|Previous Section||Home Page|
Column 577despite the demands placed on them by difficult road conditions and high usage. Warrior is probably the best infantry fighting vehicle in the world. Last July, we placed an order with Vickers Defence Systems for a further 259 Challenger 2 tanks in addition to the 127 tanks already on order. That will permit the Army to field an all- Challenger 2 tank fleet--probably the best tank fleet in the world.
We expect to make progress this summer on a further major enhancement of the Army's anti-armour capability when we choose an attack helicopter. The final stages of evaluating the bids in the competition are now in progress, and that important programme is expected to cost some £2 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and the hon. Member for Motherwell, North asked me about the attack helicopter. I am glad to tell them and the House where we stand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham advanced the case for the Cobra Venom, which, if selected, would be manufactured in Rochester. We need approximately 100, but the number that we procure will depend on the response to tenders. That is the order of magnitude. Our colleagues in France and Germany will probably procure more than that. I hope that the decision will be made before the House rises for the summer recess, and we therefore aim for a June decision. The date has slipped slightly because the competition has involved six contestants and we have gone into the matter very thoroughly. Final offers have either just been, or are about to be, submitted and we shall seek to reach a conclusion in June.
I expect the in-service date to be at the end of the decade. We are not seeking to confuse the House, but it is difficult to be precise until we know what further development work is needed on the attack helicopter that we choose.
The Royal Artillery is also benefiting from new equipment. Deliveries of the British-developed AS90 self-propelled 155 mm gun will be completed this year, giving the Royal Artillery a greatly increased depth-fire capability. The system is widely recognised as world beating and I am grateful for the kind comments that were made about it.
Those programmes will provide an impressive addition to the fire power and capability of the modern British Army. I pay tribute to the retiring Master -General of the Ordnance, General Sir Jeremy Blacker, who has done an outstanding job, and I look forward to working with his successor in due course.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North asked a number of questions about standardisation, inter-operability and Angola. On standardisation, it is not simply a question of buying off the shelf from the Americans. It is important to work closely with our colleagues, particularly in France and Germany, because they have similar-sized armies and similar requirements.
I am keen to make progress with replacing our multi-role armoured vehicles, which carry casualties from and take ammunition to the battlefield; we are in discussion with our opposite numbers about that. In terms of the doctrine of use--wheels versus track--the vehicle size and the timing of our requirements, we could enter a collaborative programme. However, we shall do that only if our colleagues in France and Germany agree to a
Column 578competition before we place an order. We shall see whether we are successful, but that is one example of inter- operability. The hon. Gentleman asked me where we stood on Angola. I can confirm that the United Kingdom has agreed in principle to a United Nations request to provide a logistics battalion for the peacekeeping operation in Angola. It will, however, be essential that both the parties in Angola meet their obligations under the United Nations plan. As part of that, we shall obviously wish to satisfy ourselves that appropriate contingency plans have been considered. We shall also ensure that our troops are issued with appropriate rules of engagement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who explained that he could not be with us for the winding-up speeches, raised a number of issues. The first was Private Clegg. My hon. Friend echoed the view that I know is held by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that the rules of engagement in Northern Ireland should have legal status.
The yellow card summarises guidance on the law and does not in itself create any legal rights. The suggestion that compliance with the yellow card might be an automatic defence against a criminal charge is among the matters to be considered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in his review of the law in relation to murder as it applies to persons engaged in the maintenance of law and order. The Ministry of Defence is co-operating fully in that review.
In respect of the yellow card, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, we keep its contents under review and have amended it to make it more explicit that soldiers should not be justified in opening fire solely because a car has caused injury.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster also raised the issue of training, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks). I visited the British Army training unit Suffield some six or seven years ago as a Defence Minister. The training range at Suffield in Canada is a superb facility and we want to see more training abroad, not only because it is difficult to exercise above a relatively low level in Britain because of the size of our ranges, but for environmental and other reasons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport asked about Belize. Our current jungle training programme fully meets our requirements and although we keep the matter under review, there are currently no plans to send battalion- sized groups. We currently send a company-sized group to Belize. Very often, the training facilities available to us depend upon the wishes of the host Government and we must respect that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster raised the issue of tour intervals. I confirm what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said: that if we are able to bring troops back from Northern Ireland, which I am sure is the fervent hope and desire of both Front Benches, that will not mean a reduction in the size of the field Army. Soldiers who are serving there, in particular the regiments that have served in Northern Ireland in the past, will welcome my reaffirmation of that clear principle.
As to the request for the arms plot for 1994-95 and 1995-96 so that the Select Committee can work out what the tour intervals have been and will be, I am sure that
Column 579my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will provide that to the Select Committee. I see no reason why we should not do that.
The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) started off in an uncontroversial way by referring to Benbecula. I confirm that we intend to continue using Benbecula, as it is an excellent facility. We test the Rapier missile system there and we have no plans to renege on that commitment.
The hon. Gentleman went on to attack General Rose's judgment. He immediately drew condemnation from the Opposition Front Bench and certainly from the Government Front Bench. I am grateful to my hon. Friends who endorsed the view taken by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and myself. The hon. Gentleman surely falls into the trap for which he is incorrectly blaming General Rose--that of being partial. The hon. Gentleman is being partial. He is claiming that General Rose did or did not do certain things to defend one of the parties involved in that sad conflict. I am grateful to Opposition Front-Bench Members for what they said on the subject. General Rose demonstrated balance, impartiality, diligence and determination and the Government are committed to defending his quite exceptional performance under very difficult circumstances.
I apologise for missing the speech of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey); it is one of the few that I did not hear during the debate. He spoke warmly about the cadet forces, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I share those sentiments. I must share a secret with the House, which I have not revealed to my hon. Friend: I served in the school combined cadet force and I rose to the rank of WO1. What is more, I received the joint services cadet badge from Frimley. I am a great supporter of the cadet forces.
Mr. Chidgey: I repeat the question that I asked in my speech, which, unfortunately, the Minister did not hear. According to the "Options for Change" document, the Government intend to continue to fund the cadet forces after some "rationalisation". Will the Minister confirm that that does not mean a decrease in financial support for the cadet forces?
Mr. Freeman: It would be wrong for me to give precise assurances when we are still discussing the long-term costings. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I speak for the Secretary of State, the Minister and myself when I say that we are determined to support the work of the cadet forces, not only for broader military reasons, but for social reasons. It would be foolish for any Minister to come to the House and announce significant funding reductions, and I do not intend to do that. There are 65,000 cadets in the Army cadet force and the school combined cadet forces and some 8,000 volunteer adult instructors. They perform a valuable service.
I am informed that the hon. Member for Eastleigh professed not to know what his leader's policy was in relation to lifting the arms embargo.
Mr. Freeman: If that is not so, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. The defence spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), made a very sensible
Column 580contribution during the Royal Navy debate. However, I am not sure that his speech accords with the sentiments expressed by the leader of the Liberal Democrats. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should advise his senior colleagues to get their act together on that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key)--a former colleague at the Department of Transport who I hope will now become a respected voice on military matters in the House--raised a number of issues. I shall read his speech again and reply in writing to his specific points. However, I would like to comment on two of the matters that he raised.
The research carried out at Porton Down for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is extremely important. It will become part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency on 1 April. I recently visited the CBDE, and I join my hon. Friend in wishing Graham Pearson all the best in his retirement later this year. He has done a fine job.
I do not think that the work at Porton Down is understood properly and I hope that the House will adopt a bipartisan approach in that area. I understand that the matter may be raised in the House at another time, perhaps during an Adjournment debate, and if it is, I am sure that the Government will respond positively and constructively to any suggestions that hon. Members may make about the management of Porton Down.
It is our clear intention to transfer all the married quarters into the private sector. There are a number of reasons for doing that. First, we need to raise sufficient cash to improve the quality of the married quarters through refurbishment and modernisation. That has always been a low priority for Defence Ministers, because our prime commitment is obviously to the front line. I am sure that that news will be welcomed by the troops. Secondly, maintenance and the sale of surplus properties should be undertaken by experts in the private sector rather than by the Ministry of Defence.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow raised a number of questions, and I shall try to answer some of them now. However, I shall re-read his speech and answer his other points in writing. We are looking for land to establish more training ranges for the Army in Scotland. I cannot go into detail at the moment, but as soon as the Army and Ministers reach a decision, either the Minister of State for the Armed Forces or I will bring those proposals to the House. I think that that will be welcomed, by the Army and certainly in terms of employment prospects in Scotland.
With regard to pregnancies and the role of women in the armed forces, I make it quite plain that we are very supportive. Yesterday our first lady fast-jet pilot, a flight lieutenant, flew a Tornado excellently from Lossiemouth. We welcome women who become pregnant and come back into the armed forces after their maternity leave. They must understand that they must make themselves fully available for deployment worldwide and assume responsibility for bringing up their children; that is their decision. But if they decide to come back into the armed forces and have made proper provision, we welcome their participation. Frankly, the investment in training and the development of their expertise is important to retain in the armed forces.
With regard to the Gulf war syndrome, British personnel who believe that they are suffering unexplained illness as a result of their service in the Gulf have been
Column 581repeatedly invited to come forward for medical assessment. To date, 240 serving and former personnel have come forward. The onus is on them to make themselves available for proper medical examination. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport raised a number of issues, but in particular the role of the reserves. The Ministry of Defence wants reservists to play a full and integrated--in so far as that can be done--role with our Regular forces. A Territorial Army platoon has already served in the Falklands. A TA company will begin a four-month assignment next month, and 30 TA personnel will be deployed to Bosnia in May this year with the Royal Welch Fusiliers. I agree with my hon. Friend's comments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) talked about training our forces. Salisbury plain is under pressure. We need to look, as I said earlier, at training abroad. The Air Force does low-flying training in Goose bay. The Army trains in Suffield. We must carefully examine prospects, perhaps in eastern Europe, where it is possible to train. I believe that simulation in training is important, particularly for the Air Force. We must also look at vacated sites in the United Kingdom, where we have wound down the involvement of the armed forces, and then we can consider use of those sites.
With regard to training others, I agree about the importance of defence attache s and training overseas students in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) raised the issue of the Reserve Forces Bill, as did the hon. Member for Carlisle, who replied for the Opposition. We plan to publish soon a draft Bill for consultation. The timing depends not on Ministers but on Parliamentary Counsel's timetable, as they are a limited resource in Whitehall. As soon as we have the draft-- it is at an advanced stage--we shall publish it for consultation. I do not control the parliamentary timetable, and neither does my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, as the Opposition Chief Whip knows full well, but I hope that we can introduce the Bill in the next Session of Parliament. It will be unique that we shall have consulted on the detail of the draft, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), in an excellent speech based on his experience, talked about stability. We are now looking to a period of stability in funding from 1 April. Broadly speaking, over the next three years, our resources will be at fixed level in real terms. We have already announced our manpower numbers, and further manpower cuts will not be made. No more cuts are coming. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North, who opened the debate, was disingenuous. Of course, "Options for Change" and "Front Line First" announcements still have to be worked through. We accept that. But the important point, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made very clear at the Conservative party conference, and which has also been made clear by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and by me many times, is that the armed forces--soldiers, sailors and airmen--can now look forward to a period of long-term stability.
Column 582I am not making a party political point. This is a perfectly serious point: if the hon. Gentleman aspires to government and if he believes that the first thing that he will do on achieving office in the Ministry of Defence will be to say, "We need a defence review," I can tell him that it will take him two years. At the end of that period, which will cause additional insecurity and instability, what will we have? We shall have the answers to questions that the hon. Gentleman is avoiding now.
Which commitments does the hon. Gentleman propose to cut? What proportion of the Government's total income is he prepared to devote to defence? The Opposition are avoiding those questions, and hiding behind a general statement: "Let's have a defence review." That is exactly what the armed forces do not want--and that is why I am confident that, if we were dividing on the motion, we would win. It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
That Standing Order No. 124A (Deregulation Committee) be amended, in line 52, by leaving out the word `sixteen' and inserting the word `eighteen'.-- [Mr. Wells.]
Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill): I wish to present a petition with more than 19,000 signatures collected by the Movement for Christian Democracy. The signatures are in addition to those that have already been submitted to the House by many right hon. and hon. Members from all parties.
The petition concerns the scandal of overseas aid funds being given to organisations which in turn fund the appalling and abusive Chinese population control programme, which involves forced contraception, forced sterilisation and forcible abortions for Chinese women. The petition reads:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble petition of the citizens of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland
That the UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) and the IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) receive money from the Overseas Aid Budget and in turn support the Chinese Population Control Programme which abuses the human rights of the people of China through forced contraception, sterilisation and abortion leading to infanticide and physical damage to women.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will ensure that no further funds from the Overseas Aid budget are disbursed to the UNFPA and IPPF while these organisations support, encourage, or act as apologists for the Chinese Population Control Programme.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. To lie upon the Table.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Wood.]
I thank Madam Speaker for the opportunity to raise the subject of the level of council tax that is being paid in my city of Liverpool--the highest in the land--and the reasons for it. Those reasons are a combination of the effects of the standard spending assessment formula, mismanagement of resources and crippling and debilitating debts. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the Environment for seeing me earlier and accepting a dossier compiled by Paddy Shennan of the Liverpool Echo , which set out a number of concerns that had been raised in the local media.
I thank the Under-Secretary for being present to answer the debate, and for the long-term interest that I know that he has shown since our days together on the Environment Select Committee, especially in regards to housing issues connected with Liverpool. I also thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), who, I know, shares in particular my views on the SSA formula and the calculation used to determine the amount of national resources to be made available to the city.
There is a certain inevitability in the fact that every year, as councils set their budgets for the following 12 months, city treasurers, finance committee members and council leaders issue warnings of impending doom. Even before the daffodils have bloomed, we will have been warned of record increases, and dire prophecies will have been uttered about cuts in services and job losses. Then, hey presto, as if by magic--certainly, it will be claimed, through the brilliance of the same council leaders and officials--the books will be balanced, and the bills are never quite as bad as the forecasts. Whatever pain is inflicted is, according to local government, entirely the fault of central Government. Ministers often respond in kind, laying the blame at the door of local councils. Because those forecasts have been made so monotonously and so regularly, and because mutual recrimination has become such a tedious ritual, the truth has tended to be the first casualty in the midst of all the propaganda. I hope that the debate will be an honest attempt to consider the causes of the current financial crisis in Liverpool and the start of an attempt to put those right. Blame must be shared for the problems that face the city. A shared approach to sorting out those problems is needed.
Locally, plenty of reasons exist as to why we are already paying the highest council taxes in the country. The stark truth is that Liverpool needs to put its council in order. The council's debt amounts to more than £750 million, bigger than the debt of some developing countries. I asked the House of Commons Library to compile a list of countries whose national debt is greater than our local debt. It was interesting to find that countries such as Albania, Cambodia, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti and Uzbekistan have smaller national debts than Liverpool.
The practical outworking of that debt is that, each and every day, council tax payers in Liverpool must find £200,000, which is paid back to moneylenders. It costs
Column 584each person on Liverpool's electoral roll £3 a week simply to pay back the moneylenders. To some extent, the "sins of our fathers" are being visited on the present generation. Many of our inherited debts were accumulated under Liverpool's militant Labour leadership. Not a penny of that £200,000 daily bill is available for the jobs and services that it talked about so much at the time.
Usurious rates of interest, grinding loans and crippling debts are destroying Liverpool's economy. Nor have we done ourselves any favours by the "can't pay, won't pay" culture, which has been actively promoted by some people. Last year, the city treasurer estimated that 5 per cent. of the council tax would not be collected. The effect of uncollected council tax, poll tax and rates on every other citizen in Liverpool has been disastrous. Last year alone, the cost of non-collection put almost £48 on the bills of the average B and D band taxpayer.
Although collection rates have improved this year--that is to be welcomed-- there is still an enormous distance to travel in challenging a civic culture that has encouraged citizens to opt out of payments, and to ignore their obligation to the rest of community. With £68 million in uncollected poll tax and council taxes, we have the second highest deficit in the land. The "can't pay, won't pay" culture hurts not the Government, but every other Liverpool citizen, including the elderly, the poorest and the most vulnerable, many of whom struggle to pay their bills faithfully.
There is the issue of waste and sheer mismanagement. Last year, I asked the district auditor to investigate Liverpool's cable television contract. Liverpool was supposed to have made a profit of £2 million on the contract. At end of the fiasco, it turned into a deficit of £5.5 million, and the city is now embroiled in expensive litigation. The district auditor has rightly issued a damning indictment.
The sum of £8 million was committed for the new civic centre in Queen's square, a site that the council bought for £750,000, and then sold for £250,000 to a developer who will now receive £8 million to develop it. That is financial illiteracy. It is also hard to understand how nearly £2 million was spent on taxis and chauffeur-driven cars, how £500,000 was spent on mobile telephone bills, and how £1 million was paid in bonuses for work that was never done.
In addition, an estimated £1 million has been lost on letting council houses to council staff at peppercorn rents; another £1.4 million was written off on unpaid rates by street and market traders last year; £2 million was lost on a poorly advised computer deal; and £2.5 million worth of building supplies has been lost over five years. The position has been so bad that bailiffs have arrived at the council's offices on nine separate occasions to make it pay its debts.
The current council deficit is about £44 million and we are facing a deficit of £60 million. Last year's increase of 20 per cent. on the council tax will be matched by a rise of up to 11 per cent. in the next 12 months. Again, we shall be paying the highest council taxes in the country for some of the poorest services. All that is in a city that is designated as objective 1 by the European Community. In the next 12 months, the Government will provide about £423 million to support the city. That figure is based on the standard spending assessment. The current methodology, which uses the social index to measure social deprivation, is a mysterious mumbo-jumbo, about
Column 585as precise as a magical incantation. Under that formula, Liverpool emerges as the 48th most deprived authority in the United Kingdom, behind councils such as Westminster, which the formula says is fourth most deprived, as well as Bath, Norwich, Brighton and Wandsworth. The children's social services SSA is particularly distorted in Liverpool. In that city, 40 per cent. of households and families live below the poverty line. I raised this matter on the Floor of the House a year ago and during the recent statement made by the Secretary of State. I know that Ministers recognise the problem and they are to be commended for that, but, nevertheless, Liverpool still lost £11 million on the children's SSA last year and will do so again--the third year running--in 1995-96 unless urgent action is taken.
The practical working out of that means that £13,707 is available for a child at risk on the child protection register in Liverpool. That compares with £17,412 for a child on a similar list in Birmingham, £15,934 for a child in Manchester, £27,008 for a child in Wandsworth and £30,874 for a child in Westminster. How can that possibly be justified? If a child is at risk in central London, more than twice as much money is made available for his care.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was first established as a national charity in Liverpool a century ago. I am currently the president of its local branch. Children at risk from physical or sexual abuse, poverty or neglect, should not be the losers in this annual Dutch auction, as they clearly are at the moment.
The SSA does not take into account the condition of either public or private housing. In a city where 30,000 council properties and 60, 000 private sector properties are officially sub-standard, that is patently absurd. The social index is obsessed with the type and size of housing, so the formula is fatally flawed in that respect as well. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how the Department will be reviewing those procedures.
Even more perversely, the Government's own index of local conditions, which combines social and economic indicators to determine overall deprivation, ranks Liverpool as the sixth most deprived authority in the country, yet the social index places us 84th in the league. In real terms, that puts an additional burden of £28 million--36 per cent.--on our social services bill. Put another way, the social index leads to Westminster gaining £18.3 million in SSA this year while we in Liverpool lose £845,000.
The annual calculation also includes an area cost adjustment. That leads to an extra £1.5 billion of SSA being distributed to authorities in the south-east. There is no corroborating evidence to confirm that the cost of providing services in the south-east is so substantially greater than it is in the northern conurbations such as Liverpool that it justifies that redistribution.
The situation is exacerbated by the outrageous way in which the business rates have been settled this year. It has benefited stores, shops and businesses in the south-east, while regions such as the north-west are being crucified. I commend to the Minister Disraeli's maxim of "one nation" as the Government consider this unequal north-south division of resources.
Column 586Liverpool has a lot going for it, not least its people, its ingenuity, wit and grit. If it is to prosper, it needs to have its financial crisis resolved once and for all.
Mrs. Jane Kennedy (Liverpool, Broadgreen): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I know that we are under pressure of time and would not expect him to deal with the current Labour administration, but I appreciate his comments about the efforts being made to tackle many of the problems.
Has the hon. Gentleman considered how the way in which funding is calculated affects the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority and, indeed, the police authority? Is he aware that the Merseyside fire and civil defence authority has just sent a letter to the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for the Environment, which refers to the
"masterful inactivity coupled with callous indifference" displayed by the Government?
Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady has, characteristically, made her point effectively. I am sure that the Minister will deal with it, and I associate myself with her remarks. Time is moving on and I must leave the Minister with half the available time in which to reply properly.
I was saying that there is only so much that people can take. Grinding council tax bills are leaving people demoralised and depressed. Council tax bills in Liverpool have become a curse. Objective 1 offers us a unique opportunity but it is illogical to place the highest council tax burden in the country on an area declared to be one of the most deprived in Europe. There is also the additionality argument. There is a suspicion that the Government have used the declaration of objective 1 status to reduce their own spending commitments in the region in the hope that objective 1 money will make up the difference.
In addition, the capping mechanisms are making it extremely difficult for Liverpool to identify matching funding to draw down objective 1 grant. I was appalled to learn that, of the 106 European regional development fund applications made by December 1994, which were worth £30 million, 100 have still not been given approval. In other words, only six applications have been approved. Projects such as the A565 approach to the north docks, which had previously been given the go-ahead by the Departments of the Environment and of Transport, are now having to begin again because they are part of the objective 1 status. It is all process and no product, expectation and little result. Objective 1 is in danger of losing its momentum and impetus as the process silts up.
I have admitted honestly that Liverpool must put its own house in order, but it is obvious that at least half the responsibility lies with the Government. All of us must now become genuine partners in rooting out inefficiency, maladministration, red tape and unfair financial mechanisms.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I welcome the debate, especially as it has been secured by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who is a former colleague on the Select Committee on the Environment. He has set out his concerns for the financial
Column 587position of one of England's great cities. It is right that the matters that he has raised should be considered in the House. Liverpool city council today is somewhat different from the council of a decade ago. I acknowledge that the present political leadership of the city has tried to pull itself back into the mainstream of local government performance. The auditor still criticises them from time to time, as she did last November about overpayments to staff, but the response of the city leaders nowadays is generally responsible and realistic. However, they have a considerable distance to go in some respects, and the hon. Gentleman highlighted some of them tonight--council tax collection and housing repairs are two examples, although they are scarcely unique.
As the city has moved from confrontation to co-operation with initiatives that bring benefits to it, Merseyside has benefited greatly in the past few years. To date, a total of £55 million has been spent on city challenge initiatives, and a similar sum is in prospect. Over five years, more than one third of a billion pounds of private investment is expected, creating more than 10,000 jobs and more than 500 new business start-ups.
Liverpool has also been successful in the single regeneration budget. Both bids from the city council as lead partner were successful. The scheme at Speke and Garston will receive £17.5 million over five years, levering a further £130 million from other public or private sector sources. The scheme is a mix of employment and industrial development measures which should improve the quality of life for local residents. A second scheme--at Dingle--will receive £6.7 million over five years. It is expected to lever in more than six times as much from other sources and it should revive a very rundown residential and shopping neighbourhood close to the city centre. I hope, too, that the city council will begin to look at solutions for housing areas like Speke, such as large-scale voluntary transfers, so that standards can be improved and empty dwellings brought back into use.
As the hon. Member for Mossley Hill said, Liverpool's position has also been recognised by the European Community. We strongly supported Merseyside's case for objective 1 status. Objective 1 is a major opportunity for Merseyside, and for Liverpool in particular. The city has secured an acceptable level of resources under round one of the bidding. That includes major developments in the city centre, at Queen's square, and for other initiatives, such as its film office and community-based economic development.
If the city puts the necessary effort into preparing and implementing its bids, it should do well out of the competitive objective 1 process. We welcome the close involvement of the city in objective 1, which could make a major further contribution to the development in the city, for example in the Speke and Garston area and in north Liverpool.
The objective 1 process has recently been the subject of a thorough review, to ensure that it is transparent and equitable. Local authorities, including Liverpool, have been fully involved in that review at a political level. The Government are determined to ensure that the structural funds are allocated fairly, to the best projects: those which will have the greatest and most lasting effects on the economy of Merseyside. The support from our inner-city
Column 588policies and from Europe are all contributing to the improvement of the physical fabric of the city, and the opportunities for economic regeneration.
The city council's continuing task is to enable the provision of local government services for Liverpool--a business spending approaching £500 million a year. Liverpool, like most of the rest of local government, obtains most of its finance from central Government, rather than from council tax payers. In its 1994-95 budget, less than a quarter of its budget requirement was to be met from council tax payers. The council tax has to bridge the gap between the authority's budget and the central Government support that it receives. The basis for that central Government support, therefore, will always attract attention.
The key to the central Government support for a local authority is its standard spending assessment, or SSA. That is the Government's assessment of what an authority would need to spend if all authorities with like responsibilities for services provided those services to a similar standard. Clearly, the cost of providing a common standard of services will differ between authorities. Some authorities will have a relatively large number of children to educate, others relatively few. Some authorities have many miles of roads to maintain, others a relatively short length of roads. Such factors account for much of the variation between authorities in our assessment of the cost of a common standard of service.
We accept, however, that other factors are relevant. It would, for example, be too simple to base the assessment for education simply on the number of pupils. Other factors matter. For example, we allow for the fact that, in sparsely populated areas, there is bound to be more expenditure per pupil on transporting children to and from school than there would be in an urban area.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, however, social and economic factors also have an important bearing on the need for services and the cost of providing them. We seek to make proper allowance through the SSAs for the factors of social and economic disadvantage. The SSA formulae incorporate more than 20 indicators of that sort. By way of illustration, a few of those indicators are the number of children of lone parents, the number of children of income support claimants, the proportion of children from ethnic minorities, the proportion of pensioners living in rented accommodation, or living alone, or relying on income support, the proportion of people unemployed, the numbers of households accepted as homeless with priority needs and the numbers of housing benefit claimants.
That is not a complete list, but it serves to indicate how SSAs take account of many factors which are likely to give rise to differences between areas in needs because of the social or economic conditions of people in the area.
It is, of course, an extensive task to assess the relationships between such characteristics and the need for spending, but we tackle the task in a thoroughly objective way. We conduct extensive discussions with the local authority associations about the case for and against possible changes in the SSA formulae, we have a period of consultation with local government before each year's formula is considered by the House, and we publish detailed information about the formula and its basis. Indeed, that approach was commended in evidence to the Select Committee on the Environment and in the Committee's unanimous report on the subject, which was published when I had the honour to be its chairman.
Column 589The assessments share out a fixed national total among authorities. That, of course, means that one authority's gain is inevitably another's loss. So it is only to be expected that authorities are alert to arguing for changes which would work to their benefit, and against changes proposed by others, which would work to their disadvantage. Liverpool was one of almost 100 authorities which came to see Ministers this year to say how they would like standard spending assessments to be changed.
The city council made a number of points to us when it came on 11 January to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration. It was concerned about the changes introduced in 1994-95 for the part of the SSA relating to social services for children, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. As my hon. Friend the Minister told the House on 1 February, the Department of Health expects to commission research this year on which it might be possible to refine the SSA for children's social services. However, it would not be sensible to rush into further changes without sound material on which to base any alteration.
The city has also asked us to include in the elements of SSAs for education and social services the economic index that is used elsewhere in the SSAs. As with all parts of the SSAs, we are prepared to be persuaded by the objective evidence in support of alterations. Any change has to be defensible for authorities at large, not just for particular authorities such as Liverpool.
The city has been particularly critical of the social index used in the standard spending assessments. It asks, as the hon. Gentleman did, how it can be right that Liverpool is ranked 81st out of 364 authorities. That is a very selective approach to the evidence. On the economic index, Liverpool ranks sixth. On the social and economic indices combined, Liverpool ranks 17th. Indeed, of authorities outside London, only Manchester ranks higher.
Liverpool has a relatively low proportion of people in the ethnic minorities compared with some of the other major cities. It is not unreasonable that this difference should be reflected in the SSAs. Our analyses show that the numbers of people from the ethnic minorities are one of the factors associated with variations in local authorities' expenditure. Indeed, hon. Members from cities with large proportions of their population from the ethnic minorities urge us to make an even greater allowance for the extra expenditure of local authorities in supporting those groups.
I know, however, that some of the representatives of local government feel that we should look again at the indicators that reflect various forms of social and economic deprivation. My Department has, for instance, had developed an index of local conditions which some of the local authorities feel might be a preferable indicator for SSAs. If the local authority associations wish to set out the arguments for and against such a change, we should be willing to consider them.