January, there were 831 police officers in these divisions.
  705W
  Police officers are not held on standby for policing a particular division. Avon and Somerset Constabulary's resources are managed to provide flexibility of response to major incidents, whether planned or spontaneous. A number of specialist units are also available to provide specialised operational policing capabilities on a forcewide basis.

  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) civilians and (b) special constables have been employed by the Avon and Somerset Police for each of the last five years. [107845]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The strength of the civilians and special constables employed by Avon and Somerset Constabulary for each of the last five years is recorded in the table:

  Year 1

  Civilians 2

  Special Constables

  1995

  1,204

  651

  1996

  1,213

  688

  1997

  1,438

  759

  1998

  1,393

  621

  1999

  1,424

  547

  1 As at 31 March

  2 The civilian figures are full time equivalents, and do not include traffic wardens

  Source:

  Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office

  Police Calls
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of(a) calls and (b) completed call cards for each English police force for the latest available year; and if he will give the ratio of police officers to calls and call cards for each force. [107798]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Data are not collected in the form requested. Information held by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for the year 1998–99 in respect of all calls to the police for services requiring further action by the police is given in the table:

  Forces

  Police strength 1

  Total calls for service 2

  Calls for service per 100 police officers

  Avon and Somerset

  2,999

  403,579

  13,456

  Bedfordshire

  1,041

  142,369

  13,673

  Cambridgeshire

  1,283

  214,617

  16,729

  Cheshire

  2,071

  271,785

  13,126

  City of London

  798

  38,134

  4,778

  Cleveland

  1,430

  213,864

  14,957

  Cumbria

  1,133

  208,378

  18,400

  Derbyshire

  1,761

  273,251

  15,519

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,924

  488,432

  16,704

  Dorset

  1,292

  160,122

  12,393

  Durham

  1,541

  191,538

  12,427

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,014

  126,536

  12,475

  Essex

  2,844

  372,538

  13,099

  Gloucestershire

  1,048

  200,547

  19,145

  Greater Manchester

  6,754

  1,186,696

  17,569

  Gwent

  1,252

  193,197

  15,435

  Hampshire

  3,488

  536,129

  15,371

  Hertfordshire

  1,734

  324,260

  18,702

  Humberside

  1,998

  402,262

  20,135

  Kent

  3,208

  393,175

  12,257

  Lancashire

  3,245

  641,498

  19,770

  706W

  Forces

  Police strength 1

  Total calls for service 2

  Calls for service per 100 police officers

  Leicestershire

  1,988

  277,683

  13,967

  Lincolnshire

  1,140

  135,623

  11,901

  Merseyside

  4,214

  514,127

  12,201

  Metropolitan Police

  24,447

  3,336,173

  13,646

  Norfolk

  1,401

  179,319

  12,799

  North Wales

  1,415

  161,879

  11,440

  North Yorkshire

  1,352

  225,125

  16,653

  Northamptonshire

  1,166

  179,783

  15,425

  Northumbria

  3,840

  601,251

  15,657

  Nottinghamshire

  2,283

  350,989

  15,377

  South Wales

  2,981

  544,026

  18,247

  South Yorkshire

  3,168

  423,145

  13,357

  Staffordshire

  2,265

  386,913

  17,084

  Suffolk

  1,189

  134,051

  11,276

  Surrey

  1,635

  202,727

  12,398

  Sussex

  2,718

  515,537

  18,970

  Thames Valley

  3,649

  479,065

  13,127

  Warwickshire

  916

  118,666

  12,949

  West Mercia

  2,005

  373,206

  18,614

  West Midlands

  7,182

  840,539

  11,704

  West Yorkshire

  5,022

  693,661

  13,813

  Wiltshire

  1,186

  185,292

  15,623

  Provincial Total

  97,570

  14,505,514

  14,867

  England and Wales Total

  122,018

  17,841,687

  14,622

  1 Figures as 31 March 1999 are used for performance indicator purposes. This is total strength excluding operational officers on secondment and assigned to protection duties.

  2 Defined as any request for assistance that requires any further action, not necessarily immediately.

  Police Overtime
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of hours of(a) paid and (b) unpaid overtime by police officers for each of the last five years, broken down by each English police force. [107797]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information is not held centrally on the number of hours of paid and unpaid overtime worked by police officers, and cannot be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Exotic Animals
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to introduce tighter controls to limit the sale of exotic animals; and if he will make a statement; [108179]

  (2) what his policy is in respect of the animal welfare implications of the sale of reptiles in DIY stores; and if he will make a statement. [108178]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our policy is to ensure that law is in place to safeguard the welfare of animals offered for sale as pets. This applies as much to reptiles in do-it-yourself stores, as it does to animals sold through other outlets. We intend that the law should be effectively enforced.

  We believe that the Pet Animals Act 1951 (as amended), together with the Protection of Animals Act 1911 (as amended), meet that objective. Although there is

  707W
  no plan to introduce tighter controls at present, we will keep the situation under review to ensure the law is able to address the issues.

  Under the 1951 Act, persons in the business of selling pet animals must be licensed by local authorities. The licence conditions have to cover the suitability and cleanliness of the animals' accommodation, feeding arrangements, and protection from disease and fire. The local authority may inspect licensed premises at all reasonable times, and a breach of licence conditions may result in a fine of £500 and/or three months imprisonment for the offender, as well as his or her disqualification from keeping a pet shop in future.

  Under the 1911 Act, it is an offence, punishable by a fine of up to £5,000 and/or six months imprisonment, to cause unnecessary suffering to any domestic or captive animal, and this includes animals kept as stock by persons trading in pets, both before and after their sale.

  In addition, some species of reptile may be lawfully kept, after purchase from a pet supplier, only by someone suitably licensed under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. Others may be threatened species controlled under the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), under which welfare requirements must be satisfied before the animals concerned are allowed to enter the country. There is control over their subsequent movements.

  Burns Inquiry
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons he rejected the proposal to appoint(a) AJF Webster, (b) Piran White, (c) Donald Broom, (d) Stephen Harris and (e) Baroness Young to the Burns Inquiry into hunting; and if he will make a statement. [108181]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It would be invidious to give details of the merits of any person not appointed to the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he made of the personal views of the members appointed to serve on the Burns Inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [108227]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I set out any association which each member of the Inquiry Team has had with hunting in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on 1 February 2000,Official Report, columns 504–06W.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is satisfied that any personal and private views, one way or the other, will not prevent any of them from providing an informative view on the issues before the Committee.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to meet the target set in the EU 5th Environmental Action Programme of halving the number of animals used in experiments by 2000; and if he will make a statement. [108180]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The 5th Environment Action Programme did not set a baseline against which progress could be monitored. Nor did it set a plan for implementing
  708W
  the proposal. Most member states did not produce accurate statistics in 1993. Fundamental questions, such as whether it was a country-by-country or a Europe wide target, were not addressed. There is no mechanism for a year-on-year reduction.

  A European conference was held in April 1997 to discuss the 50 per cent. target. The United Kingdom was represented by Home Office officials, a member of the Animal Procedures Committee, and interest groups. It was generally agreed that the 50 per cent. target was unrealistic, unhelpful and over-simplistic. The reduction target was recognised as ignoring the importance of refining experiments to minimise suffering. It was suggested that specific types of animal use (for example, the use of primates and aspects of regulatory testing) should be targeted.

  Neither Directive 86/609/European Economic Community, nor the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, make provision for controlling the overall number of procedures. The Act requires that project licences be granted only if the benefits have been weighed against the costs and the purpose of the work cannot be achieved by other means. We cannot dictate how many applications for new project licences will be submitted, nor how many proposed programmes will satisfy the requirements of the Act, particularly the cost/benefit assessment. We are, however, ensuring that animals are used in scientific procedures only where this is fully justified and that the overall numbers of animals used is minimised as far as possible. We are also pressing for advances in the 3Rs of reduction, refinement and replacement.

  Violent Offences
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to reduce the number of violent offences committed in England and Wales. [108287]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, 375 local partnerships have been established in every area across the country to develop local crime reduction strategies to address local demands. Over time these will provide a measure of crime more relevant to people's everyday experience. The Crime Reduction Strategy, launched by the Government last November, sets out how we are working with partnerships and the steps we are taking to reduce crime. The Government have a range of measures and initiatives to deal with violent crime in particular. They include the following:We have asked police and local authorities to set targets from April 2000 to reduce violent crime under the regime of Best Value performance indicators;
  Tougher sentences are now in place including automatic life sentences for those convicted for the second time of serious violent or sexual offences (legislation passed under the last Government);
  New sex offender orders to protect children and the public (introduced December 1998) and new powers for the court to order extended supervision of sex offenders for up to ten years following their release from prison;
  New resources to tackle domestic violence including £6 million from the crime reduction programme;
  New targeted policing projects to test out the best way of tackling racial violence (four London boroughs) and alcohol related assaults (Cardiff);
  A ban on private ownership of all handguns was introduced within months of the general election;

  709W
  The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 includes new measures to help vulnerable witnesses such as rape victims (eg banning their cross-examination by a defendant). One of the reasons for the increase in sexual offences is the greater likelihood that victims will report the offence because of improved handling by the police;
  In the new Crime Bill we are looking to expand the use of electronic monitoring of dangerous and violent offenders;
  We are consulting on measures to deal with dangerous people with severe personality disorder including an indefinite sentence to ensure the public are protected from those who pose the greatest risk;
  We are also investing £226 million in offending behaviour programmes in prison including sex offender treatment programmes to reduce the likelihood of reoffending on release; and
  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) contributes to a safer environment which can reduce levels of violence and disorder. Part of the Government's £400 million evidence based Crime Reduction Programme includes £150 million for CCTV schemes. 180 schemes were announced on Monday 17 January.

  Crime Fighting Fund
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications to the Crime Fighting Fund for police recruits have been received. [108290]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  All 43 police forces in England and Wales have submitted applications for funding for police recruits under the Crime Fighting Fund. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be announcing the results shortly.

  Asylum Applications
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current size of the backlog of asylum applications. [108289]

  Mrs. Roche
  The current estimate for the backlog of asylum claims which were awaiting an initial decision at 31 December 1999 was 102,870.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to reduce the backlog of asylum applications. [108288]

  Mrs. Roche
  A dedicated team has been set up to deal with pre-July 1993 applications and those between July 1993 and December 1995, in accordance with the criteria set out in the White Paper. We have nearly cleared the backlog of pre-1993 cases and expect to clear the backlog of 1993–95 cases by the summer of this year at the latest.

  We have developed new processes to speed up the consideration of asylum applications and recruited numerous additional decision makers to process both new applications and those in the backlog dating from 1996 onwards. Output of asylum decisions has recently increased to record levels.

HEALTH

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide free prescriptions to sufferers of cystic fibrosis; and if he will make a statement. [103651]
  710W
  Ms Stuart
  We reviewed the prescription charging arrangements as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review and concluded that the present arrangements should remain for the rest of this Parliament.

  Aricept
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the NHS's prescribing policies in relation to Aricept of(a) West Kent Health Authority, (b) Thames Gateway NHS Trust and (c) general practitioners in the Sittingbourne and Sheppey constituency. [106050]

  Ms Stuart
  Information about local policies on the treatment of Alzheimer's disease is not routinely collected and assessed centrally, but I understand that West Kent Health Authority is funding the prescribing of Aricept by consultants to patients with uncomplicated Alzheimer's disease. In developing its policy, the health authority took into account the evidence on clinical and cost effectiveness of Aricept, and did not consider it sufficiently convincing to support more widespread prescribing.

  Aricept and other pharmaceutical treatment for Alzheimer's disease will be reviewed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence as part of its first work programme. This work is expected to be completed by December 2000.

  Influenza Immunisation
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for health professionals and ancillary staff to be offered influenza immunisation at no cost to themselves from this year onwards. [106133]

  Yvette Cooper
  Influenza immunisation is not routinely recommended for healthcare workers. Last year, as an exception in view of possible staffing problems should flu occur at the time of the long millennium break, National Health Service trusts were advised that they could include immunising healthcare staff as part of their winter planning. United Kingdom Health Ministers are advised on immunisation policy by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI). The JCVI reviews its recommendations, including immunisation of healthcare workers, annually.

  False Teeth
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population of(a) Pendle and (b) England had an entire set of false teeth by the age of (i) 40 years, (ii) 50 years, (iii) 60 years and (iv) 70 years (a) in 1990 and (b) for the latest year for which figures are available. [107616]

  Mr. Denham
  The Adult Dental Health Survey is a detailed survey carried out every 10 years into the nation's dental health. First release results for the 1998 survey are given for the percentages of the population with no natural teeth by age group for Northern England and England. Also shown are the equivalent percentages of the 1988 survey. Data for Pendle are not available.
  711W

  Table 1: Percentage of population with no natural teeth by age group, 1988 and 1998

  Percentage

  Northern England

  England

  Age group

  1988

  1998

  1988

  1998

  16–24

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25–34

  2

  1

  1

  —

  35–44

  4

  —

  3

  1

  45–54

  22

  6

  15

  5

  55–64

  53

  25

  35

  18

  65–74

  74

  44

  56

  34

  75 and over

  90

  59

  80

  56

  Source:

  Adult Dental Health Survey

  Further information for 1988 is contained in the detailed report of the Adult Dental Health Survey 1988, published by HMSO, a copy of which is available in the Library. Chapter 15 gives information on: the time since loss of natural teeth, Table 15.1; and age of current upper and lower dentures, Table 15.4. The detailed ADHS report for 1998 is due to be published in March this year.

  Therapeutic Medicines
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will assess the benefits of the prescribing, supply and administration of therapeutic medicines by suitably trained optometrists; [107996]

  (2) if he will take steps to enable registered optometrists to prescribe, supply and administer therapeutic medicines. [108097]

  Mr. Hutton
  Optometrists may already administer a limited number of therapeutic medicines in an emergency; for example, by treating conjunctivitis with anti-biotics. The final report of the Review of Prescribing, Supply and Administration of Medicines recommended that arrangements be made to consider applications from organisations seeking authority to prescribe on behalf of specified groups of health professionals, which could include optometrists. We are carefully considering how best to take forward the report's recommendations in the light of all the views expressed.

  Crown Review
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he intends to implement all the recommendations of the Crown Review at the same time; [107994]

  (2) when he will implement the recommendations of the Crown Review on the prescribing, supply and administration of therapeutic medicines by non-medical clinicians. [107995]

  Ms Stuart
  We are carefully considering how best to take forward the report's many recommendations in the light of all the views expressed.

  Cardiac Operations
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate of the increased workload on(a) haemotology, (b) blood transfusion and (c) clinical chemistry services he has made arising from his target for cardiac operations. [107458]
  712W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: £50 million has been allocated to deliver the additional revascularisation procedures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 18 October. This includes £30 million revenue over two years to meet the staffing costs associated with this extra clinical activity. The detailed application of these funds is currently being determined.

  Oath of Allegiance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters he has received since 1 May 1997 on(a) constituency matters and (b) other matters of Government policy from each of those Members of the House who have not taken the oath of allegiance. [108400]

  Mr. Hutton
  Correspondence between hon. Members and Departments is treated in confidence unless the originating hon. Member chooses to make such issues public.

WALES

  Oath of Allegiance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters he has received since 1 May 1997 on(a) constituency matters and (b) other matters of Government policy from each of those Members of the House who have not taken the oath of allegiance. [108413]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Correspondence between Members of Parliament and Departments is treated in confidence unless the originating MP chooses to make such issues public.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his estimate is of the number of(a) males and (b) females benefiting from the minimum wage in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [107418]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Barry Jones, dated 3 February 2000:
  As the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question regarding the number of males and females who have benefited from the national minimum wage in Wales.
  Definitive estimates on the number of people that have benefited from the national minimum wage are not yet available. Currently available estimates for assessing the effect take data from both the New Earnings Survey and the Labour Force Survey and adjust them for known limitations in each. However, the latest adjusted estimates are based on data for the spring (March-May) 1999 Labour Force Survey and this period spans the introduction date for the national minimum wage legislation. As a result, the adjusted estimates may be giving a misleading picture of the effect of the minimum wage legislation since employees might legitimately have been earning below the minimum wage rates in March 1999.
  The currently available estimates were published in an ONS First Release on 14 October and show that the number of people earning below the minimum wage rates fell significantly between 1998 and 1999. A copy of this first release is available in the House of Commons Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Oath of Allegiance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many letters he has received since 1 May 1997 on(a) constituency matters and (b) other matters of Government policy from each of those Members of the House who have not taken the Oath of Allegiance. [108411]

  Mr. Rooker
  Correspondence between Members of the House and this Department is treated as confidential.

  Income Support
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many adults aged under 60 years were receiving(a) income support and (b) jobseeker's allowance for two years or more in (i) May 1998 and (ii) May 1999. [108358]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the tables.

  Income support claimants aged less than 60, with duration of two years or more in May 1998 and May 1999

  Year

  Number of claimants

  May 1998

  1,364,000

  May 1999

  1,330,000

  Notes:

  1. Based on claimants aged less than 60 years.

  2. Figures are based on claimants with a current claim of two years or more duration.

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4. 5 per cent. sample, therefore subject to sampling error.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, May 1998 and May 1999

  Jobseeker's allowance claimants aged less than 60, with duration of two years or more in May 1998 and May 1999

  Year

  Number of claimants

  May 1998

  213,000

  May 1999

  182,000

  Notes:

  1. Based on claimants aged less than 60 years.

  2. Figures are based on claimants with a current claim of two years or more duration.

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4. 5 per cent. sample, therefore subject to sampling error.

  5. Figures exclude cases which may sign for national insurance credits only.

  Source:

  Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, May 1998 and May 1999

  Low Incomes
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of children aged under 16 years lived in households with incomes that remained(a) below 70 per cent. of average households income and (b) below 60 per cent. of median household income in at least three out of four years between 1995 and 1998. [108352]

  Mr. Bayley
  Estimates from the British Household Panel Survey suggest that between 1994 and 1997, the latest years for which information is available, 26 per cent. of dependant children lived in households with income below 714W
  70 per cent. of median income, and 17 per cent. lived in households with income below 60 per cent. of median income, in at least three years out of four.

  Notes:

  1. The British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) is based on interviews of a sample of households, and estimates may be subject to sampling error.

  2. The BHPS is a longitudinal survey, tracking the same households over time, and estimates may be subject to attrition bias if particular households are more likely to leave the survey.

  3. Dependant children are those aged under 16, and those 16–18 in full time education, in 1994.

  4. The technical paper accompanying "Opportunity for all: Tackling poverty and social exclusion" [Cm 4445] provided an estimate of 28 per cent. of children living in households below 70 per cent. of average income for the period 1991–94. This should have read below 70 per cent. of median income. The weighting regime employed here differs slightly from that used in the estimates quoted in "Opportunity for all".

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of working-age people had incomes that remained(a) below 70 per cent. of half average income and (b) below 60 per cent. of median income in at least three out of four years between 1995 and 1998. [108348]

  Mr. Bayley
  Estimates from the British Household Panel Survey suggest that between 1994 and 1997, the latest years for which information is available, 13 per cent. of working age people lived in households with income below 70 per cent. of median income, and 8 per cent. lived in households with income below 60 per cent. of median income, in at least three years out of four.

  Notes:

  1. The British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) is based on interviews of a sample of households, and estimates may be subject to sampling error.

  2. The BHPS is a longitudinal survey, tracking the same households over time, and estimates may be subject to attrition bias if particular households are more likely to leave the survey.

  3. The technical paper accompanying "Opportunity for all: Tackling poverty and social exclusion" [Cm 4445] provided estimates of 13 per cent. of working age people living in households below" 70 per cent. of half average income" for the period 1991–94. This should have read below 70 per cent. of median income. The weighting regime employed here differs slightly from that used in the estimates quoted in "Opportunity for all".

  Non-state Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total monetary value of non-state pensions contributions in 1998. [108344]

  Mr. Rooker
  The total monetary value of non-state pensions contributions (employer, employee and self-employed) in 1998 is estimated at £62.0 billion.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, MQ5 publications.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of(a) employees and (b) the self-employed had a non-state pension in 1998. [108343]

  Mr. Rooker
  The percentages for 1997–98, the most recent available, are estimated at 61 per cent. for employees and 50 per cent. for the self-employed.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1997–98.
  715W
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of working age people have contributed to a non-state pension in at least three years out of the four between 1995 and 1998. [108345]

  Mr. Rooker
  48 per cent. of working age people are estimated to have paid contributions into a non-state scheme during the period 1994 to 1997, the latest available. The figure is based on people aged from 20 years to State pension age.

  Source:

  British Household Panel Survey.

  Benefits (Pensioners)
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking to encourage pensioners to take up their entitlement to state benefits. [106888]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are committed to taking action to find more effective ways of encouraging eligible pensioners to claim their entitlement to the minimum income guarantee. We will announce details of a national programme shortly.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much he plans to raise the minimum income guarantee for the poorest pensioners this year. [106917]

  Table 1: Costs of State Second Pension with different accrual rate options 1999–2000 prices

  £ billion

  Percentage

  2005

  2010

  2015

  2025

  2047

  Pension expenditure costs

  Accrual rate for years 2002–09

  80

  0.1

  1.0

  2.0

  3.7

  5.8

  70

  0.1

  0.7

  1.5

  2.8

  4.4

  60

  0.1

  0.5

  1.0

  1.9

  2.9

  50

  0.0

  0.2

  0.5

  1.0

  1.4

  Accrual rate for years 2002–10

  80

  0.1

  1.0

  2.1

  4.1

  6.5

  70

  0.1

  0.7

  1.5

  3.1

  4.9

  60

  0.1

  0.5

  1.0

  2.0

  3.3

  50

  0.0

  0.2

  0.5

  1.0

  1.6

  Accrual rate for years 2002–15

  80

  0.1

  1.0

  2.2

  5.6

  10.2

  70

  0.1

  0.7

  1.7

  4.2

  7.6

  60

  0.1

  0.5

  1.1

  2.8

  5.1

  50

  0.0

  0.2

  0.6

  1.4

  2.5

  Rebate costs

  Accrual rate for years 2002–09

  80

  3.2

  5.5

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  70

  2.4

  4.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  60

  1.6

  2.7

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  50

  0.8

  1.4

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Accrual rate for years 2002–10

  80

  3.2

  5.5

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  70

  2.4

  4.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  60

  1.6

  2.7

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  50

  0.8

  1.4

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Accrual rate for years 2002–15

  80

  3.2

  5.5

  6.6

  0.0

  0.0

  70

  2.4

  4.1

  4.9

  0.0

  0.0

  60

  1.6

  2.7

  3.3

  0.0

  0.0

  50

  0.8

  1.4

  1.6

  0.0

  0.0

  Notes:

  1. The figures are in £ billion and have been rounded to the nearest 0.1 billion.

  2. The figures are gross figures. Offsetting Income-Related Benefits would reduce the pension expenditure costs by around 30 per cent. There would be no offset against the increased rebate costs.

  3. The figures have been supplied by Government Actuary's Department.
  716W
  Mr. Rooker
  From this April, the minimum income guarantee will be increased in line with earnings, providing a single pensioner with at least £78.45 a week and pensioner couples with £121.95.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will establish an awareness campaign to ensure the take up of the minimum income guarantee by eligible pensioners in North Staffordshire. [108006]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are committed to taking action to find more effective ways of encouraging eligible pensioners to claim their entitlement to the minimum income guarantee. We will announce details of a national programme shortly.

  State Pension
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost and amount of state second pension payable on retirement in(a) 2005, (b) 2010, (c) 2015, (d) 2025, and (e) 2047 on the assumption that the accruals rate for band one is set at (a) 80 per cent., (b) 70 per cent., (c) 60 per cent. or (d) 50 per cent. in year one of the State Second Pension and reduced to 40 per cent. in (i) nine years, (ii) 10 years and (iii) 15 years. [106851]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 2000]: The information is in the tables.

  Table 1 shows the extra cost of the various options specified in the years requested the costs for State Second Pension based on the proposals contained in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill.
  717W
  Table 2 shows the weekly amount of SERPS and State Second Pension in payment at retirement for the years requested based on the accrual options specified in the question. The figures are given in 1999–2000 earnings

  Table 2: Weekly amount of SERPS and State Second Pension payable based on different accrual rate options in 1999–2000 earnings terms

  £ at 1999–2000 earnings terms

  Accrual rate (%)

  2005

  2010

  2015

  2025

  2047

  Current proposals

  40

  28

  30

  32

  37

  51

  Accrual rate for 2002–09

  80

  34

  42

  43

  45

  59

  70

  32

  39

  40

  43

  57

  60

  31

  36

  38

  41

  55

  50

  29

  33

  35

  39

  53

  Accrual rate for 2002–10

  80

  34

  42

  44

  46

  60

  70

  32

  39

  41

  44

  58

  60

  31

  36

  38

  41

  56

  50

  29

  33

  35

  39

  53

  Accrual rate for 2002–15

  80

  34

  42

  50

  52

  65

  70

  32

  39

  45

  48

  62

  60

  31

  36

  41

  44

  58

  50

  29

  33

  37

  40

  55

  Notes:

  1. Figures are in 1999–2000 earnings terms, ie expressed at a constant level of prices and real earnings. This makes it easier to compare the figures across different years of retirement.

  2. All estimated State Second Pension payments include SERPS payments on SERPS accrued before 2002 and are rounded to the nearest whole pound. The State Second Pension is assumed to be introduced in 2002.

  3. All calculations are based on a full working life of 49 years. Earnings at the lower earnings threshold (£9,500 a year) have been assumed in every year of the working life.

  Maternity Pay
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of extending maternity pay, paid at 90 per cent. of earnings to(a) 18 weeks, (b) 26 weeks, (c) 39 weeks and (d) 52 weeks. [107403]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  The additional full year cost in 2000–01 of extending statutory maternity pay (SMP) beyond six weeks at 90 per cent. of earnings

  £ million

  Option

  Cost increase

  Extension of this rate to 18 weeks

  560

  Extension of this rate to 26 weeks

  1,080

  Extension of this rate to 39 weeks

  1,920

  Extension of this rate to 52 weeks

  2,750

  Note:

  These costs are the overall costs based on the Government Actuary's Department projection of the average number of people on SMP during 2000–01 at any one time of 100,000, and assume 100 per cent. take-up.

SCOTLAND

  Oath of Allegiance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters he has received since 1 May 1997 on(a) constituency matters and (b) other matters of Government policy from each of those Members of the House who have not taken the oath of allegiance. [108398]

  Dr. Reid
  In accordance with convention, correspondence received by Departments from hon. Members is treated in confidence.
  718W
  terms and rounded to the nearest whole pound. The figures are shown net of any basic state retirement pension.

CABINET OFFICE

  Regulation
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which Minister within each Government Department has been tasked with overseeing regulation reform. [107003]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Prime Minister has asked each of the key regulatory Departments to appoint a Minister for Regulatory Reform to oversee a programme of measures to reduce regulatory burdens. The Ministers for Regulatory Reform are:HM Treasury—Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo MP)
  Department of Trade and Industry—Minister of State (Patricia Hewitt MP)
  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Whitty)
  Department of Health—Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Gisela Stuart MP)
  Home Office—Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Mike O'Brien MP)
  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—Minister of State (the right hon. Joyce Quin MP), and
  Department for Education and Employment—Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Margaret Hodge MP).

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what meetings she has had with the Fair Regulation Campaign; what was discussed; what decisions were taken; and what plans she has for future meetings. [107005]

  Mr. Stringer
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the former Minister for the Cabinet Office, met the Fair Regulation Campaign in July 1999 to discuss their objectives for improving regulatory impact assessments by Government Departments and the
  719W
  EU. On Friday 28 January, the Minister for the Cabinet Office was due to follow up with the Fair Regulation Campaign their round of discussions with Government Departments and parallel work in Brussels on reducing regulatory burdens. The Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam) welcomed the Campaign's offer of assistance and asked them to work alongside the Government to make improvements to the regulatory systems. There are no plans at present for a further meeting.

  British-Irish Council
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her answer of 12 January 2000,Official Report, columns 200–01W, if she will list those categories of matter to be discussed by the British-Irish Council under the remit, Approaches to EU Issues. [108281]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Belfast Agreement recognised "Approaches to EU affairs" as being one of the topics which the British Irish Council could consider.

  The summit meeting of the Council in December 1999 confirmed a general list of subjects which the Council could consider. It also identified as initial priorities the environment, drugs, social inclusion, transport and the knowledge economy. No discussion took place on which EU issues might, in future, be the subject of work within the framework of the Council.

  Oath of Allegiance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many letters she has received since 1 May 1997 on(a) constituency matters and (b) other matters of Government policy from each of those Members of the House who have not taken the oath of allegiance. [108407]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  In accordance with convention, correspondence received by Departments from hon. Members is treated in confidence.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Bug
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the President of the Council what reports she has received on the extent of damage done to the economies and businesses of those countries which took few or no precautions to deal with the millennium bug. [107509]
  720W
  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Each country and business had different levels of vulnerability to damage from failures of computerised systems. Many of the countries which are erroneously assumed to have done little benefited from the work of countries like the UK which started earlier.

  We have received no reports of serious failures in key infrastructure sectors across the globe, although there have been multiple minor failures in systems. Failures which have come to light so far have been fixed quickly and have not materially affected business as usual.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the President of the Council if she will estimate the total cost to(a) the Government and (b) private industry of the steps taken to guard against the millennium bug. [107507]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Central Government Departments and agencies spent an estimated £380 million on tackling the millennium bug in their own systems.

  It is impossible to say how much it cost private industry to deal with the millennium bug. Many of the cost figures quoted so far have been conjured out of the air—nobody knows for certain how much has been spent by private industry in the United Kingdom, or indeed any other country.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Ms Perham
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals she has to amend the Privy Council Office Departmental Expenditure Limit and running costs limit for 1999–2000. [108490]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate for Class XVII, Vote 5, the Privy Council Office Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000 will be increased by £109,000 from £2,166,000 to £2,275,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £109,000 from £2,206,000 to £2,315,000. The increase is the effect of transfers from Cabinet Office Class XVII, Vote 1, £89,000 in respect of expenditure as a result of the Privy Council Office move to new premises, and from Scottish Executive Vote 6, £10,000, and Northern Ireland Executive Programme II DFP, £10,000 in respect of purchases for the Library of the Judicial Committee, Privy Council, following devolution.

  The increase will be offset by transfers from the Cabinet Office, the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Executive programme and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Regional Development Agencies
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to ensure that each of the regional development agencies includes agriculture in its development programme. [108378]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  Section 4 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 charged the RDAs specifically with furthering economic development, investment and employment in rural areas. Subsequent guidance issued by the Government to the RDAs required them to take account of the key role of agriculture in the preparation of their Regional Strategies.

  The RDAs' Strategies, which have been broadly welcomed by the Government, include a range of proposals for diversifying the agricultural and rural economies. We are now awaiting the RDAs' detailed Action Plans for implementing their Strategies and we will pay close attention to their priorities for addressing agricultural and rural issues.

  Day-old Chicks
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what health checks are carried out on day-old chicks imported into the UK from(a) within and (b) outside the EU. [98591]

  Ms Quin
  In accordance with European law:

  (a) day-old chicks originating in another member state of the EU imported into Great Britain are subject to random post-import documentary, identity and physical veterinary checks at the place of destination, in Great Britain;

  (b) day-old chicks originating in a third country may be imported into Great Britain only through an approved Border Inspection Post, where the day-old chicks are subject to documentary and identity checks and, in most cases, to a physical examination.

  Poultry Imports
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what rules govern the importing of dead poultry into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [102220]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: Poultry carcases may be imported only in accordance with a licence issued under the Importation of Animal Products and Poultry Products Order 1980. The conditions laid down in such licences are designed to protect animal health in Great Britain and vary according to the country of origin and the purposes for which the carcases are imported.

  French Beef Ban (Soap)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implications for the British soap and detergent industry of the French ban on British beef derivatives. [103649]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 21 December 1999]: There is no reason why the French ban on Date Based Export Scheme beef should affect the British soap and detergent industry. European Union BSE-related rules, which have
  722W
  been in place since March 1996, currently prevent the export of cosmetic soap made from tallow produced from bovine animals slaughtered in the UK. UK manufacturers may use imported and non-bovine tallow to produce cosmetic soap for export. No BSE-related restrictions apply to exports of non-cosmetic soap and detergent.

  Farming Subsidies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers receive total annual subsidies of more than(a) £1,000, (b) £5,000, (c) £10,000, (d) £20,000 and (e) £25,000. [103664]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 21 December 1999]: Figures for the number of farmers receiving annual subsidies are unavailable. However figures held by MAFF for the number of UK agricultural holdings which received payments under the Schemes covered by the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS)1 in the 1997–98 EAGGF year are as follows:

  Figures for the EAGGF2 year 16 October 1997 to 15 October 1998—number of holdings receiving subsidies under IACS schemes

  Financial bonds

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  £1,000+3

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  £5,000+

  158,285

  23,794

  19,457

  28,634

  £10,000+

  36,530

  8,891

  2,846

  4,697

  £20,000+

  19,817

  5,356

  777

  1,358

  £30,000+3

  12,689

  3,299

  262

  488

  1 The Arable Area Payments, Beef Special Premium, Suckler Cow Premium and Sheep Annual Premium Schemes and Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances.

  2 Payments are for the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund year 16 October 1997–15 October 1998.

  3 The figures for the number of agricultural holdings receiving annual subsidies of over £1,000 and £25,000 are not available without incurring disproportionate costs to provide the information requested.

  4 Unavailable.

  Milk
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how long the intervention milk price equivalent has been set in euros rather than ecu; what assessment he has made of the effect of the decline of the euro against the pound on UK milk support prices for each 1 per cent. fall in the euro; and if he will estimate the differential in UK milk prices if the IMPE had continued to be set in ecu. [105479]

  Ms Quin
  The Intervention Milk Price Equivalent (IMPE) is a derived value for the price of the milk which goes into the manufacture of intervention products in the dairy sector. It has no formal basis either in the CAP regime or in UK law and is used only as a commercial negotiating mechanism between milk sellers and purchasers. The Government make no calculation, therefore, of its value. For each 1 per cent. decline in the euro against sterling, EU milk support prices in the UK also fall by 1 per cent.

  Pig Sector
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance the Government have given the pig sector since 1 January 1999; and what further assistance his Department plans to give. [105434]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The pig sector was eligible for marketing grants under the Agriculture Development Scheme 1999. The scheme closed for applications on 30 November 1999 and successful applications were announced recently. Pig industry projects benefited significantly from the scheme, receiving over 35 per cent. of the total grants made. £3 million of marketing/promotional money was also earmarked exclusively for the pig sector. Discussions with the industry have resulted in the Government part funding a £4.6 million industry-led welfare-linked promotion campaign. This will begin in February and continue through to October.

  The "verification officer" appointed by my right hon. Friend the Minister, will continue his work with industry bodies to identify cases where product is being sold at retail or catering level which misleads the consumer into believing it contains pork of British origin when in fact it is imported. He will also continue to check progress on the commitment given some time ago by major retailers that all their own label fresh pork and certain processed products such as bacon would come from stall and tether and Meat and Bone Meal free production systems. Meetings between Ministers and retailers and caterers on all these issues have taken place. The Minister has also written to public authorities encouraging them to purchase their pork supplies to British standards.

  EU Flax Regime
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he will take to ensure that UK farmers, producing short fibre flax, are not discriminated against under the EU flax regime proposals for processing aid. [105611]

  Ms Quin
  The Commission proposals to bring reform to the flax and hemp sector are broadly welcome, particularly on budgetary grounds.

  However, some aspects of the proposals discriminate against UK production and in the negotiating process we shall seek to ensure a more equitable outcome.

  GM Maize
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will specify the official procedures to which the GM AgrEvo T25 Maize, covered by Commission Decision 98/293/EC dated 22 April 1998,(a) was subjected and (b) will be subjected for the purpose of assessing its safety for (i) human and (ii) animal consumption. [107266]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]: The application to market AgrEvo's T25 GM maize was submitted to France in accordance with procedures in Directive 90/220/EEC. The application was subsequently assessed by all Member States, including the UK.

  In the UK the application was assessed by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. The
  724W
  marketing consent permitting importation and cultivation in the EU for use as food and feed ingredients was issued by France in August 1998.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he received a copy of the notification under Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 of AgrEvo T25 modified maize; and if he will place a copy of the notification in the Library. [107541]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 28 January 2000]: Ingredients derived from AgrEvo T25 modified maize were approved for food use in the UK in February 1997 following a full safety assessment by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP). Details of the Committee's assessment can be found in its 1996 Annual Report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  The notification, by AgrEvo under Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No. 258/97, containing the ACNFP's assessment report, was transmitted to all Member States on 6 February 1998. No one objected to the notification.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes submitted to the European Commission under Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 in respect of AgrEvo's T25 genetically modified maize. [107784]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes' report on food ingredients derived from AgrEvo's T25 genetically modified maize is contained in their 1996 annual report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the notifications of which he has received copies from the EC under Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 since 1 January 1999. [107783]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: Since 1 January 1999 three notifications under Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 have been received. These relate to the placing on the market of processed oil from the following three varieties of genetically modified oilseed rape:

  1. Falcon GS 40/90—AgrEvo

  2. Male sterile MS8, fertility restorer RF3, all conventional crosses from these and the hybrid combination (MS8xRF3)— Plant Genetic Systems

  3. Liberator L62—AgrEvo.

  These notifications are based on an assessment by the German competent authority.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what specific scientific factors he or his advisers apply in determining whether a particular food or food ingredient contains or consists of genetically modified organisms, for the purposes of Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 or otherwise. [107837]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: For the purposes of Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 food or food ingredients containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) refers to products where

  725W
  GMOs, as defined in article 2(2) of Directive 90/220/EEC, are present. In this definition, an organism is a biological entity capable of replication or of transferring genetic material.

  Tallow (Support Fuel)
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much tallow produced as a by-product of rendering under the over-30 month scheme contracts is used as support fuel. [107932]

  Ms Quin
  As at 31 December 1999 some 86,165 tonnes of tallow produced from the rendering of animals under the over-30-month scheme had been burnt in rendering plants as replacement fuel.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total(a) number and (b) value of grants made under the organic farming scheme since its introduction. [107561]

  Mr. Morley
  Since the introduction of the Organic Farming Scheme in April 1999, 693 applications have been approved with a grant value of £7.9 million for the current financial year and a forecast value of £9.4 million for the remaining years of the Scheme. A further 483 grant applications are being processed.

  Tom Lang's Craft Butchers, Ashburton
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will grant a square stamp licence to Henry Lang of Tom Lang's Craft Butchers and Abattoir in Ashburton for a throughput of 50 units per week. [106057]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: This abattoir is licensed as a low throughput slaughterhouse, which allows a maximum throughput of 20 livestock units per week. It has sought licensing as a full throughput slaughterhouse to allow a higher weekly throughput, but recently contacted MAFF officials and advised them that it no longer wishes to seek this status. The abattoir is instead pursuing, in close consultation with MAFF officials, an option under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 (as amended) which allows low throughput slaughterhouses to deal with up to 30 livestock units per week, provided certain conditions are met.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals she has to amend the House of Commons Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000. [108471]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XVIII, Vote 4 (House of Commons: Members Salaries etc) the House of Commons Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–200 will be increased by £3,311,000 from 726W
  £273,236,000. The increase is the net effect of increases in financial assistance to Opposition parties and other current expenditure.

  The increase will be a charge on the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Second Chamber
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council if she will place in the Library the instructions and terms of reference of the contract placed with PricewaterhouseCoopers to advise on persons suitable for membership of the second chamber. [107620]

  Mrs. Beckett
  PricewaterhouseCoopers Executive Search and Selection have not been employed to advise on persons suitable for membership of the second chamber. They have been employed to assist in the recruitment of the Chairman and three independent members of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

  The invitation to tender document sent to PricewaterhouseCoopers by the Cabinet Office included relevant passages from the White paper 'Modernising Parliament Reforming the House of Lords', a draft remit of the Appointments Commission and a draft job and person specification. PricewaterhouseCoopers used this document as the starting point of their work.

  I have placed a copy of the 'invitation to tender' document and the standard terms and conditions of the Cabinet Office in the Library.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Crown Courts
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in relation to criminal cases that can be tried either way in the magistrates or Crown courts, if he will say, for each of the last three years(a) how many cases in which the defendant elected for trial in the Crown court resulted in a plea of guilty at the Crown court, (b) in relation to the cases, identified at (a), how many defendants were on legal aid, (c) what was (i) the total, (ii) the highest and (iii) the medium cost to the legal aid budget of the cases identified at (b), and (d) what he estimates the cost to the legal aid system would have been, for the statistics identified at (c), if the cases identified at (a) had been tried on a guilty plea in the magistrates court. [107846]

  Mr. Lock
  The information required is not held centrally by the Department and could, therefore, be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Oath of Allegiance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many letters he has received since 1 May 1997 on(a) constituency matters and (b) other matters of Government policy from each of those Members of the House who have not taken the oath of allegiance. [108399]
  727W
  Mr. Lock
  Information in respect of correspondence between hon. Members and Departments is treated in confidence unless the originating hon. Member chooses to make this public. It is not therefore possible to provide the information requested.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to amend the Lord Chancellor's Department's departmental expenditure limit and running costs limit for 1999–2000. [108980]

  Mr. Lock
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class V, Votes 1, 2 and 3 the Lord Chancellor's Department Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000 will be increased by £26,934,000 from £2,421,244,000 to £2,448,178,000. The increase is the net effect of a transfer for £505,000 from the Department of Social Security relating to the costs of recruiting and re-appointing panel members for Unified Appeals Tribunals; a transfer from the Reserve for £25,000,000 in respect of the additional legal aid costs following implementation of the Narey reforms; a transfer to the Home Office for £200,000 in respect of a contribution towards the costs of the IBIS (Integrating Business and Information Systems) Criminal Justice System Unit; and take up of End Year Flexibility entitlement in the sum of £1,629,000.

  The running cost limit for Lord Chancellor's Department Class V, Vote 1 will be increased by £23,167,000 from £502,203,000 to £525,370,000. The increase is in respect of a £380,000 transfer from the Department of Social Security relating to costs in respect of recruiting and re-appointing panel members for the Unified Appeals Tribunals; a £200,000 transfer to the Home Office in respect of a contribution towards the cost of the IBIS Unit; an increase of £695,000 to meet additional costs of the ARAMIS PFI project, an increase of £19,550,000 following reclassification of expenditure as a result of the impact of the changes in ESA 95; and an increase of £2,742,000 following a transfer from other current expenditure to meet the additional costs in respect of Asylum and Immigration.

  The running cost limit for Northern Ireland Court Service, Class V, Vote 2 will be increased by £679,000 from £29,960,000 to £30,636,000. The increase is as a result of take up of End Year Flexibility entitlement.

  The running cost limit for Public Records Office, Class V, Vote 3 will be increased by £2,908,000 from £25,842,000 to £28,750,000. This increase is as a result of a £900,000 increase funded by a grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund, in respect of a project to microfilm World War One Soldier's documents; a £200,000 increase relating to expenditure on wholesale publishing and book purchases, which is funded by additional wider market receipts generated by retail sales; a £950,000 increase in respect of End Year Flexibility entitlement; a £2,558,000 increase to meet additional costs in respect of Capital Charges on the Civil Estate, and a £1,700,000 reduction following virement into capital expenditure relating to developments in online services.
  728W
  The increases will be offset by a transfer from the Department of Social Security Departmental Expenditure Limit, a grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund, and charges on the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Broadcasting Act 1996
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will publish proposals for reform of the Broadcasting Act; and if he will make a statement. [108981]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I propose to publish a White Paper later this year setting out the Government's proposals for reform of the framework of communications legislation. This will include proposals for changing both the Telecommunications and Broadcasting Acts as a basis for legislation when parliamentary time allows. The White Paper will accordingly be broad in its scope, covering both infrastructure and content issues. It will draw on responses to the options for reform of the broadcasting and telecommunications framework set out in the Government's June 1999 statement "Regulating Communications: The Way Ahead" and will take full account of emerging conclusions from the current review of the European Union regulatory framework for communications. The work will be taken forward by a joint DTI/DCMS team to ensure a coherent and consistent approach to the regulation of the converging communications industries.

  Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much his Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies have spent on external consultants and advisers since May 1997. [102075]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: The table provides the latest available information provided by my Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies. It includes expenditure (for example, professional fees) connected with lottery projects.

  £

  Arts Council

  5,678,000

  British Film Institute

  1,027,000

  British Library

  5,682,264

  British Museum

  15,733,000

  British Tourist Authority

  1,164,658

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  20,101

  CABE

  10,575

  Crafts Council

  141,754

  English Tourist Council

  334,000

  Film Council

  47,825

  Geffrye Museum

  435,587

  English Heritage

  2,226,329

  Historic Royal Palaces

  1,727,000

  Horniman Museum

  1,478,394

  Imperial War Museum

  3,857,000

  Library and Information Commission

  305,622

  Millennium Commission

  11,932,000

  Museum of London

  621,117

  729W

  £

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  810,625

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  577,907

  National Film and TV School

  670,831

  National Gallery

  153,000

  National Heritage Memorial Fund/Heritage Lottery Fund

  2,590,288

  National Lottery Charities Board

  1,300,000

  National Lottery Commission

  567,000

  National Maritime Museum

  1,406,000

  National Museum of Science and Industry

  11,124,285

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  290,288

  National Portrait Gallery

  2,853,305

  Natural History Museum

  197,968

  Public Lending Right

  124,198

  Royal Armouries

  403,667

  Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts

  15,600

  Royal Fine Art Commission

  34,163

  Royal Parks Agency

  1,711,528

  Sir John Soane's Museum

  30,950

  Sport England

  1,281,000

  Tate Gallery

  2,775,396

  UK Sport

  565,000

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  521,267

  Wallace Collection

  2,163,000

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the items in the National Asset Register sold by his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies since 1 March 1999, stating in each case the amount of money realised; if he will estimate the total amount raised from such sales to date; and if he will make a statement. [104501]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Department itself has realised £6,000 from the sale of printers and servers since March 1999 and its agency, the Royal Parks Agency, has sold a building and computer equipment which generated proceeds of £120,281. The information available for the Department's associated public bodies is as listed by asset category which is in the format shown in the National Asset Register. The total proceeds from asset sales by associated public bodies amounts to £1,624,670.

  Associated Public Bodies
  (i) Arts Council of England
  Equipment, fixtures and fittings—proceeds £4,000
  Vehicles—proceeds £13,000
  (ii) British Library
  Motor vehicles—proceeds £2,150
  (iii) British Tourist Authority
  Motor vehicles—proceeds £23,000
  Fixtures and fittings—proceeds £5,000
  (iv) Crafts Council
  Furniture, fittings and equipment—proceeds £242
  (v) English Heritage
  Land and buildings—proceeds £241,500
  Equipment—proceeds £7,000
  (vi) Independent Television Commission
  Vehicles—proceeds £13,355
  (vii) Science Museum
  Plant and machinery—proceeds £12,000
  Fixtures and fittings—proceeds £2,000
  730W
  (viii) Sianel Pedwar Cymru (S4C)
  Plant and equipment—proceeds £1,500
  (ix) Sport England
  Equipment and vehicles—proceeds £14,000
  (x) Tate Gallery
  Land and buildings—proceeds £1,200,000
  (xi) Victoria and Albert Museum
  Equipment—proceeds £85,923.

  Departmental Consultation
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the public consultation exercises on policy matters carried out by his Department and its agencies in each of the last five years; who was consulted and by what means; how responses were analysed; how and in what form the results were transmitted to those responsible for the consultation; how the results of the consultation were published; and what analysis has been carried out of the extent and nature of policy changes resulting from the consultation. [106304]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Public consultation is a routine element of policy formulation in the Department and its sponsored bodies. We do not, however, keep a central systematic record of the many and various consultation exercises we have conducted. This information requested by my hon. Friend could therefore be assembled only at disproportionate cost.

  Premier League
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he last met the Chairman of the Premier League; where the meeting took place; and what subjects were discussed. [106555]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met the Chairman of the FA Premier League on 16 September 1999 at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I was also present at that meeting, at which a range of football issues were discussed.

  Wembley Monitoring Committee
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what dates the Wembley Monitoring Committee has met; if he will list those present at each meeting; and if he will publish the minutes of the meetings. [106556]

  Kate Hoey
  The dates and attendees at meetings of the National Stadium Monitoring Committee meetings are as listed. The minutes of these meetings cover the views of representatives of non-governmental organisations who took part in those meetings on the understanding that discussions were in confidence, and it would not, therefore, be appropriate for them to be published.

  17 February 1999

  Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

  Minister for Sport, Tony Banks MP

  James Purnell, No. 10 Policy Unit

  Simon Broadley, DCMS

  731W

  Graham Bond, DCMS

  Chris Carr, DCMS

  Andy Burnham, DCMS Special Adviser

  Derek Casey, Sport England

  Ian Fytche, Sport England

  Ralph Ward, Government Office for London

  Ken Bates, Wembley National Stadium Limited

  Bob Stubbs, Wembley National Stadium Limited

  Nic Coward, Football Association

  20 May 1999

  Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

  Minister for Sport, Tony Banks MP

  Simon Broadley, DCMS

  Colin Jones, DCMS

  Chris Carr, DCMS

  Derek Casey, Sport England

  Ian Fytche, Sport England

  John Sienkiewicz, Government Office for London

  Ken Bates, Wembley National Stadium Limited

  Bob Stubbs, Wembley National Stadium Limited

  Nic Coward, Football Association

  Sir Alan Cockshaw, English Partnerships

  15 July 1999

  Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

  Minister for Sport, Tony Banks MP

  Philippa Drew, DCMS

  Harry Reeves, DCMS

  Colin Jones, DCMS

  Graham Bond, DCMS

  Philip Townsend, DCMS

  Chris Can, DCMS

  Andy Burnham, DCMS Special Adviser

  Derek Casey, Sport England

  Ian Fytche, Sport England

  John Sienkiewicz, Government Office for London

  Ken Bates, Wembley National Stadium Limited

  Bob Stubbs, Wembley National Stadium Limited

  Louise Green, Wembley National Stadium Limited

  Gary Hunt, Wembley National Stadium Limited

  Hugh Thomas, World Design Team

  Nic Coward, Football Association

  Sir Alan Cockshaw, English partnerships

  Paula Hay-Plumb, English Partnerships

  Tony Winterbottom, English Partnerships

  Sir Nigel Mobbs, Wembley Task Force.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what advice he has received from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment concerning the design of the new Wembley Stadium. [107135]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]: The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) forwarded to the Secretary of State a copy of its letter of 16 December to Lord Foster of Thames Bank. This letter strongly supported the design which would
  732W
  meet the primary function of a football stadium, and noted how it could be converted for an athletics event but that it was essential that this provision should not compromise the stadium when used for football. CABE further stressed the importance of the work of the Wembley Task Force in ensuring the surrounding area provides a fitting environment.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) on what date the Ellerbe Beckett report into Wembley Stadium was first received by his Department; [107136]

  (2) on what date the Ellerbe Beckett report into Wembley Stadium was first made available to (a) Sport England, (b) UK Athletics, (c) the British Olympic Association and (d) Wembley National Stadium Ltd. [107137]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]: We received the DLA: Ellerbe Beckett report on Monday 29 November 1999.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) of 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 384W, on Wembley Stadium, if he will list the interested parties with which his Department held discussions; on what date those discussions were held; and if he will make a statement. [107182]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]: Between the statement in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 1 December 1999, Official Report, columns 305–06 and the announcement on 22 December, discussions were held with Sport England, UK Sport, UK Athletics, the British Olympic Association, Wembley National Stadium Ltd. and the Football Association.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his oral statement of 1 December 1999,Official Report, column 306, which bodies advised him that it seemed unlikely that Wembley could provide an appropriate venue for the World Athletics Championships. [107299]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 28 January 2000]: The conclusions were drawn from the Ellerbe Beckett report. While Wembley National Stadium Ltd. subsequently addressed many of the issues outlined in a statement on 1 December 1999, the proposed solution was not the ideal for athletics as it required substantial investment without a lasting athletics legacy and would not have been suitable as the centrepiece for any future Olympic bid.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) of 25 January 2000,Official Report, column 163W, when (i) he and (ii) ministers in his Department first discussed the ideal focal point for the new Wembley Stadium in athletics mode with (a) Sport England, (b) Wembley National Stadium Ltd and (c) UK Athletics. [107838]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: Stadium Australia, which I understand has minimum C60 sightlines based on a focal point on the outside edge of the outside line around the whole track, has set the

  733W
  current benchmark for quality of sightlines required for the Olympics. This was acknowledged by the Wembley design team at the recent Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee inquiry into Wembley. We were assured throughout the project that the new Wembley would be capable of being upgraded for Olympics. However, it became clear once we had seen the detailed proposals for Olympic configuration in early October last year, that Wembley did not meet this benchmark and brought into question the possibility of Wembley being the centrepiece of a future Olympic bid.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) of 25 January 2000,Official Report, column 163W, what assessment he has made of the extent to which the standards for the focal point and sight lines in the new Wembley Stadium with 80,000 seats in athletics mode are matched or exceeded by the other stadia in Europe with capacities in excess of 75,000. [107839]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 31 January 2000]: My Department has made no specific assessment of the Wembley proposals against other stadia in Europe. In respect of the Wembley proposals we were concerned to ensure that we did not rule out the possibility of a future Olympic bid. The report from Ellerbe Beckett along with evidence from the BOA and my officials who attended the Wembley National Stadium Ltd. mock up of the proposed seating, confirmed the inadequacy of the sightlines in 80,000 athletics mode.

  National Lottery
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many grant applications to the National Lottery have been received from organisations within the Mitcham and Morden constituency; and how many have been successful. [107946]

  Kate Hoey
  The following table shows the number of applications and awards for each of the National Lottery distributing bodies to organisations in the Mitcham and Morden constituency, based on information provided by the National Lottery distributing bodies. The figure for applications received includes applications that have not yet been processed.

  Distributing body

  Number of applications received

  Number of awards made

  Arts Council of England

  6

  4

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  6

  Film Council

  0

  0

  Millennium Commission

  Not known

  2

  National Lottery Charities Board

  115

  27

  New Opportunities Fund

  1

  0

  Sport England

  4

  1

  UK Sport

  0

  0

  Sport England
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), of 24 January 734W
  2000, Official Report, column 87W, on what date the Football Association proposed that £20 million be returned to Sport England; what form this proposal took; and where the proposal was made. [107296]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 28 January 2000]: An informal proposal was made by David Richards, Chairman of the FA Premier League on 16 December 1999 in the margins of a meeting at No. 10 to discuss the proposed Football Foundation. This was relayed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by DCMS officials and followed up by more formal discussions between my Department and the Football Association. These concluded with the meeting between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Mr. Ken Bates on 22 December 1999 at which it was agreed that £20 million would be returned over the next five years, with best endeavours to repay the money more quickly if possible. The precise details of the repayment are matters for Sport England and the Football Association.

  Irish Culture
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action his Department is taking to promote Irish(a) culture, (b) arts and (c) sports in Britain. [107587]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  It is my Department's job to promote all cultural and sporting activities in the UK. Irish culture is just one of the many diverse cultures that are promoted by, for example, the Arts Council of England and the Regional Arts Boards. My Department is also in close touch with its counterpart in Dublin on a number of issues. Gaelic games such as football, hurling and camogie are all recognised by Sport England and are eligible for lottery funding. Recently St. Albans' Irish Association received a grant of £51,617 towards improving their facilities to benefit Gaelic football.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has had with the Department for Education and Employment about increasing the provision of sports playing fields available to schools. [108132]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend and I are in regular contact with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment on a wide range of issues of mutual interest including the important issue of increasing the provision of playing fields available to schools.

  Athletics
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received on the level of public subsidy required if Britain hosts the International Amateur Athletics Federation World Championships in 2005. [108073]

  Kate Hoey
  The Chief Executive of Manchester City Council has written to my officials enclosing a copy of a paper written by a firm of Canadian consultants dated 23 January 2000, which suggests that the net event costs of staging the World Athletics Championships would be
  735W
  in the region of £15 million. UK Athletics have in principle agreement from Sport England of £15 million Lottery funding towards event costs for the 2005 World Athletics Championships and this is the figure included in the UK Athletics outline bid submitted to the International Amateur Athletics Federation on 31 January 2000.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the necessary additional spending required by his Department in order for Britain to host the International Amateur Athletics Federation World Championship in 2005. [108074]

  Kate Hoey
  Following the decision to remove athletics from Wembley, my Department is now co-ordinating urgent work between the Government Office for London, Sport England, UK Sport, UK Athletics and the British Olympic Association on further developing the bid for the 2005 World Athletics Championships which takes account of a possible future Olympic bid, including the level of public or Lottery funding that may be required.

  School

  Local authority

  Amount awarded (£)

  Scheme

  Newquay Tretherras School

  Restormel

  136,073

  Artificial hockey pitch

  Fowey Community School

  Restormel

  1,190,339

  Sport and leisure complex

  Callington School and Community College

  Caradon

  75,000

  Phase 11 of college sports facilities project

  Liskeard School and Community College

  Caradon

  259,624

  Artificial hockey pitch

  Cape Cornwall Community

  Penwith

  578,473

  Sports hall and car park

  A further six schools located in areas where Sport Action Zones have been set up have also received awards. However, in these areas the boundaries of the

  School

  Local authority

  Amount awarded (£)

  Scheme

  Rossington High School Boat Club

  Doncaster

  18,640

  Purchase of boats

  Thomas Rotherham College

  Rotherham

  491,941

  Construction of new sports hall

  St. Bernard's RC School

  Rotherham

  13,800

  All weather cricket pitch and practice nets

  Small Heath GM School

  Birmingham

  1,605,083

  All weather playing surfaces

  Arthur Terry School

  Birmingham

  732,965

  Sports hall refurbishment

  Baverstock Grant Maintained School

  Birmingham

  14,124

  Table tennis development project to include disabled people

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Lebanon
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent talks he has had with the Israeli Government concerning the withdrawal of Israeli troops from South Lebanon. [108065]

  Mr. Hain
  We have regular high-level contact with the Israeli Government. We discuss all aspects of the peace process. The Government support the implementation of UNSCR 425. There is now a real prospect of Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon. It is the responsibility of all those involved to ensure that any Israeli withdrawal is orderly and carried out within a framework that ensures stability.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has

  World Class Programme
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about funding the World Class Programme from National Lottery funds. [107967]

  Kate Hoey
  To date approximately £90 million of National Lottery funds has been committed by Sport England and UK Sport to over 40 sporting activities, helping over 2,200 elite athletes under the World Class Programme.

  School Sports
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many schools in the Government's action zones have received National Lottery funds to develop sporting opportunities. [107969]

  Kate Hoey
  Five schools located within the recently announced Sport Action Zones have received National Lottery awards from Sport England. The details are as follows:

  Zones have not been finalised and some of those schools may not be in the eventually designated Zone. Details are as follows:

  made concerning the welfare of the Christian population of South Lebanon in the event of an Israeli withdrawal from the region. [108064]

  Mr. Hain
  Stability will be crucial to ensuring that the rights of all communities in Lebanon are safeguarded. It is the responsibility of all those involved to ensure that any Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon is orderly and carried out within a framework which ensures stability.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his international colleagues concerning(a) the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon and (b) the protection of a Christian enclave until that has occurred. [108063]

  Mr. Hain
  I discuss the Middle East Peace Process regularly with EU and other colleagues. The Government support United Nations Security Council Resolutions 520 and 425. We look forward to the Lebanese Government's
  737W
  full exercise of its authority throughout the country. We monitor the human rights situation in Lebanon, as in the rest of the Middle East and elsewhere.

  Egypt
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with the Egyptian Government regarding the political representation of Christians. [108062]

  Mr. Hain
  When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Cairo in January this year, he met the Sheikh of A1 Azar and Bishop Daniel as well as members of the Government, including the President. Interfaith issues were part of the discussions.

  Congo
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the UK has to provide troops to a peacekeeping force in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [108058]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK is providing six military liaison officers to the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC). The Security Council is considering the Secretary General's recommendations for a large UN observer force to monitor the ceasefire. We are ready, in principle, to support this force and are keeping under review what more we may be able to provide.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what notifications from the Joint Military Committee and MONUC of breaches of the Lusaka ceasefire in the Democratic Republic of Congo since its signing he has received; and how many of these ceasefire breaches involved Zimbabwean troops. [108057]

  Mr. Hain
  Since the signing of the Lusaka Agreement there have been allegations of ceasefire violations by both sides in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We strongly condemn all such violations.

  We continue to urge the parties to report any ceasefire violations to the Joint Military Committee, which is mandated under the Lusaka Agreement to monitor compliance and resolve disputes.

  At the open meeting of the Security Council on DRC in New York last week all parties reaffirmed their support for Lusaka and its principles and their commitment to its implementation.

  Iran
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 580W, what sources of information, other than Iranian press reports, concerning the affiliations and roles of Globad Mansour-Beigi, Reza Molai and Ali-Hosseini, he has evaluated. [107954]

  Mr. Hain
  The Iranian media reports referred to in my previous answer described the three people killed in the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq Organisation's attack on the town of Ilam as civilians. Whatever their affiliation, this was an act of terrorism, which I strongly condemn.
  738W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Iranian Government on the position of women in Iran in relation to the report by the UN Rapporteur on Human Rights. [108148]

  Mr. Hain
  We and our EU partners regularly raise with the Iranian authorities our concerns over a number of their human rights policies, including the situation of women in Iran. The EU sponsored UN General Assembly Resolution on human rights in Iran, adopted on 17 December, called for further action by the Iranian Government to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by women of their human rights.

  The Special Rapporteur's report of September 1999 expressed concern over certain women's rights issues and also highlighted a number of improvements. He particularly welcomed the efforts of the Iranian President and other senior figures in the executive to press for a change in attitude towards women and women's issues. He also welcomed the greater participation of Iranian women in politics and higher education.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on persecution of Christians in Pakistan in each of the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [107948]

  Mr. Hain
  We have received a number of reports about the position of Christians in Pakistan and have raised our concerns with the Pakistani authorities. Our High Commission in Islamabad maintains a regular dialogue with Christian and human rights groups and the Pakistani authorities on this issue. Since the coup on 12 October 1999, General Musharraf has promised Pakistan's minorities that their rights would be respected and that they would be treated as equal citizens. We shall continue to monitor the situation closely and raise our concerns.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to his Egyptian counterpart on the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development peace initiative for Sudan. [108129]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed the Sudan with his Egyptian counterpart on a number of occasions, most recently in Cairo on 20 January. Our objective is to see a comprehensive negotiated settlement in the interests of all Sudanese. We continue to support the LOAD initiative as the best vehicle for actioning this.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received concerning the displacement of Nuer from the area surrounding the oil fields in Southern Sudan. [108145]

  Mr. Hain
  We are aware of reports of displacement of people in Upper Nile to places such as Bentiu and Yirol as a result of factional fighting. We expect to see further reports on this issue from a Canadian study which we understand may be published in the near future.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Taiwan on the economic consequences of the earthquake that took place last year in Taiwan. [108173]

  Mr. Battle
  None. The British Trade and Cultural Office in Taipei reports regularly on economic developments. The economic consequences of last September's earthquake have been comprehensively covered in the course of that reporting.

  The human cost of the earthquake was severe and tragic. The United Kingdom joined many other members of the international community in contributing to the relief effort.

  Economic dislocation proved to be less grave than the Taiwan authorities initially feared. Considering the magnitude of the tremor, infrastructural damage to industrial premises was relatively light, the bulk of lost industrial output being caused by disruption in power supplies. Economic indicators show that Taiwan's economic performance has now returned to at or near its pre-September level.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals there are to amend his Department's expenditure and running costs limit for 1999–2000. [108810]

  Mr. Hain
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class VII Vote 1 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Departmental Expenditure limit for 1999–2000 will be increased by £5,157,000 from £1,171,240,000 to £1,176,397,000 and the running cost limit has been decreased by £32,614,000 from £530,968,000 to £498,354,000. The increase is the net effect of:

  (i) a decrease of £5,326,000 in respect of an adjustment for Overseas Price Movements;

  (ii) a decrease in the running cost limit of £1,011,000, in respect of the cash limit breach for financial year 1998–99;

  (iii) an increase of £2,000,000 in both capital expenditure and appropriations in-aid for FCO Estates Rationalisation;

  (iv) a net decrease in the running costs limit of £5,238,000 and an increase in capital of £5,238,000, in respect of reclassification of certain items of current and capital expenditure in line with FCO's Resource Accounting policies;

  740W

  (v) a transfer of £600,000 from the Home Office (Class 4, Vote 1), in respect of certain overseas drugs assistance programmes;

  (vi) a transfer of £56,000 to the Home Office (Class IV, Vote 2), in respect of the Human Rights Project Fund;

  (vii) a transfer of £100,000 from the Ministry of Defence (Class VI, Vote 1), in respect of their contribution to the grant-in-aid to the Atlantic Council of the UK;

  (viii) a transfer of £750,000 to the Cabinet Office (Class XVII, Vote 2) for capital expenditure;

  (ix) an increase in both running cost limit and in appropriations-in-aid of £25,000, in respect of Sales into Wider Markets;

  (x) an increase in running cost receipts of £24,675,000 and an increase in running cost expenditure of £500,000, in respect of increased receipts from other Government Departments;

  (xi) The Supplementary Estimate is also sought for additional provision of £40,070,000 on Section B for UK contributions to United Nations Missions in the former Yugoslavia (includes) UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo) and the former Soviet Union, United Nations Special Commission on Iraq, United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission, United Nations Mission for the Referendum on Western Sahara, United Nations Police Mission in Haiti, United Nations Mission in East Timor, United Nations Observer Mission in Angola, United Nations Peacekeeping Operation in Central African Republic, United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, United Nations Observer Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Community Monitoring Mission and Western European Union Police Mission in Albania. This is partially offset by an increase of £4,800,000 in appropriations-in-aid in respect of non-baseline peacekeeping;

  (xii) The Supplementary Estimate is also required to note an increase of £505,000 in Section D, in respect of an adjustment for Overseas Price Movements for the British Council.

  The increase will be offset by a transfer from another Departmental Expenditure Limit (Df1D) and a charge on the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Oath of Allegiance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters he has received since 1 May 1997 on(a) constituency matters and (b) other matters of Government policy from each of those Members of the House who have not taken the oath of allegiance. [108401]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Correspondence between hon. Members and Departments is treated in confidence unless the originating Member chooses to make such issues public. I am therefore unable to provide the information requested.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen
The Right Honourable George Islay MacNeill Robertson, having been created Baron Robertson of Port Ellen, of Islay in Argyll and Bute, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Healey and the Lord Gilbert, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Disability Discrimination Act 1995: Exemptions
3.6 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why 81 per cent of all firms are still exempted from the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I have been asked to answer this Question, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone, the Minister of State, is at a family funeral this afternoon.
The employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 were introduced for employers with 20 or more employees in 1996. We extended that to employers with 15 employees in 1998. The Act therefore already protects over 75 per cent of disabled employees. The Disability Rights Commission Act 1999 contains a provision requiring us to consult the commission before making further extensions and we plan to do so after it has been established in April.
The appropriate percentage in the Question should in fact be 89 per cent—a figure given by my noble friend the Minister of State in an oral Answer to my noble friend on 13th April last year (at col. 620).
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I appreciate that reply. However, is my noble friend aware that the Government "bought a pup" when they accepted the arguments of the small firms federation that small firms should be excluded from the Act? The view of the federation was that, if small firms were included, unreasonable burdens would be imposed on them. It is an absurd argument: the Act specifically states that only "reasonable" provision should be made. So, by definition, it is impossible to impose unreasonable burdens on any employer, however small. Does my noble friend know of the arguments of the organisations supporting the inclusion of all firms? They include: the Parliamentary All Party Disablement Group; the Disability Rights Task Force,
342
chaired by the Minister for Disabled People, Margaret Hodge; and, significantly, the Employers' Forum on Disability. When will the Government join that distinguished group?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the Government accept the importance of trying to bring more disabled employees within the protection of the Act. As I said, we have already taken the first step. It is a requirement under the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999 to ask the newly established Disability Rights Commission for advice relating to further changes. We are under an obligation to do so, as well as to consult with employers and other disability organisations. That is our intention.
So far as concerns reasonableness, after 25 years as a common lawyer—a common law lawyer—
Noble Lords: Very good!
Lord Bach: My Lords, some of the lawyers in this House are certainly not common. After 25 years, I tend to shy away from saying that the concept of reasonableness is a simple issue. It is not. It may be so in general terms; however, it does not describe the details involved. The present case law on the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is comparatively small. We are urgently monitoring that case law.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that, under the previous quota system, before the 1995 Act, small firms were exempted because they would have been required to employ a fraction of a person—a quarter or a third of a disabled person! That was, of course, an absurdity. As that problem no longer exists, can the Government move more quickly to reduce the exempted number of employees?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the position is that we have set up the Disability Rights Commission. There would be no point at all in Parliament having set up such a Commission if we did not seek its advice on issues such as the lowering of the exception threshold. The Commission's advice is crucial. I cannot think of a better reason for setting up such a Commission.
Lord Addington: My Lords, at what point was the principle that discrimination does not take place at a certain level adopted by Members of the party opposite, who, when in Opposition, followed me into the Division Lobby when we attempted to remove the restriction during the passage of the original legislation?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord has the advantage of me, he having been in the House many years ago when this side was in opposition. Our position when in opposition was to make use of Section 7 of the 1995 Act to lower the threshold. To be fair, we began a review a few months after taking office and reduced the threshold only two years after implementation of the Act. Under the 1999 Act we have changed the law to make consideration of further reductions easier. The

343
change makes it possible to have a phased reduction, which was a suggestion made by us when in opposition. I believe that the record of the Government in this particular field is outstanding.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, it has been reported, as my noble friend will know, that of the £195 million New Deal for Disabled People funding which was allocated to help with employment for people with disabilities, only £8 million has so far been spent. With unemployment still so very high among employable disabled people, can my noble friend say why 96 per cent of the sum allocated remains unspent?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the key principle of the welfare-to-work approach is: work for those who can and security for those who cannot. The personal adviser scheme set up to deal with disabled people in the context of the New Deal provides one-to-one specialist client-centred help. By 26th November last year advisers had worked with over 8,000 people and 5,050 people had begun to implement what is described as an employment-focused action plan. The people in that group will need many months of support before they are ready to start work. However, so far some 1,275 people have found jobs. Taking that with other results from innovative schemes, we have secured jobs for 1,749 people. In spite of what my noble friend suggests, I do not believe that that is a bad record.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister say how many disabled people are adversely affected by the exemption?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord will recall I said that over 75 per cent of disabled employees were already covered. Perhaps the noble Lord will give me a moment while I find the number of those who are not covered. I believe that I shall be able to give the noble Lord that figure in a letter.

Scottish Universities: Fees
3.16 p.m.
Baroness Blatchasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose to take to remove any discrimination which will be experienced by English, Welsh and Northern Irish students at Scottish universities over the payment of fees.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I answer this Question for the same reason that my noble friend Lord Bach answered the last. The arrangements for student support and tuition fees in England and Wales are working well, and will be made even better by the additional financial help announced last week for mature students and young students from the least well-off families. Devolution means that the arrangements in Scotland will be different, but differences do not amount to discrimination.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that students in England, Wales and Northern
344
Ireland can be forgiven for believing that they have equal rights within the United Kingdom and with students throughout the European Union? Therefore, how can the Government defend disadvantaging English, Northern Irish and Welsh students in favour of, for example, Greek and Spanish students?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, students everywhere can be forgiven for believing that they have comparable rights, as they do. The arrangements in both England and Wales and Scotland are compatible with European Union rules.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, whether or not the arrangements are compatible with European Union rules, they are a clear example of discrimination against English, Welsh and Northern Irish students attending Scottish universities which has been forced upon us by the European Union? To double, or even treble, the insult—which it is—to our right to decide our own affairs, at the same time we are forced positively to discriminate in favour of any student from the European Union who will receive the same benefits as a Scottish student. This is insupportable. What are we doing about it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend, no doubt inadvertently, is illogical in his reasoning. I said that the provisions were compatible with, not determined by, European Union rules. I have said that the provision for student fees and higher education generally in this country is justified and generous. The same may well be said of the provision in Scotland.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, far from what he said, the present arrangements for student finance are not working well? Real poverty is being experienced by many students at our universities and harm caused to their studies by having to combine full-time education with part-time work. Given the Government's anxiety to increase access to higher education for a large number of people who are less well off, has the Minister given consideration to whether Cubie-style arrangements should be adopted in England?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Secretary of State for Education was able last week to announce a £68 million package of improvements in student provision, in particular for mature students and those from the most deprived backgrounds. It includes greater access to funds, better access to hardship funds and loans, childcare and school meals provision for mature students and an increase in the threshold of payments from £17,370 to £20,000. That indicates that the noble Baroness may well have been right: that our student provision was not adequate until now. However, we can claim that we have made significant improvements to that provision by the package we announced last week.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, whatever the status of Northern Ireland may prove to be before the

345
end of the week, will the Minister ensure that the legitimate concerns and hardships of students from Northern Ireland will not in any circumstances be disregarded by Her Majesty's Government? The position was set out by the noble Lord, Lord Shore.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in so far as it is within our power, I am sure we would wish to give the assurance the noble Lord seeks.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, if the Minister is right and the discrimination referred to in the Question is not determined in the final analysis by European Union rules, why do not the Government remove that discrimination? Do they approve of it?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said that the provision made for students of this country in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland is determined because we think that that provision is right, not because of European rules. We have no desire to change it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister remind the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that the original King Charles' head was not the property of Charles de Gaulle?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not reply to noble Lords' jokes, when I cannot match them.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the Minister remember my grandchildren?
Noble Lords: Yes!
Lord Mackay off Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the noble Lord believe that it is fair and not discriminatory that my Italian grandchild can now have a free university education in Scotland whereas my grandchild in Kent will have to pay £4,000 despite the fact that her parents are taxpayers in the same United Kingdom?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am trying desperately to remember the Italian and Scottish towns to which the noble Lord referred. I think that it must be Ecclefechan but I cannot remember the Italian town.
No. The provision made for European students is in accordance with European Union rules. The provision made for students resident in England and Wales is in accordance with the decisions of this Government, and no one else.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, does the Minister accept that in certain policy areas devolved to the Scottish Parliament there will be differences in policy pursued by the Scottish Parliament from those of the Parliament at Westminster? It is a matter of diversity rather than discrimination. This House welcomed the concept of devolution. It should be encouraged as a strengthening rather than a weakening of the Union.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have sought to persuade noble Lords opposite of that point for some
346
time. The fundamental point underlying this debate is that governments of England and Wales, and Scotland, have recognised that our responsibilities to students extend beyond the full-time young students to mature and part-time students. That is what the package covers.

Tax Changes: Effects
3.23 p.m.
The Earl of Northeskasked Her Majesty's Government:
How much money the Treasury will save as a result of the abolition of the married couple's allowance and MIRAS; how much the reduction of 1 p in the pound on income tax will cost the Treasury; and whether the Treasury will be a net loser or winner.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are introducing measures to make work pay and improve support for families with children, including a new children's tax credit worth up to twice as much as the married couple's allowance. The estimates of the effects which provide the figures the noble Earl requires were published in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report and Financial Statement and Budget Report last year. When the children's tax credit is in place, the estimates show a net decrease in revenue from the measures mentioned by the noble Earl of £750 million.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply although it does not answer my specific questions. I am always chary of trading statistics with the noble Lord. However, does he question the integrity of figures from the House of Commons Library which demonstrate the Treasury to be a net winner to the tune of £700 million as a result of the measures mentioned in my Question? Can we infer that the Treasury's gain is the compensation to the taxpayer mentioned by the Prime Minister in his interview with Mr David Frost on 16th January?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the figure the noble Earl quotes from the House of Commons Library is, as I said, also available in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report and Financial Statement and Budget Report, so there is no concealment of any kind. It was only for the sake of brevity that I referred the noble Earl to the published figures. Yes, indeed, for 2000–01, before the full package is complete—none is in place yet—the figure shows a benefit to the Treasury of £700 million. However, when we take into account, as we must, the children's tax credit, the figure of £750 million in the other direction is correct.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, there are enormous demands on the public purse. There is a severe short age of resources available for the health service and other public services. There are not sufficient resources

347
available for the relief of farmers. Is it not perverse in the extreme to proceed with the cut of 1p in the tax rate? It seems to have little public support.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no. The Chancellor announced last year the cut of 1p in the tax rate. It has, of course, to be enacted in the Finance Act for this year. It has wide public support and fits in with our general economic strategies. It fits in with the golden rule on taxation and borrowing. As I have shown from the figures on family support, it is progressive and beneficial to families.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the MIRAS system seems to have been phased out to the great benefit of the Treasury. However, the stamp duty on houses when they change hands has increased. That does not seem right. I hope my noble friend can assure me that there will be no further increases in stamp duty. As a quid pro quo for the abolition of MIRAS, perhaps it could be abolished.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend's remarks will be noted, as always. I am sure that the Chancellor will take them into account when he makes his decisions in advance of the Budget. As regards MIRAS, as my noble friend knows, the level of relief on mortgage interest has been declining for several years under both governments. It amounts now to only 10 per cent on loans up to £30,000. This is the last stage of a process which has continued for some time.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, is it true that there exists in the Treasury a document which describes the Government's tax strategy as being to cut visible taxes on voters and raise invisible taxes elsewhere? Is it true that by manipulating a mass of complicated tax allowances, reliefs and exemptions, the net effect of all the Government's tax changes is equal to an increase of 4½p in the basic rate of income tax? Does the Minister agree that this gives a new meaning to the phrase "rip-off Britain"?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no such document in the Treasury.

Local Government Act 1988: Section 28
3.28 p.m.
Lord Topeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their reaction to the comments in the press of the Chief Inspector of Schools, Mr Chris Woodhead, on the Government's intention to repeal Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, just in case it has escaped your Lordships' notice, there will be a full opportunity to debate the issue in detail during the
348
Committee stage of the Local Government Bill on Monday. Chris Woodhead was speaking personally and he was technically correct in that Section 28 does not affect schools. This and the previous Government have repeatedly pointed out that that is the case and the message may be getting across to some schools.
Regrettably, however, there is ample testament from teachers, parents, pupils and social workers that Section 28 confuses and inhibits teachers and can prevent an effective response to serious problems. That is why we propose to proceed to repeal it.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for reminding us of Monday's opportunity. I believe that the words used by the chief inspector were to the effect that Section 28 has not had a negative influence on teachers' ability to tackle homophobic bullying. Would the Minister agree that there is ample evidence that it has had such a negative effect and is not the fact that the chief inspector is apparently unaware of that, a more serious indictment of his failure to create an atmosphere in which teachers and pupils can confide their real concerns to him?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord in that Chris Woodhead does not seem to reflect the view of teachers. Forty-four per cent of them felt that they had difficulty in meeting the needs of gay and lesbian pupils as a result of Section 28 and 28 per cent felt that the section may leave them open to legal proceedings. That is ample evidence of the need to alter this pernicious clause.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, many of my colleagues will be shocked by the way in which the Minister dismissed the comments of the Chief Inspector of Schools, who I believe has given excellent service to this and the previous Government. Has the Minister seen the marvellous exhibition upstairs which has been put together by my noble friend Lady Young? Does he agree that it contains materials which were depraving and corrupting, upon which public money had been spent and which was being peddled around to very young children in our schools and youth centres?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, many noble Lords will be aware of the exhibition and of the material that is being peddled around. That material has not been produced by or for the Department for Education and Employment, local education authorities or schools in most respects. Some of the material is sensible, good guidance to teachers, social workers and youth workers and I would very much approve of it. However, I should not want to see other parts of the material used in schools and youth clubs.
The guidance which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education is in the process of producing—he is doing so in consultation with a wide range of opinion, including the Churches and everyone involved in sex education—will soon be available. It is important to deal with these issues in a sensitive and detailed way and not attempt to do so by a few

349
ambiguous and at times damaging lines in local government legislation, such as was tried by the previous administration.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the number of organisations set up by parents of gay young people because they are concerned about the bullying of their children? Furthermore, is he aware of a report published some years ago by a gay teenagers' group which describes the misery caused by bullying in schools?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes, I am aware of several parents' organisations which have brought the issue to the attention of Ministers and education authorities and of the wide range of reports from people who have suffered from homophobic bullying in schools. I am also aware of the report to which my noble friend referred and of the wide range of organisations which, as a result of their experience with young people, and in particular the abuse received by them, support the repeal of Section 28. I hope that on Monday the Committee will do the same.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Mr Woodhead's opinion of the effect of Section 28 must be contingent on his opinion of its meaning? Does he also agree that, as in 12 years no one has tested the meaning of the section in court, any opinion of its meaning must be conjectural and therefore personal?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in my opening remarks I said that Chris Woodhead had spoken personally. One of the many defects of the section is that it is not clear and has never been tested by the courts. If it were so tested, it would not achieve any of the objectives which its original proponents sought from it.
What it has done is create an appalling atmosphere among teachers and social workers who believe that they cannot touch on some of the most difficult problems which people bring to them and that they cannot give them information, education and counselling. That the effect, not its legal effect, and it is therefore inappropriate for the face of primary legislation.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister an unemotive question? In the context of the repeal of Section 28, does he accept that the Act as it stands, without amendment, confers absolute discretion on a local authority to promote anything considered to be likely to improve social well-being?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, no, I do not believe it does in that absolute sense. I am pleased that the noble Lord attempted to take some of the emotion out of the debate and I, too, shall attempt to do so on Monday.
The position is not that if we remove Section 28 there will be a vacuum. If we remove Section 28, school governors and teachers who are responsible for sex education in schools will be subject to the very detailed guidance which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education is producing as well
350
as the guidance which already exists from the Department of Health. That is the way to deal with this sensitive problem.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, will the guidance also cover local authorities?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, yes, the education aspect of the guidance will cover the education role of local authorities.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is even more surprising that Mr Woodhead can make such a statement when the 1997 report from the Institute of Education makes it clear that the existence of this legislation sends a confusing message to teachers and affects the lives of young people with whom they seek to work? I cannot believe that he is not aware of this report and its comments.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware of the report from the Institute of Education and believe it to be well founded on the experience of school teachers and head teachers. That is one of the main motivations behind our desire to see the repeal of the section and to provide a sensible, calm and caring context in which sexual relationships are advised on by school teachers, social workers and youth workers. The continuation of the section has a pernicious effect and we ought to remove it.

Insolvency Bill [H.L.]
3.37 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law about insolvency; to amend the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to he printed.

Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar (Eriskay Causeway) Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Children (Leaving Care) Bill [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

351
Moved, That the order of commitment of 7th December last be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Nuclear Safeguards Bill [H.L.]
3.39 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Race Relations (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Discrimination by police and other public authorities]:
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("a") to ("to") in line 11 and insert ("public authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11. I am sure that noble Lords will be glad to know that I do not intend to make a long speech on these amendments. However, I should like to give the Minister an opportunity to respond so that the House is made aware, before we say au revoir to the Bill, of the current state of policy development on two or three outstanding issues.
The amendments all relate to the definition of "public authorities", with the exception of Amendment No. 11 which relates to the proposed policy of duty to promote equality. Noble Lords will recall from our previous debates that what is being sought here is a combination of a specific definition of "public authorities" by means of a schedule and a generic definition by reference to the Human Rights Act. During our debates on Report, I suggested that a solution might lie in having both. That is the proposition which these amendments seek to pursue. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his brevity; I shall try to be equally brief. Noble Lords are well aware that the issues surrounding the definition were
352
debated both in Committee and on Report. The reasoning behind the approach we have taken is now probably well understood.
I undertook on Report last week that the Government would look again—without commitment—at this matter. For that reason, I do not believe that we can move much further at this stage and I hope that noble Lords will not allow the issue to delay the passage of the Bill. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will feel able to withdraw his amendment in the knowledge that we are looking at the whole matter again.
I must say that I think his proposal to bring the two definitions together is novel, has value and has merit. Together with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, we have agreed to look at this matter in the round. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, knows that we have had useful further discussions. That is the state of play at the moment. We shall continue to examine the matter positively to see whether we can accommodate both attempts at a useful definition by means of a single approach. However, I do not wish to predict the outcome of those discussions and no doubt the issue will be revisited in detail when the Bill goes to another place.
For those reasons, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his intervention. We shall be considering the matter further and it is hoped that we shall be able to accommodate all sides of the argument in future debates.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I share his hopes and regard his response as encouraging, without committing the Government, as is quite right. It will be for the democratic Chamber to make the final decision. I am grateful for, and content with, the Minister's reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, leave out lines 13 and 14.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to extend the Race Relations Act to cover indirect discrimination by public authorities. The Government have already agreed to do that. I raise the matter at this time only because, on a previous occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, expressed the hope—and I share that hope—that it might have been possible to make the amendment at this stage; namely, before the Bill goes to the other place.
I seek an indication now of whether that is possible; or are there technical reasons why it would be preferable to postpone amending the Bill until the matter is dealt with in another place? I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in our previous debates, in particular on Report, the Government said that they accept that the Bill as it stands is half baked. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is willing to trust the Government to take action along

353
the lines he has suggested on indirect discrimination. However, I do not understand why, if they agree with the noble Lord's case, the Government do not simply accept the amendment. It is a simple amendment. I doubt whether it would produce any great problems of drafting.
I should like to point out one difficulty about leaving this matter to another place. If that happens, I do not believe that this House will have had an opportunity to give proper consideration to the full effects of the amended Bill. Some doubts have been cast on those effects. First, there may be effects on the police. We have in the past discussed the issue of stop and search. I shall not go over the arguments again. Nevertheless, the police are the most examined, inspected and supervised of all the institutions in this country. They do an extremely vital job and we should be careful before we impose new layers of inspection and review upon them.
In any case, the wider question is whether all public authorities should be covered by legislation on indirect discrimination. At first, the Government declared that sensible government would become impossible, with issues constantly stuck in the courts. I wonder whether they have anticipated that they might be taken to court, for instance, over university fees, an area where, so far as I can see, the Government discriminate on the ground of nationality between Scottish and English students. The same applies to students from other countries within the European Union. However, that argument has now been dropped and replaced by ministerial assurances that all will be well.
I have been around this Palace long enough to become a firm believer in the law of unintended consequences and I am not yet sure what the consequences of this legislation will be. If it results in a string of cases against the Government and other public authorities, as the Government at first feared, tying down scarce resources, I do not believe that that will help sensible government; and it will do no good for the cause of good race relations.
We seem to be in an interim position whereby the Government have changed their mind but have not yet decided precisely how to implement the change. The matter is expressed in clear and simple terms in the amendment of the noble Lord and I am surprised that the Government are unable to accept it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I believe that we can safely trust the Government on this occasion. I do not often trust any government, but the undertakings given have been firm and definite and have already been taken up by those affected by them. I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Local Government Association, which welcomed the extension of indirect discrimination legislation, has already said that it will follow up the conference on the Lawrence inquiry which it held in November 1999 and consider further the steps that local authorities need to take in order to tackle institutional racism and to avoid legal challenge under the new legislation. Therefore, before those changes have even been implemented— which the Government have undertaken to do—those
354
who are affected by them are already taking action to see what they must do to comply with the legislation as amended in another place. Therefore, I do not believe that we should have any great anxiety about the matter. Your Lordships will have the opportunity to look again at the provisions when the Bill comes back to this House as amended in another place. I believe that the situation we have now reached is entirely satisfactory.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for tabling this amendment again, if only because it gives me the opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to accept in principle the basis of the amendment. I am quite happy to have that on the official record this afternoon. It also gives me the opportunity to welcome the correspondence that I have received on this matter over the past few days. I seem to have become very popular overnight. I wish that I could sustain that popularity for much longer. I receive a nice post bag on the subject and that is most welcome. Government Ministers always like to be thanked.
I particularly welcome also the Local Government Association's initiative in producing its rough guide, which I have read with interest today. I have received a useful letter from the CRE; my office has received a copy of a press release from the National Black Police Association, which puts on record its support for the amendments; and we have also received a letter from the LGA which says much the same thing. That is useful because they want to see some consultation in this area and to get the matter right. For that reason, essentially we want to bring forward our own government amendments in another place so that we can get it right and so that a broader range of considerations can come into play. It may well be that in the end we shall have something very similar to that which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has perfected in his usual, masterful manner.
As to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I can say only that I have become somewhat confused over the past few weeks as to what is the Conservatives' real position on this piece of legislation. Do they support our initiative? For 18 years there was not a single piece of legislation which did anything to improve the quality of race relations in this country.
When the noble Lord, Lord Cope, made his comments at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, I began to believe that the Conservatives were in principle opposed to the Bill. I believed that they did not consider it essential and that they viewed it as an unnecessary interference in the race relations field. I should like to know whether that is the case as I believe that their view should be placed on the official record. It would be nice to know exactly what position they will adopt in the other place on this matter. At first the noble Lord, Lord Cope, seemed to say that the Bill was inadequate because it did not contain clauses which tackled indirect discrimination and the duty to promote. Then he seemed to say that it was inadequate

355
because those issues were contained in the Bill. Which way are the Conservatives going on this legislation? What is their real intention in the race relations field?
For all the criticism that we have received, we have not had a great deal of support for our intervention and development of policy in this area. I should like to see that support because I believe—it has always been a principle that I and our party have carried—that we should create a consensus in race relations so that we can get to the root of and tackle discrimination in all its vicious variants. That is most important. If we could create that consensus in race relations, it would be good for this country, would do much to break down the discrimination that has existed in the past and would create a firmer foundation for good race relations for the future.
Therefore, yes, we shall bring forward an amendment in another place. We welcome the progress that we have made. Yes, we have had a change of view and there has been a development of policy. The principle has always been accepted that indirect discrimination is an area where we should legislate. I very much appreciate the support that we have received—a critical focus, at times, from some of your Lordships, and rightly so. We have considered the matter seriously and have come to the conclusion that we are going in the right direction by accepting this new departure and development of our policy. I hope that with that firm commitment the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will withdraw his amendment this afternoon.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in the debate and to the Minister for his full reply. I deal, first, with the two problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. One was the position of the police and the other was the position of university tuition fees.
So far as concerns the police, as I believe has already been made clear, the extension of the concept of discrimination to cover indirect discrimination by the police in their operational activities will have scarcely any effect. What really matters in relation to the police is the concept of direct discrimination, and that has already been explained fully in the past. Secondly, as I understand it, senior police officers throughout the country have been busy implementing the Race Relations Act, whether or not it has applied directly to them, and they continue to do so. I discern no problem for the police in their operational activities with regard to discriminating unjustifiably on racial grounds— unjustifiably and indirectly or without any justification directly.
So far as concerns university fees, that is a large subject. I need say only that if any public authority were to discriminate on grounds of colour, race, ethnic or national origins or nationality, under common law as well as under the Race Relations Act as it stands, difficult problems would arise. The extension of the Race Relations Act to cover indirect discrimination would not change that since university authorities and
356
the Secretary of State for Education are already covered by statutory and common law obligation in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, raises a wider question, which the Minister has also addressed; that is, what is the position of Her Majesty's Opposition? When I was young I read Dr Doolittle. I remember that there was a curious creature called "pushmi-pullyu"—a creature that pulled in opposite directions within the same animal. I have great affection and respect for the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and I like to feel that he pulls in what I might call the "enlightened" or "liberal" direction. I realise that the creature is torn in two opposite directions and is, therefore, in a state of paralysis. It cannot move, except to be grumpy. I do not believe that this is an appropriate Bill for the Opposition to be grumpy about.
In fairness to the Conservative Party, it did two great things for anti-discrimination legislation during its long period in office. One was the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, for which the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, was partly responsible. That was a great step forward. It has been said that the right honourable Michael Howard, MP, as Home Secretary extended race relations law to Northern Ireland just before his government fell. Having said that, it is also true to say that over the years—in 1965, 1968, 1975 and 1976—the Conservative Party in Parliament, I am sorry to say, has never been an enthusiast for this body of legislation. I had hoped that during the debates on this straightforward Bill one might have had wholehearted support.
In summing up, I am wholly satisfied that what the Government intend to do is right, that it is right to give the opportunity to the Government to come forward with the amendments which are needed and for the other place to consider them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 not moved.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2. line 25, leave out ("and nationality").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to make clear that discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin will not be permitted in granting or refusing British nationality under the British Nationality Act 1981. Again, the reason for tabling and moving the amendment is to enable the Minister to explain exactly why what looks, on the face of it, to be a broad and extraordinary amendment allowing ethnic discrimination even in relation to nationality decisions should be necessary. There may be a good case. The only one of which I know is that of two groups of people in Hong Kong when it was suggested that some flexibility was required. I am sufficiently in the dark to feel that we need some light to be thrown on this. That is why I beg to move this amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it has occurred to me that another instance where this might be required is in relation to those families which, for a number of generations, were in India in connection with the Raj, either in the Indian Civil Service, the Armed Forces, the private sector or as missionaries and so on. In some families, a number of generations might have been born in India, yet their ethnic origin is still that of this country. That might be relevant as regards nationality decisions. I am not sure, but it seemed to me that that might he another instance where this provision was required.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will now be fairly familiar with our early debates and with the concerns voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and others about the exemption for immigration and nationality functions in Clause 1 of the Bill—new Section 19C. The Government are well aware of the particular concern about the exemption provision in relation to discrimination on grounds of ethnic origins. As I explained on a number of occasions, the exemption, as currently drafted, would permit discriminatory activity only when required or authorised by legislation and would safeguard Ministers' personal decisions taken on individual cases in the national interest. Immigration staff operating those arrangements would do so in strict accordance with instructions that will, as far as practicable, be available for public scrutiny. I assure your Lordships that any member of staff exceeding Ministers' authorisations would be dealt with very firmly.
With your Lordships' permission, I shall also attempt to deal with Amendment No. 9 because I see the two issues as linked. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has made clear his view.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I hope that I am not taking up too much of the time of the House, but it would be convenient to deal with Amendment No. 9 separately Pecause it raises slightly different issues—I have not spoken to both—otherwise we shall have unnecessarily to go over the same ground twice.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am happy to do that. I shall proceed on the basis that we are dealing simply with Amendment No. 8. The effect of this amendment, as I understand it, would be largely to make it unlawful for nationality functions under any of the nationality Acts listed in Clause 1 to have any regard to a person's nationality, or national or ethnic origin. Here, the Functions of which we talk are the granting or refusal of British nationality to persons who apply for it. A section of the British Nationality Act 1981 already provides that any discretion in this area is to be exercised without regard to the race, colour or religion of any person who may be affected by exercise of the discretion. It is for those reasons that we believe that we should continue to exempt those functions. We think that it would be anomalous to have to depart from that. That is why we ask the noble
358
Lord to withdraw his amendment. Clearly, there are matters to be considered. No doubt debates in another place will return to some of these issues. For those very practical reasons, we hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments this afternoon.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am rather confused by the Minister's reply. I do not know whether other noble Lords understand him. He has told your Lordships that the British Nationality Act 1981 compels or obliges Ministers to exercise their discretion without regard to race, colour or religion whereas if this provision goes through unamended it will be lawful for Ministers to exercise their nationality functions—in accordance with the law, that is, as the Minister has explained—in such a manner as to discriminate against another person on the grounds of nationality, or ethnic or national origin. It seems to me that the Minister's explanation has not removed the incompatibility, which he himself has pointed out, that exists between the British Nationality Act 1981 and this legislation. I may have missed something in the Minster's speech, but that is how I understood it.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and my noble friend for their contribution to this short debate. I am still a little mystified about the answer we have received. As a civil servant, may I say that I "put up a marker" that it should be further considered?
As I tried to make clear, the purpose of the amendment is to clarify the wording of the Bill to make it clear that discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin only, and nothing else, in granting or refusing British nationality under the British Nationality Act is not permitted.
Section 41 of the Race Relations Act 1976 contains an exception permitting discrimination on grounds of nationality and, I think, national origins in granting or refusing nationality. I take the point that flexibility may be required in respect of national origins in granting citizenship, but I cannot at the moment see what are the circumstances where ethnic origin— which is very close to colour or race, as distinct from national origin—would be a factor in the granting or refusal of British nationality. I am certainly not going to press the amendment now, but I think that this matter may require further thought in another place and, perhaps, hereafter also in this House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lester of Herne Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert ("in accordance with the Immigration Rules").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that discrimination on grounds of nationality, or ethnic or national origin is carried out in immigration and nationality functions permitted by the Bill in a way which is public, prescribed and subject to light parliamentary scrutiny.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that the way in which it seeks to do that is most modest. It is simply by providing that any such discrimination will be in accordance with the Immigration Rules. The Immigration Rules are not legislation. They are provided for in Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. A statement of them has to be laid before Parliament. They can be readily amended. Therefore, one has all the advantages to which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, referred on Report when he said that the rules must be transparent and public. They will be transparent and public if they are in the Immigration Rules and there will be some accountability to Parliament by the fact of them being in the Immigration Rules. I hope that noble Lords do not think that I am being too feeble in not pressing for them to be in proper subordinate legislation.
I quite understand the need for flexibility and, perhaps, speed in this area. I hope that not only will this very modest amendment be agreed to, but also that the Government will find some other mechanism to ensure that there are adequate safeguards against abuse of this discretion. I have not sought to complicate or lengthen the debate by inventing such safeguards myself. If the Minister felt that there was any merit in that, that would be most welcome. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, in the context of this amendment, I wonder whether the Minister would consider whether something could be written in at a later stage to indicate that, in immigration matters, humanitarian and compassionate reasons may exist for exercising some discrimination, and similarly that in asylum matters the 1951 convention may need to be applied in a similar spirit?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is now a familiar debate. We fully understand the concerns voiced by the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Hylton. We are obviously concerned to make sure that we get this area right. We believe that, in general, we have had the right approach throughout our debates and discussions.
However, we are aware of the particular concern in relation to the exemptions provision regarding discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin. As I have explained on a number of occasions, the exemption as currently drafted will only permit discriminatory activity required or authorised by legislation and would safeguard Ministers' personal decisions taken in terms of legislation.
Immigration staff operating those arrangements will do so in strict accordance with instructions which will, as far as practicable, be available for public scrutiny. I appreciate that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said in his earlier comments, that is extremely important and it is a matter that we, in government, intend to look at more closely.
The noble Lord has made clear his view that Parliament should approve the arrangements for necessary and legitimate discrimination by immigration staff. That is the
360
open objective behind the proposed amendment, which is intended to require lawful discrimination on grounds of nationality or ethnic or national origin in the exercise of immigration functions in accordance with the Immigration Rules.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I recognise and fully understand the noble Lord's concerns. We are currently giving those matters detailed consideration. It is too early to say whether the noble Lord's proposed amendment would provide a satisfactory and comprehensive solution to the concerns that he has raised, quite understandably. The Government would be grateful if the noble Lord were prepared to withdraw the amendment pending the outcome of their further consideration of this matter and the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. That may enable us to make some progress in this area of policy.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether he will also agree to consider whether there might be some machinery, some person, providing adequate safeguards against abuse of discretion within the system so that that might be built into the Government's thinking?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord's intervention refers to some form of Commissioner or monitor. Yes, I can confirm to your Lordships' House that that is one of the issues to which we are giving detailed consideration.
Again, I must pay a compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, by saying that that is one of the issues to which he has helpfully drawn our attention. There are some precedents and parallels. Therefore, we shall reflect on the way in which they are working and give this matter a broader consideration.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the Minister is too generous, because I believe that it was the Government's idea rather than mine, or it may have come from his own department. But I am grateful for that very positive reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before we decide the Question before us, perhaps I may say a few words. This is a small but very important Bill. It is small because it deals with only one serious defect in the Race Relations Act 1976; that is, the failure of the Act to give comprehensive protection to victims of racial discrimination by government departments and public authorities generally and to impose an

361
enforceable duty on government departments or public authorities to promote racial equality and to eliminate racial discrimination.
It is important both because that failure of the 1976 Act was a serious failure and because what is done in the field of racial discrimination will influence the other anti-discrimination legislation as we move towards a comprehensive, coherent, user-friendly and effectively enforced statutory code to tackle unfair discrimination on other grounds. In other words, this is an important first step in the direction of more radical reform of the kind being undertaken, for example, under the leadership of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues to reform the regulation of financial services. It shows it can be done.
The Home Secretary and his colleagues are to be commended on having introduced the Bill in the first place. I doubt whether a Conservative government would have done so. The role of this House in scrutinising and strengthening the Bill has been a fine example of an open and well-informed dialogue conducted across parties and from all sides of the House. That has been a dialogue with a Government who are willing to listen and to change their mind.
It has been suggested in the media that the Home Secretary bowed to pressure because he would otherwise have been defeated in this House. That is not correct. Regrettably, it is unlikely that the Official Opposition would have voted to support any amendment that was designed to strengthen the Bill. We shall watch with interest their response when the Bill is debated in the other place.
The first reason why the Home Secretary and his colleagues changed their minds was that he and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, are firmly committed to racial justice and the elimination of racial discrimination wherever it arises. Secondly, they and their advisers in the Home Office have given generously of their time to meet with friendly critics to discuss ways of making the Bill seaworthy. We owe them a debt of gratitude.
Thirdly, the composition of the transitional House includes a new generation of noble Lords who have experienced racial and religious discrimination, whether as Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs or as members of the black and Asian ethnic minorities. I am glad to say that this House is becoming more representative of Britain's ethnic minorities, perhaps more representative than the democratic first Chamber.
We who have personal experience of the evils of discrimination and bigotry have spoken with one voice, whatever our political or other backgrounds. I believe that that collective voice has impressed the Home Secretary and his colleagues in a way which augurs well for the future. We should pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and his advisers for their enlightened and principled response.
It will now be for the other place to make the Bill completely seaworthy before it sails back to us. The statutory duty to promote equality and eliminate
362
discrimination will condition and influence policy-making by the Government and other public authorities. No doubt the Northern Ireland precedent will provide valuable guidance about the form of monitoring and enforcement which will be workable and effective. There will need to be consultation with the Commission for Racial Equality and others.
We hope and believe that the Bill will be amended to widen the definition of what constitutes lawful positive action to complement the extension to indirect discrimination. We also hope that the exception for ethnic discrimination will be carefully tailored to the legitimate needs of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and that there will be adequate safeguards against abuse.
For all those reasons we hope that the Bill will now pass.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to the extent that the Bill as presented to the House, and indeed as it leaves the House, is not "seaworthy". The earlier debates we had demonstrated that point extremely effectively.
I hope that I am second to none in my desire to fight racial discrimination in every possible way. The noble Lord drew attention to a small part of my record in this way, which I believe can stand examination. However, at the same time it is true that I, together with my party, have less confidence in the ability of the law to solve these problems as opposed to other approaches. I refer in particular to the attitude of Government. I do not distinguish between the previous and the present Government in that respect. I am not trying to make a case that either government played a greater or lesser role. The attitude of government is the most important factor as regards all the public authorities concerned.
However, we have discussed the Bill thoroughly. It is clear that it should now go to another place. It is also clear that it will return to us in quite a different form.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall not take more of your Lordships' time than I believe is necessary. I referred in my earlier comments to the Conservatives and their view towards this legislation. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that such comments were not meant to be personal. The noble Lord has a valuable track record on this subject. His enlightened approach is one which we, on these Benches, appreciate. However, I sometimes wonder who is pulling the strings behind that enlightenment. That is of concern in an area of policy where we would like to see much greater consensus, and perhaps see Members of the Opposition moving towards our position.
I refer to another point raised by the noble Lord, which is of importance. Legislation, of itself, changes nothing. It is the spirit, intent, content, meaning and effect of legislation which can help to change the culture of a society and its approach to key issues. Race is one such important issue. The heart of the issue

363
for us is how we make the legislation work and how we give it some body to work through society and improve and change attitudes.
The discussions in your Lordships' House have been fruitful and, by and large, constructive. I am pleased that there has been good and helpful dialogue. I am grateful for the courteous and constructive way in which the debates have been conducted. I suspect that throughout the course of the debates I have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Lester, enough. However, I should like to put on record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, for her valuable contribution. Her rich experience in these matters is probably beyond equal. She has a deep understanding of the problems that the legislation tries earnestly to tackle.
The Government are committed to achieving a step change in race equality, with the public sector leading by example. The Bill represents a key part of our programme in that regard. As your Lordships know, the Bill will be further strengthened in the Commons to meet the commitment the Government made before your Lordships' House both on Report and today.
I believe that your Lordships can look forward to seeing the Bill in a new and improved form. I look forward to further constructive and enjoyable debate on these matters and to keeping the dialogue going so that we get the quality right as well as the content. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Parliamentary Commissioner (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
4.25 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Census (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Weatherill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Lockwood) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Particulars in respect of religion may be required in census]:
Lord Weatherill Lord Weatherill moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) In section 8 of that Act (penalties), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) But no person shall be liable to a penalty under subsection (1) for refusing or neglecting to state any particulars in respect of religion."").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 1 stands in my name. The Census (Amendment) Bill is a short but nonetheless important Bill which will have the effect of making a necessary change to the Census Act 1920 in order to enable a question on religious affiliation to be included in the next Census of Population in England and Wales in April 2001.
The Bill was generally welcomed when it received its Second Reading in this House on 27th January. I am grateful to your Lordships for supporting the measure in principle. However, in that debate some concerns were expressed, particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, from the Government Benches, that the proposed question on religion should be included in the census only on a voluntary basis and that there should not be a statutory penalty for not answering the question.
I have reflected with care on what your Lordships have had to say on the matter. I feel that we should take the arguments about a voluntary question seriously. In the interests of progressing the matter smoothly, and so that, as the noble Earl and other noble Lords wished, the Bill may pass to another place in a fit condition, I am proposing an amendment which would have the effect of removing the liability to a penalty under Section 8 of the Census Act for those persons who refuse or neglect to state in their census return any particulars in respect of religion. I have discussed the matter with the Minister and understand that he is sympathetic.
Amendment No. 2 is necessary because the Long Title of the Bill as drafted refers only to amending the schedule to the Census Act. Amendment No. 1, to which I have already spoken, is an amendment to Section 8 of that Act. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for moving the amendment, which is entirely acceptable. I believe that it will more or less meet the points I raised at Second Reading. I am glad that I shall not have to express my independence by failing to fill in that item in the census and that I will not risk a fine or imprisonment.
I understand however that, in the past, some people who failed to fill in the census form or answer a question were prosecuted. Therefore, in spite of my noble friend's assurances, people may well have been at risk had this amendment not been moved. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for moving it and I hope it will be accepted and passed tonight.

365
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one question. He may not be able to answer. Will it be indicated on the census form that the question is voluntary? I am sure that it will be, but perhaps he could say at this stage how it will be indicated.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Weatherill on introducing this amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I too was distinctly uneasy a t the prospect of an individual being fined for refusing to answer such a personal question. Of course, there are parts of the world where people are proud to have their religious affiliation blazoned across their chest. so to speak; but at the beginning of the 21st century, Britain is not one of them. Once again, the amendment is warmly to be welcomed.
Lord Newby: I do not want to strike too discordant a note in this debate, but I have some misgivings in relation to this amendment.
The arguments for this question to be included on the census form in terms of the benefit to public policy were eloquently made by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, at Second Reading, and I strongly supported them. But if we accept the premise that it is important for public policy purposes to include the question on the census form, it is equally important that it should be answered.
The view expressed by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and a number of the Churches is that the question should not be voluntary. The worry that might occur in people's minds if it was felt that the census was not a confidential document was dealt with at Second Reading. The truth is that there is no view in this country that an individual's census return will be opened and be available to public view. Therefore, if we accept that it is an important question, which we do, it should be treated four- square with all the other census questions and should not be voluntary.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for asking whether there would be an indication on the census form that answering the question on religion is voluntary. The only difference between us is that, whereas he would like it included on the form, I would not.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask a question. I concede that this Bill is useful for public policy, but can he justify his assertion that it is "important" for public policy?
Lord Newby: If it were not important for public policy, there would be no point in doing it; that is what the census is for. The kind of public policy question for which the Bill will be of use is the planning of educational provision and of care provision. As Members of the Committee are aware, my fundamental point is that it is flawed; it does not allow the Christian box to be divided up between the various denominations to enable it to be of more use to public
366
policy-making. But I have no doubt that, if the noble Lord, Lord Monson, were to ask any of the religious groups which it is proposed to include on the census form whether or not they thought it would be of value to them in planning provision in their community, he would receive a resounding "Yes".
Baroness Jeger: What happens to those of us who do not know and do not care? Will we be fined?
Baroness Richardson of Calow: I simply want to add to the earlier answer that was given. The report from the Commission makes an estimate of the numbers who are affiliated to specific religions. If that is not known, only guesses can be made. I would always prefer that it be a question that people are required to answer. However, as the amendment has been moved, I see its sense. Only those who are willing and known to be affiliated to a religion will be able to answer the question in any case. I see no problem with the amendment and I am sure the Churches will be willing to support it.
Lord Hylton: I regret that I was overseas at the time of the Second Reading of this Bill. I find myself in the position of being a more old-fashioned liberal than the noble Lord, Lord Newby, speaking from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. In my view, it is none of the state's business to inquire as to one's religious beliefs or affiliations. It is from that background that I welcome the amendment, which at least asserts the voluntary principle as to whether or not the question should be answered. Having said that, I add the caveat that the resulting statistics may not be entirely reliable.
The Earl of Northesk: Needless to say, we on these Benches support this amendment. Indeed, like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, we are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for taking on board the concerns and reservations expressed at Second Reading.
I need not dwell on the purpose of the amendment. As ever, the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, has been clear and concise. It does not go quite as far as we might have wished in terms of making the question optional in a transparent way, but I acknowledge the technical argument of the Minister at Second Reading: that to do so could adversely affect the integrity of the census as a whole. None the less, I have the same minor niggle—if I can put it that way—as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
Self-evidently, no penalty will attach to anyone refusing or neglecting to state any particulars in respect of religion. Inevitably, that begs the question of how respondents to the census are to be made aware of that fact. I accept that this is a matter of fine detail that will be more correctly dealt with in the appropriate Order in Council. But I hope that the Minister can give me some comfort, if not an outright guarantee. that the census form will be compiled in such a way that respondents are left in no doubt that no penalty will attach to a refusal to answer the question. I make the

367
obvious point that without such guidance it is likely that only those who pay assiduous attention to our proceedings will be aware of the fact.
I take this opportunity to make one other small point. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, intervened at Second Reading to question the timing of this Committee. I hope that both noble Lords, Lord Weatherill and Lord McIntosh, will agree that special circumstances attach to this Bill and justify its speedy passage through this Chamber. It is on that basis that we on these Benches were prepared to acquiesce to the Committee stage being taken today. But I should not like to believe that any sort of precedent has been set for the customary waiting times between stages of a Bill being waived in the future. I hope that I can be given some reassurance on that point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: On the noble Earl's last point, of course we did not expect any precedent to be created. These matters are considered case by case in the usual channels. We are grateful for acquiescence in the timing of this Committee stage.
We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for introducing the Bill and for tabling the amendments. They reflect the concerns expressed at Second Reading, notably by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and my noble friend Lord Stoddart. As the Committee heard, the effect will be to remove the liability to a penalty under Section 8 of the Census Act for not answering the question on religion.
I should clarify the remarks I made at Second Reading when I indicated that it was unlikely that my noble friend Lord Stoddart would be hauled off to prison for refusing to answer the question. The statutory requirement of form-fillers to comply with the Census Act by completing all other relevant questions on the census form still applies. Anyone who does not do so will be liable to prosecution for which the penalty is a maximum fine of £1,000 in a magistrates' court.
My noble friend and the noble Earl asked whether we could give an assurance that the fact that the question is voluntary will be specified on the form. That is a matter for regulation rather than for this Bill. However, I can confirm that the issue is being considered while the regulations are being prepared for Parliament, and that they will be subject to affirmative resolution in this Chamber.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, against the proposal that the question should be voluntary. I believe that the noble Lord has a point: if it is public policy that this question should be asked, it should be asked on the same terms that apply to the question on ethnic origin. As this is a Private Members' Bill, we should bear in mind the fact that such Bills have to achieve not only a majority but also unanimity in order to get through both this Chamber and another place. Of course, that does not mean formally. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is shaking his head in my direction. However, I am sure
368
that he will recognise that that is the case in practice, especially in the other place. On balance, we take the view that it is better to have it in this form than not to have it.
As a survey researcher, I have to say that I do not accept that a voluntary question that is not answered by everyone—we do not know how many people will refuse to answer it—has no value. It still has very significant value and almost certainly will have value even on a small area basis.
My noble friend Lady Jeger asked what happens to those who do not know and do not care. Like me, I rather think that my noble friend is one of those people who will put "none" in answer to the question: "What is your religion?" The answer to her question is that we can put "none"; that is exactly why the question has been framed in this way.
As I said, given the need to secure that the Bill should command universal support, the Government are prepared to support both of the noble Lord's amendments.
Lord Weatherill: I am most grateful to the Minister for the explanations that he has given. I hope that they will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and other noble Lords. As the Minister correctly stated, this is a Private Member's Bill and there is some urgency about it. By moving this amendment, I hope that we can ensure not only the agreement of this Chamber but also the agreement of those in another place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may correct something that I said in my response. I believe I said that the regulations would be subject to affirmative resolution, but that is not so. They will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. However, they can be prayed against in order to be debated in this House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Weatherill Lord Weatherill moved Amendment No. 2:
Line 1, leave out ("the Schedule to").
The noble Lord said: As I have already stated, this is necessary to amend the Long Title to the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
4.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Lockwood) in the Chair.]
Clause 52 [Decisions of case tribunals]:
Lord Dixon Smith Lord Dixon Smith moved Amendment No. 357A:
Page 32. line 36. at end insert—
("( ) Where a person is subject to a compensation order under section (Compensation orders) he shall be disqualified until full restitution is paid.").
The noble Lord said: I should confess to Members of the Committee that I am still very much an amateur in the business of amending Bills. I am not absolutely certain whether the placing of Amendment No. 357A is appropriate for the purposes of this legislation. The same applies to Amendment No. 362A, which is included in this grouping. Both amendments deal with what appears to be a lacuna in the Bill as a result of changes that the legislation is making to the current law. This is a subject that the Government included in their White Paper on local government reform, Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People.
Clause 62 abolishes the last aspects of the power of surcharge. The Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that that should happen. It has to be said that the power of surcharge, which has existed for a very long time, has proved, at the very best, to be a blunderbuss of an instrument: it occasionally hit the target but often also hit other targets. It was rarely sufficiently preclise to bring about the absolute result required. I do not believe that anyone who has seen the power of surcharge at work over the years would work very hard to defend it. Although the concept may have had some validity in principle, it has not really worked very well at all in practice.
Paragraph 6.35 of the White Paper to which I referred stated:
"Restitution of financial loss should remain a possibility, but only where the councillor or council employee has gained personally at the expense of the taxpayer".
These two amendments are specifically directed at trying to pick up that particular point; and, indeed, to re-insert that provision—if you like, that sanction— into the legislation. I do not know what the Government's attitude will be to this problem, but it is the convinced view of myself and my colleagues that if through fraud or malfeasance a councillor, or a local council employee, benefits improperly and illegally at the expense of the local taxpayer, it should be possible to require him to restore completely the funds he has purloined.
These two amendments are specifically designed to address that point. The Minister may say that they have not achieved that. However, I hope that he will accept the philosophy that lies behind the amendments. If he is prepared to reconsider the matter, I should be happy with that assurance. If I have managed to score a "bull's-eye", I shall be immensely pleased. However, I suspect that my amendments may prove to be like the old power of surcharge and perhaps rather like a blunderbuss in their effect. The issue could perhaps be dealt with more efficiently and
370
with more precise wording. I hope that I have explained the purpose of the two amendments. We have done what we can to make them correct. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: What would be the position if we did not include a provision such as that contained in Amendment No. 362A? After all, there are common law provisions with regard to how employees should treat any "profit" that is gained through their employment, but not formally through their employment, as it were. The proposed new clause (Amendment No. 362A) refers to someone gaining,
"at the expense of the taxpayer".
That seems to me to be so wide a provision that it is difficult to define. I am not sure what gains might be covered. I believe that there could be many of them as "gaining" is open to interpretation, as is the phrase,
"at the expense of the taxpayer".
I return to the general principle of an employee making a secret profit. As I say, there is well established law on that matter. It would be helpful to know to what extent that would apply even if no provision such as that in Amendment No. 362A were included.
Lord Whitty: I hesitate to place it on record that I share the noble Lord's philosophy, but I do not think that we are far apart on this matter. We both agree that the old system constituted a blunderbuss. We both agree that there needs to be some system for seeking restitution in many of the cases we are discussing. We considered a new system of compensation orders in developing the ethical framework as set out in the Bill. Indeed, we stated in the local government White Paper that where restitution of financial loss to a local authority is necessary, such an order should be available as a means of restoring ill-gotten gains. I believe that the noble Lord referred to the same part of the White Paper.
However, having looked at the issue in more detail, we have concluded that the penalties available to a case tribunal following an investigation by an ethical standards officer should be limited to censure, suspension or disqualification, as set out in the Bill. We believe that there would be real problems in enabling a case tribunal to issue a compensation order. There are a number of good reasons for this. Vesting such powers in a case tribunal may amount to a criminal sanction for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights. As the Committee is aware, criminal procedures require a higher standard of proof and, quite rightly, extensive safeguards for the rights of defendants. However, that would change the nature of the tribunals. This is not something that a case tribunal can be equipped to deal with.
Moreover, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, local authorities already have recourse to the courts to recover losses to the public purse. That is certainly the case as regards the cases that the noble Lord mentioned of fraud and malfeasance. Introducing

371
a new system of compensation orders would not address this problem of local authorities being able to recover losses. As I say, they can have recourse to the courts. At present the difficulty that local authorities usually encounter in recovering financial losses is not in getting judgment in their favour, but in collecting the money from the individual concerned; for example, where the individual has disappeared, does not have adequate income to pay, or has disposed of the money. That would not change if tribunals took the decision. As the Committee will be aware, the courts have rather more substantial mechanisms place to help plaintiffs or victims of crime to enforce judgments. Therefore, we believe that the courts offer the best means of addressing these problems.
For those reasons we do not see any advantages in trying to add a compensation order to the mechanisms that already exist. Indeed, we see some disadvantages in doing so. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will recognise that our proposals and the current procedure of addressing these matters through the courts will achieve the outcome that he seeks.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I do not apologise to the Committee for bringing this matter before it this afternoon. Of course we were aware that it was possible to bring criminal proceedings in this area. However, I was not aware that it was inappropriate for a case tribunal to deliver a judgment with regard to a criminal offence. The explanation is helpful. I shall study carefully what the Minister has said. I believe that he has gone a long way towards answering our concerns. I hope that I shall not have to refer to the matter again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 358:
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause—

RECOMMENDATIONS BY CASE TRIBUNALS
(".—(1) Any case tribunal which gives notice to a standards committee of a relevant authority under section 52 may also make recommendations to the authority about any matters relating to—

(a) the exercise of the authority's functions,

(b) the authority's code of conduct. or

(c) the authority's standards committee.

(2) A case tribunal must send a copy of any recommendations it makes under subsection (1) to the relevant Standards Board.
(3) A relevant authority to whom recommendations are made under subsection (1) must consider the recommendations and, within a period of three months beginning with the day on which the recommendations are received, prepare a report for the relevant Standards Board giving details of what action the authority have taken or are proposing to take as a result of the recommendations.
(4) A relevant authority's function of considering a report under subsection (3) must be discharged only by the authority or by the standards committee of that authority.
(5) If the relevant Standards Board is not satisfied with the action the relevant authority has taken or proposes to take in relation to the recommendations, the Board may require the authority to publish a statement giving details of the recommendations made by the tribunal and of the authority's reasons for not fully implementing the recommendations.
(6)In this section "the relevant Standards Board" means—

(a) the Standards Board for England where the relevant authority concerned is in England,

(b) the Standards Board for Wales where the relevant authority concerned is in Wales.").

The noble Lord said: We believe that the new ethical framework is not simply about investigating allegations of councillor misconduct and punishing those who are found to breach the code. The new ethical framework is about disseminating good practice, training members, making sure that the internal workings of authorities support ethical behaviour, and clarifying those areas of the new codes of conduct that may be unclear.
In order to help further these wider aims for the new ethical framework, it is necessary for the case tribunals to have the power to make recommendations to relevant authorities. The recommendations could be in respect of issues such as member training, internal organisation, reporting arrangements, and the role of the local authority's standards committee. These are in addition to, and go wider than, its recommendations for the treatment of individual councillors who come before it. The new clause (Amendment No. 358) makes provision for this.
In order to ensure that an authority acts on any recommendations made, the clause also provides that the authority to which the recommendations are made is obliged to consider the recommendations made and must respond within three months specifying whether it proposes to take any action and, if so, what it will be.
If the standards board is not satisfied with that response, provision is made that it may require the authority to publish a statement specifying the recommended action and the reasons for not taking it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Disclosure and registration of members' interests etc.]
Lord Whitt Lord Whitt moved Amendment No. 359:
Leave out Clause 53 and insert the following new clause—

DISCLOSURE AND REGISTRATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS ETC
(".—(1) Every relevant authority must establish and maintain a register of interests of the members and co-opted members of the authority.
(2) The mandatory provisions of the model code applicable to each relevant authority ("the mandatory provisions") must require the members and co-opted members of each authority to register in that authority's register maintained under subsection (1) such financial and other interests as are specified in the mandatory provisions.
(3) The mandatory provisions must also—

(a) require any member or co-opted member of a relevant authority who has an interest specified in the mandatory provisions under subsection (2) to disclose that interest before taking part in any business of the authority relating to that interest.

(b) make provision for preventing or restricting the participation of a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority in any business of the authority to which an interest disclosed under paragraph (a) relates.

(4) Any participation by a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority in any business which is prohibited by the mandatory provisior.s is not a failure to comply with the authority's code of conduct if the member or co-opted member has acted in accordanx with a dispensation from the prohibition granted by the authority's standards committee in accordance with regulations made under subsection (5).
(5) The Secretary of State may prescribe in regulations the circumstances in which standards committees may grant dispensations under subsection (4).
(6) Every register maintained under this section must be published and made available for public inspection.
(7) The interests which may be specified under subsection (2) in relation to a member Dr co-opted member of a relevant authority may include any interests of that member's spouse or partner or any member of that member's household.
(8) In this section "partner", in relation to a member or co-opted member of a relevant authority, means a person to whom the member is not married but with whom the member lives as husband or wife.
(9) The duty of a relevant authority under subsection (1) is to be discharged by the monitoring officer of the relevant authority.")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 359 introduces a new clause to replace the current Clause 53. It sets out important details of how we intend the new ethical framework to operate. In particular, it gives the monitoring officer a clear duty to set up and maintain a public register of members' interests. It also makes provision for the model code of conduct to cover the registration and declaration of interests.
In addition, the new clause enables the standards committee rather than the Secretary of State to grant dispensations for members to participate in business where they have an interest, subject to regulations issued by the Secretary of State. We believe that this is a significant and sensible delegation to those who are best placed to decide such issues so long as there is clear guidance on interpretation.
The amendment also widens the definition of interests that need to be registered and declared to include those of the spouse, partner or any person in that member's household. We believe that this is necessary to take account of the increasing diversity of society today. Bringing the declaration and registration of interests within the model code of conduct will mean. that for the first time we will have a single document that clearly sets out a member's duties. One of the key aims of the new framework is to remove the plethora of primary legislation, regulations and guidance that make up the current framework, frequently causing uncertainty, confusion and doubt as to how councillors should behave. The provisions of new Clause 53 should go a long way to clarifying the situation. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 359, Amendment No. 359A:
Line 24. after ("may") insert (", after consultation with such representatives of local government as he considers appropriate,").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 359A requires the Secretary of State to consult with representatives or local governmern before making prescriptions in regulations —in this case, as to the circumstances in which standards committees may
374
grant dispensations. It may be something of a knee-jerk reaction on my part but I feel that as a matter of general practice, where the Secretary of Stale is making regulations affecting local government, he should be required to consult with local government first. It may well be that the noble Lord will assure me that this will be done. As we have said on previous occasions, we are legislating for every Secretary of State, not only the current one. Assurances front the Minister as to how the Government intend to proceed would be helpful. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: I speak to Amendment No. 359, in particular to subsection (7) of the proposed new clause. 1 appreciate that the Minister is struggling to ensure that it is inclusive, but all local authorities may struggle with "member's household". Where does one start and finish with "member's household"? Is the nanny included? Is the stepdaughter who is staying for a short time included? Is the fiance who is living there for a year included? It is a very all-embracing phrase. I appreciate the intention behind it, but intentions are not good enough in legislation. We have to be specific so that people are not casting around subsequently for the meaning.
Lord Whitty: As far as concerns the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I understand that we need to be reassured that representatives of local government will be consulted. As she rightly said, this is provided for in various parts of the Bill, particularly in Clause 34(3) and Clause 35(4), where the Secretary of State has to consult before making any order on general principles or on the code of conduct.
Government assurances in this area should be enough for the noble Baroness. However, I am not entirely clear that the provisions in the Bill on consultation will explicitly cover this particular requirement. I shall check on the situation to see whether it would be sensible to specify what is requested on the face of the Bill or in some other relevant place in the Bill. I thank the noble Baroness for her suggestion. Perhaps I may take it away and consider it.
Baroness Hamwee: I am very happy with the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty: I have not yet replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I take the points she made. Although there is a definition of "partner"— which some may feel is even more difficult to define— the definition of "household" is not in the Bill. Once again, perhaps the noble Baroness will permit me to take the point away, look at it and perhaps write to her.
Baroness Hanham: I should he grateful.
Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 359A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 359, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 359 agreed to.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Interpretation of Part III]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 360 to 361:
Page 33, line 37, at end insert—
(""co-opted member" has the meaning given by section 34(6),").
Page 33, line 44, at end insert—
(""interim case tribunal" has the meaning given by section 50(1A),").
Page 34, leave out lines 1 and 2.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 361A:
Page 34. line 2, at end insert—
(""member" is to be construed as including the elected mayor, if any, of a relevant authority,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment can be dealt with in a countable number of seconds because we have already dealt with this matter, at least in principle. Clause 55 deals with interpretation, and an elected mayor, to be a member, should be included in the interpretation. I think that we have covered the matter elsewhere. Unless my memory is seriously adrift, I recall discussing this specific issue earlier this week. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The noble Lord is correct. We passed an amendment to Clause 25 to the Bill which provided that an elected mayor of an authority is to be treated for the purposes of local government legislation as a member and councillor of the authority. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured by that explanation.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 362:
Page 34. line 12. at end insert—
("(2) In relation to a parish council. the functions of a monitoring officer under any provisions of this Part are to be discharged by the monitoring officer of the district council or unitary county council which is the responsible authority in relation to that parish council; and any reference in this Part to the monitoring officer of a relevant authority which is a parish council is to be construed accordingly.
(3) Subsections (12) and (13) of section (Standards committees or sub-committees for parish councils) apply for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 362A not moved.]
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clauses 56 and 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Power to specify a scheme for elections]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 362B:
Page 35, line 11, leave out from ("order") to end of line 13.
The noble Baroness said: This amendment takes us to the part of the Bill dealing with the options for elections, there being a number of schemes. Under Clause 58 the Secretary of State has the power to make orders for schemes for elections under any of the options set out in the Bill.
My amendment seeks some clarification as to what is proposed. Clause 58(2) provides for a council to be specified, either as being,
"a principal council … specified by name in the order",
or a council,
"falling within any description of principal council specified in the order".
I tabled the amendment in order to ask the Minister to clarify how the Government intend to proceed beyond what will be on the face of the Bill.
First, are individual authorities to be able to apply to the Secretary of State to change arrangements on an individual basis? I am interested in how the arrangements the Government envisage will compare with what happened following the Local Government Act 1972, when districts were given the choice to go for all-out elections or elections by thirds; and also, after the reorganisation following the 1992 Act, when unitary authorities were given a choice.
Secondly, I confess that I am unclear as to what that will mean in practice for particular authorities. How should authorities deal with periodic electoral reviews? Some, of course, are going through them at present or will be doing so shortly. Should they be proposing arrangements to fit the current criteria or to reflect the Government's intentions?
Thirdly, I ask the Minister for clarification of the role of the Local Government Commission for England. At present it makes recommendations to the Secretary of State on those issues. What is to be its role in the future?
Finally, how do the Government envisage that the timing of elections for directly elected mayors and cabinets—if there are to be such—will slot in as part of the overall process? The mayor, as we have just heard, is to be treated as a councillor, although for certain purposes that will perhaps be limited. Will the mayor stand for election at the same time as the councillors? Will there be a deliberate attempt to alternate the process? Where does local choice fit in? I hope that the Minister will assist with all those issues. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I gather that the noble Baroness is seeking some clarification of what lies behind Clause 58 rather than pursuing her amendment. The intention of the amendment is to prevent an order under the clause from applying a new scheme of elections to any council falling within a description of councils specified in the order. On the face of it, the amendment would appear to have such an effect, but in practice, it would make little difference to the exercise of that power, since an order could simply list all the councils

377
by name instead. For example, a provision could be used to specify all district councils in a particular county. Therefore, the amendment does not achieve its intended purpose.
However, the questions that the noble Baroness raised were more substantive. She asked whether local authorities would be able to take the initiative and to apply to the Secretary of State to change to a different scheme of elections. The drafting of the provisions would in no way preclude a local authority or group of local authorities from making a request to the Secretary of State to make an order under those clauses. However, they would not require the Secretary of State to act upon any such request, just as he is not required to comply with requests under current legislation; for example, requests from shire districts wishing to move between thirds and all-out elections. They may certainly take the initiative, but the Secretary of State would not be required to enact their request.
The noble Baroness asked about the role of the Local Government Commission. It will be required to have regard to the frequency of elections when it goes through its process of undertaking a review of the electoral arrangements of any local authority in the normal process. It is our intention that, once an order under Part IV has been made in respect of an authority, it will not then be open to the Commission to recommend a different scheme of elections. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for the Commission to be able to recommend a scheme different from the one already provided for under such an order.
There is no timetable on the face of the Bill and movement down that road is not necessarily an immediate government preoccupation. Nevertheless, we need those powers to improve the frequency of elections as we move into the reform of local government. It is therefore unlikely that the first batch of mayoral elections following the earlier provisions of the Bill will interfere with the process of changing from one system to another under those clauses.
The noble Baroness asked about periodic electoral reviews. It is clear that the current periodic electoral reviews cannot reflect provisions under the scheme until we move to enacting orders under the scheme. There will not be confusion on that matter in the immediate future. It may be some time before orders are made under the provisions. Nevertheless, it is important that the provisions are in the Bill. I hope that, following that clarification, the noble Baroness will he prepared to withdraw the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: I realise that I should have done the Minister the courtesy of explaining what I was going to ask before Committee stage began. I appreciate that my questions are quite detailed. They relate to the need for the local authorities to understand with some certainty what the future holds for them and to be assured that their voice will be heard in the way that it has been—by custom, if not by statute, as the Minister said. The Bill is no different in
378
that respect, in that the Secretary of State is not required to follow a request from a local authority. However, that kind of matter of course exercises authorities with regard to planning for their future. It exercises individual councillors who need to plan for their future and understand how matters may proceed and how quickly.
I am sure that further questions will arise on the matter. In particular, the interlocking or otherwise of mayoral and council elections deserves a good deal of thought as to what the implications of one arrangement or the other may be. I see that the Minister wants to intervene.
Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may clarify that specific point. The White Paper made it clear that the mayoral elections would fall in the fallow year; for example, in unitary authorities. Therefore, there would be an intermeshing of the kind envisaged by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 363:
Page 35, line 40, at end insert—
("(8) No order may be made under this section unless the Secretary of State has consulted the particular authority or authorities concerned in the order and has obtained their agreement to the scheme to be made in the order.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 363 follows fairly conveniently the debate that we have just had on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Under Clause 58, the Secretary of State will have the power to determine whether an authority is elected on a three-year cycle, a two-year cycle, or all together. The amendment seeks to ensure that, before he makes an order which might change a particular local authority's custom and style of elections, the Secretary of State consults the local authority concerned and obtains its agreement to his proposal. The Minister may find that last provision rather more difficult to take, but where an authority is used to and happy with, let us say, a scheme of annual elections of one-third and where the Secretary of State—let us suppose that it is me—has a prejudice in favour of all in, all out, he should have the grace to consult those who are directly affected and obtain their agreement to any change that he proposes. That should apply unless there is an overriding reason of national necessity as to why the change should be made over the local view of what is happening and what should happen.
Local people like their local customs It has always appeared paradoxical to me that councils like to be elected in thirds. There is no doubt that some councils like that, even though I find it illogical. When I entered local government, the authority was all in, all out. After a while I found that I had a certain affection for that rather simple system.
The purpose of the amendment is simple. It is to require that before the Secretary of State exercises his power to make regulations, he should consult and obtain agreement.
I hope that the Minister will forgive me this comment. Had all the guidance and some examples of regulations been provided before we started discussing the Bill, we would not have needed to have this discussion. This is an important point. Local communities across the country have a vital interest in their local electoral systems. The amendment seeks to ensure that those vital interests are properly taken into account. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: My Amendment No. 364 takes a little further what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, proposes. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, we have been talking about consultation. It is clearly the Government's intention that communities should be consulted by local authorities on more or less everything. It therefore seems logical that if the arrangements for elections are to be changed, an opportunity should be given for those communities to be consulted on the regulations. My amendment would allow a period of three months for that consultation to take place and for views to be returned to the Minister. Furthermore, any change to the frequency or nature of the electoral scheme should be laid before Parliament in draft form. My amendment would allow for that to happen.
This is a serious matter. People feel strongly about it. Therefore, there should be the maximum opportunity for comment before such a major change is made.
Lord Whitty: In terms of consultation, one would presume that the regulations—the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, complained that they are not available—and, indeed, the practice would make it clear that it would be inconceivable that the Government would not consult interested parties on a change to electoral procedures requiring the drafting of orders under these clauses. However, the noble Lord's amendment goes further than that. It provides in effect that the local authority might well have a veto over such provisions. We cannot accept that. The whole purpose of this measure is to provide for councils to become more responsive to their electorates. I know that there are different views in local government on that matter as indeed there are on all sides of the Committee. Nevertheless, that is the purpose. At the end of the day, someone has to take a decision.
It is our view that the Secretary of State should take the decision if there is that conflict. The noble Lord clearly has a different view and would like to preserve the privileges and practices of the county of Essex and of others which want to stick to their current arrangements. We consider that in that conflict the Secretary of State should take the decision. One hopes
380
that there will not be many differences in this context. Consultation should lead to agreement on both content and timing.
Perhaps I may turn to the approach of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. She should take what I said about consultation as confirmation that I would envisage a period of consultation. I would not want to be bound to 72 days prior to the order being laid before Parliament. That is unduly prescriptive. More importantly, I do not think that it is appropriate that that should be the subject of the draft affirmative procedure. Indeed, when the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee considered the matter, it did not suggest that this area of order making should be drawn to the attention of the House. What we propose is proportionate and appropriate for the negative procedure. Therefore, I cannot accept the noble Baroness's amendment. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister has disappointed me in his response, but we have crossed swords in a metaphorical sense over this kind of issue on a number of occasions. The difference between us is that he thinks that the Secretary of State is superior on local community matters to the local community itself. I happen to take the other view. That is an irreconcilable difference, but at least we can both respect the other's point of view. I hope that the noble Lord respects mine as much as I respect his.
The noble Lord has given an assurance that there will be a great deal of consultation over these matters. I was happy to hear that part of his response. I was not quite so certain when he said that he was sure that the Secretary of State would reach agreement. After all, if a big man is holding a 14-pound hammer over your head and he says, "We want to do things this way", it is not very easy to disagree with him. However, I take the point that there will be consultation and that, of course, things have to change.
I should make the point that elections of councils by one-third with possibly a mayor every fourth year, so that annual elections are taking place, does not necessarily make a council more responsive to its electorate. If the electorate gets what one might call "electoral boredom" and ceases to participate or lowers its participation rate in the local elections as a result of electoral boredom, the opposite effect may well occur. All systems are fallible. We can have wonderful academic arguments both ways about them.
With the assurance about consultation, I am happy; with the rest of it, I am not. However, there is nothing more to be said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 364 not moved.]
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clauses 59 and 60 agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 364A:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—

COMMISSION ON ELECTORAL SYSTEMS FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY ELECTIONS
(" .The Secretary of State shall establish a Commission which shall within one year of the enactment of this Act report on electoral systems for election to local authorities.").
The noble Lord said: I must begin with what amounts to a declaration of interest. For nearly six years I have been a member of a council—indeed, for most of that time its leader—where my party holds around 85 per cent of the seats, having received just over 50 per cent of the votes. That is unfair. I cope with the embarrassment I feel by reflecting that, not so many years ago, try party polled 35 per cent of the vote in my borough but took only 5 per cent of the seats. The proponents of the present system would say that it is a question of swings and roundabouts, and that that is fair. But it is not fair. I also look to the London borough of Newham, where the Labour Party polls a similar share of the vote to that of my party in my borough, yet takes every one of the council seats. That cannot be right or fair.
The Government have said on a number of occasions—most notably in the White Paper that began the process that we are concluding today—that they are concerned about disproportionate numbers of seats held on local authorities, that that is generally a bad thing and that it can lead to complacency, or worse. That is correct—although I hasten to add that it is not necessarily so. Some councils with very large one-party majorities manage to resist those temptations and operate very well. But it is not the right way to do things.
I have always believed that a system of proportional representation would come to local government first. It seemed to me that local government was ideally suited to a more proportionate system. I have been proved wrong. If it does come to local government, it will do so last. We have already seen proportionate systems in Scotland and Wales, and Northern Ireland has had such a system for many years. Now we are to have such a system in London.
A more proportionate system for councils, reflecting more accurately the outcome of the votes cast, has long been necessary. It still is necessary, and will be so whatever the council structure. But if anything, it becomes even more necessary if councils are to adopt the system of an executive mayor, whereby great power is vested in the hands of one person and a strong and important scrutiny role is given to the rest of the council. In such circumstances it is even more important that an assembly or council reflects the views of voters as a whole. The present first-past-the-post system does not do so.
The last time we discussed the voting system for elected mayors, one of the arguments put forward by the Minister for not changing the system was that we have adopted it for London and therefore we must follow the practice for the rest of the country. I now put that argument back to the Minister. We have
382
adopted a kind of proportional system of voting for the Greater London Authority. In responding to me on Tuesday, the Minister argued that what is right for London must be right for the country. I suggest that the same argument applies here.
The amendment deliberately does not propose any particular voting system. It proposes a Commission— not one that sits for ever and whose report is then put on a shelf, but one which will quickly review all the work that has been done in this area and report within one year on the various proposals. That would include the first-past-the-post system. We do not prescribe the outcome, although I have a strong view on what it should not be. The Commission should examine this one issue, which the Government have remarkably failed to address in spite of all the misgivings that they have expressed about one-party states, and in spite of all the other measures they have adopted, some good, some less good, in an attempt to deal with that. They have persistently failed to tackle the one issue above all that would deal with the dominance of one-party states where the votes of the electors are not necessarily for one party.
I hope that we shall receive a positive response from the Government. The issue is of great concern to many people in and concerned about local government. It now demands attention, especially following the welcome changes that have taken place in all the other electoral systems except that for Westminster. I look forward to a positive response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Lipsey: I am sorry to detain the Committee at this point. I shall do so briefly. I oppose the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, although I sympathise with many of his arguments. My opposition is on two grounds. One is the doctrine of "unripe time". We are presently in the rather turbulent aftermath of the first PR elections held in Scotland and Wales and under the new system for Europe. It is not a very good time to take an objective look at the system for local government, even though the amendment would allow a year's grace before the inquiry would be established.
My second reason for opposing the amendment is that, having had some experience of inquiries. I know that it is the devil's own job to get Ministers to accept the results, even when they have set the inquiries up themselves with enormous enthusiasm at the beginning. The chances of getting anywhere with an inquiry about which the Secretary of State might not be so enthusiastic are not very high.
However, I have some sympathy with the spirit of the proposal. Perhaps I may briefly say why. There is a case to be considered for changing the system of election for local government. There are the arguments put by the noble Lord: a monopoly council such as Newham, where, with less than 60 per cent of the vote, Labour holds all the seats. There are perverse results in local government. Croydon springs to mind, where Labour is nearly 8 per cent behind the Conservatives in its share of the vote but has an overall majority.

383
There is also the lack of interest that the electoral system creates. I note that, in 1996, in Barnsley, 14 of the 22 seats on the council went uncontested. That is bad for local government.
In Scotland, first-past-the-post is indefensible because there are four parties. The McIntosh inquiry recommended change in Scotland, and a working group is now studying the detail. There is a case for carrying such proposals forward here. An inquiry would have at least three central purposes. One would be to canvass arguments for and against change. This is not a case as in the Jenkins proposals where the arguments are fairly well known and the job of the Jenkins Commission was to come up with the best possible alternative to be put before the people in a referendum. It is a case where the arguments have not been well considered and require objective examination.
Secondly, many people who talk freely about this subject do not know what the alternative systems would be and what would be their advantages. Just because Jenkins came up with AV + for Westminster, it does not mean that AV + would be right for local authorities. There is a much stronger case for the STV system for local government. In local government, essentially one wants to give quite a lot of weight to the individual candidates and rather less weight than in national elections to the party. That aspect should be examined.
The third important issue is whether any change that was introduced should be introduced nationally or by local option. There is a serious case to be made out for local experimentation and local option, so that we could feel our way towards a better system without plumping for a particular proposal straightaway. All those matters would be for an eventual inquiry to decide. I do not have the answers now. I hope, however, that in rejecting the amendment the Committee will leave the Minister with some sense that, when the time is no longer unripe and perhaps the Secretary of State's mind has moved more towards openness than it has in the past, he will consider such an inquiry. It could lead to a valuable and helpful national debate.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the prospect of a more "ripe" Secretary of State is an interesting one. When the Secretary of State becomes more ripe, he or she may see the need to connect the issue of electoral reform and the type of election with the matters dealt with in Part IV of the Bill; namely, the timing of elections and whether they are for all councillors or merely for some. It does not seem sensible to send
384
groups of authorities down one course, thereby putting back the debate, because it would be more difficult to make the change sequentially. It is important that the matters are considered together. That is the reason why we have proposed a Commission. We do not seek to impose a particular method, although our preferences would be those described by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey.
Lord Whiny: Noble Lords who have spoken in this debate may believe that they have received a totally negative response to their amendments today. We do not believe that a change to the electoral system is a priority in local government. We believe that the main priority is to make councillors more responsive to their electorates and that the framework that we are putting in place will ensure that that happens. We consider local government modernisation to be more fundamental than the type of electoral system used. A number of Royal Commissions have looked at alternative electoral systems and we do not need another one. We would have enough information already if we were ever to move down that road, but we do not intend to move down that road or to legislate for it in this Bill.
The analogy with London is erroneous. In that assembly, members must take a strategic view across London whereas normally the essence of local government is that councillors are very much representatives of their own communities, so different arguments apply. In any case, we do not regard it as opportune, ripe or appropriate to insert this new clause in the Bill at this time. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the matter.
Lord Tope: The Minister does not leave much room for doubt in his reply. I thank him for at least giving a clear answer, even if it is the wrong one. I can think of few measures that are more likely to increase the accountability of councillors than to have a more representative voting system, but tonight is not the time to pursue the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clauses 64 to 67 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before six o'clock.

  Firearms National Register
  Firearms National Register
  Immigration and Asylum Act Provisions: Consultations
  Immigration and Asylum Act Provisions: Consultations
  Police Numbers
  Police Numbers
  Criminal Justice System and Race
  Criminal Justice System and Race
  Probation Officer Numbers
  Probation Officer Numbers
  Influenza
  Influenza
  Primary Care Groups: Midwife Representation
  Primary Care Groups: Midwife Representation
  Cardiac Operations, Great Ormond Street Hospital
  Cardiac Operations, Great Ormond Street Hospital
  "Living Wills"
  "Living Wills"
  International Action on Humanitarian Crises
  International Action on Humanitarian Crises
  Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar (Eriskay Causeway) Order Confirmation Bill
  Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar (Eriskay Causeway) Order Confirmation Bill
  Public Buildings: Fine Art
  Public Buildings: Fine Art
  Royal Parks Agency
  Royal Parks Agency
  New Opportunities Fund and Non-maintained Special Schools
  New Opportunities Fund and Non-maintained Special Schools
  Tourism Industry Training for Disabled People
  Tourism Industry Training for Disabled People
  Legislation: Compatibility with EU Law
  Legislation: Compatibility with EU Law