---

Column 1110

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Soames, Nicholas

Spencer, Sir Derek

Sproat, Iain

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Stewart, Allan

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Thurnham, Peter

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Tracey, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Trend, Michael

Trotter, Neville

Twinn, Dr Ian

Viggers, Peter

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Walden, George

Waller, Gary

Ward, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, Sir John

Whitney, Ray

Whittingdale, John

Widdecombe, Ann

Wilshire, David

Yeo, Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Tim Boswell and

Mr. Timothy Wood.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That, in the opinion of this House--

(1) The limit on the office costs allowance (subject to what follows) should be--

(a) for the year beginning in 1992, £39,960 ;

(b) for any quarter in the year beginning in 1993, the sum of £9, 990 (that is, a quarter, to the nearest pound, of £39,960) but increased by any percentage increase by which the standard secretarial salary applicable in that year has increased compared with the standard secretarial salary applicable in the preceding year ; and

(c) for any quarter in any subsequent year, the limit for a quarter in the preceding year but increased by any percentage increase by which the standard secretarial salary applicable in the subsequent year has increased compared with the standard secretarial salary applicable in the preceding year.

(2) The limit in relation to Mr. David Blunkett should be 2.57 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) above. (3) Any limit determined in accordance with this Resolution should be calculated to the nearest pound.

(4) In this Resolution--

(a) "year" means a period of twelve months beginning with 1st April ;

(b) "quarter" means a period of three months beginning with 1st April, 1st July, 1st October or 1st January.

(c) "the standard secretarial salary" means an amount consisting of the Standard Pay Point for a Senior Personal Secretary in the Home Civil Service in London and the Inner London Weighting.

(5) For the purposes of this Resolution the amount of the standard secretarial salary applicable in any year should be the amount specified by the Treasury as applicable in that year.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When the result of the first Division was announced, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster indicated with his fingers that the Division was for money only. For the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a senior Cabinet Minister, to indicate in that way is wrong. The Government would be the first people to criticise Opposition Members doing the same. I know that you, Madam Speaker, deprecate such behaviour, whether verbal or otherwise. I believe that it is wrong.

Madam Speaker : That is hardly a point of order for the Chair. Unbecoming gestures are sometimes made in the House. I deprecate them. My old eyes must have been a little sleepy tonight, because I did not notice the gesture.

---

Column 1111

PETITIONS

Hedgehog Protection

12.37 am

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe) : I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituents and the Hedgehog Protection Campaign. [Interruption.] This is an important issue. It arises from an unfortunate incident in Pocklington in North Humberside of deliberate cruelty to hedgehogs.

The campaign has been organised because hedgehogs and other wild mammals are not covered by any cruelty legislation. The petition was organised by Mrs. Bell of 363 Messingham road, Bottesford. It calls for a change in the law to protect such wild animals, as the worthy Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) would have done if it had been successful.

With permission, I should like to read the petition. It says : To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of residents in Glanford and Scunthorpe sheweth

That wild animals such as Hedgehogs are being subjected to deliberate acts of cruelty.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will bring forward a Bill that will make cruelty towards wild animals such as Hedgehogs illegal.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray &c. To lie upon the Table.

Poll Tax (Lambeth)

12.39 am

Ms. Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) : I have pleasure in presenting a petition from the residents of Carey gardens and Patmore estate, which are in the unfortunate situation of crossing the border between the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Lambeth. The petitioners are concerned about a fundamental injustice. They have to pay high rents and high poll tax because they pay poll tax to Lambeth and rent to Wandsworth. That does not seem to make sense, there is no apparent geographical reason for it, and they have the worst of both worlds.

I therefore present

to the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

The Humble Petition of the residents of Carey Gardens and Patmore Estate on the Border of the London Boroughs of Lambeth and Wandsworth

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House take note of the anomalous situation of those who live in Carey Gardens and Patmore Estate, who have to pay high rent to Wandsworth and high poll tax to Lambeth, and resolves to take urgent action to relieve us of this unfair financial burden.

To lie upon the Table.

---

Column 1112

Hedgehog Protection

12.40 am

Mr. Hugh Bayley (York) : My constituents are also outraged at the treatment of hedgehogs and by the same incident which provoked my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) to present a petition.

I want to present a petition from Mrs. Pat Murgatroyd, who runs a hedgehog haven in 43 Foxwood lane, York. Her petition is supported by 888 signatures from the York area. The petition protests

That four fifteen and sixteen year old boys, accused of causing unnecessary suffering to a hedgehog by dropping rocks on it, kicking it and beating it with a fence post and thereby breaking almost every bone in its body, walked free from a juvenile court in Pocklington, Humberside in April 1992 because the Protection of Animals Act 1911 covers only cruelty to captive creatures and it was judged that this hedgehog had not been captured.

Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your honourable House bring about an Act of Parliament which will give hedgehogs legal protection against deliberate acts of cruelty.

To lie upon the Table.

RN Stores Depot, Eaglescliffe

12.42 am

Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North) : I seek leave to present a petition on behalf of some of my constituents, namely, A. Dudman of Priory gardens, Norton, C. Davies of Northpark, Billingham, B. Haughton of Hillside road, Norton and others.

It is a parallel, formalised edition of a less orderly petition which was presented at 12.30 pm yesterday toNo. 10 Downing street for the attention of the Prime Minister. It refers to proposals to relocate 180 key jobs, covering core management and control procedures at the royal naval stores depot at Eaglescliffe in Stockton-on-Tees. Those proposals make no sense, in terms of efficiency, efficacy, organisation or economics. The proposals run directly counter to commitments said to have been given by the Prime Minister in promising departmental jobs to the north-east. It would seem that the trawl that he promised has succeeded in doing no more than bringing a cake factory and the suggestion that those 180 jobs should be removed to the south-west, to Bath.

In the north-east we have the proper equipment and qualified staff to cover the jobs. However one views the proposals it makes no sense to move the jobs, the staff or the equipment to the south-west. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Defence to abandon the proposal to transfer the 180 jobs from Eaglescliffe.

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, &c. To lie upon the Table.

12.45 am

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar) : I, too, should like to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents about the loss of 180 jobs as a result of job movements from Eaglescliffe to the south. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said, that decision is contrary to current Government policy, which states that they are interested in bringing jobs to the north-east--the exact opposite is happening. On behalf of my petitioners I pray that

---

Column 1113

your honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Defence to abandon the proposal to transfer the 180 jobs from Eaglescliffe. To lie upon the Table.

12.45 am

Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : I rise on behalf my constituent and petitioner, Michael Bateman of 7 Ustead road, Middlesbrough, who also makes a humble petition on behalf of the work force of the Royal Naval stores depot at Eaglescliffe.

The petition opposes the closure of those particular works and the proposition of Her Majesty's Government to create a centralised naval support command in Bath. That would necessitate the loss of 180 jobs in the royal naval stores depot at Eaglescliffe near Stockton-on-Tees in the county of Cleveland.

I have presented the petition to draw attention to the fact that we are in a recession that is deep and deepening, which is causing great dismay to the people of Cleveland. Their great fear is that the loss of those 180 jobs will add to that dismay.

To lie upon the Table.

12.46 am

Mr. Alan Milburn (Darlington) : In common with my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), I too present a petition on behalf of my constituents who work at the Eaglescliffe royal navy stores depot.

As my hon. Friends have said, 180 jobs are under threat as a result of the decision to transfer those jobs from Eaglescliffe to Bath. That decision reverses the normal mechanism of regional policy which moves jobs from the south to the north.

Five of my constituents have signed the petition, Brian Hildon, Ruth Cooke, Barry Clarke, Jean Davies and Christine Kane. Yesterday, a petition with 6,000 names was presented to 10 Downing street. The decision has excited a great deal of concern in my constituency and in the general area. It is a matter of great import. I beg to present that petition.

To lie upon the Table.

---

Column 1114

Local Government Pensioners (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. David Davis.]

12.47 am

Mr. Norman Hogg (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) : I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House, and I shall seek to be as brief as possible. I am also grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for being here to answer the debate.

The purpose of the debate is to ask the Government to ensure that local government pensioners in Scotland receive outstanding sums due to them for the period from April 1987 to March 1989. The underpayment was due to a computer error in calculating the retail prices index, which was reported as 0.1 per cent. too low for most of the period from February 1986 to December 1987. As a result, local government and other public service pensioners received cost of living increases to their pensions which were less than they should have been for the period from April 1987 to March 1989.

The cost of living increase agreed to operate from April 1989 included a factor to adjust for the computer error from that date onwards, but still left outstanding the underpayment for the period from April 1987 to March 1989. The sum involved was more than £7 million.

In England and Wales, local authorities were able to make retrospective compensatory payments at an average rate calculated by the Department of Environment to be £2 per £1,000 of pension. The Secretary of State for the Environment has authority under the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to sanction certain payments by local authorities that they would otherwise be unable legally to make. He said that he would be prepared to do so in this case.

The Secretary of State for Scotland has no similar statutory powers. As a result, while local government pensioners in England and Wales have received some compensation, those in Scotland have not. In the case of some services for which the Government are themselves the paymaster, a lump sum has been given to one or more charities. It is understood that it will be used to assist needy pensioners or their dependants, but not necessarily the people who were deprived of the money due to the computer error. That solution was not acceptable to the employers or the relevant trade unions representing the pensioners in Scotland.

The local government officers' union, NALGO, raised the matter at an early stage with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and I should make it clear that at no time have COSLA or individual local authorities in Scotland shown any reluctance to pay the pensioners what is morally due to them. Their problem is that they have no legal authority to pay.

In September 1990, COSLA formally raised the matter with the Scottish Office superannuation division. The reply on 2 December 1991 held out no prospect of legislation and suggested that local authorities might find some other type of solution, such as donations to charities. It said :

"The Convention's finance committee may wish to consider whether they could recommend to Scottish local authorities that they should adopt a solution on these lines."

It is not surprising that COSLA did not feel able to recommend that local authorities should give to charity moneys that morally belonged to other people.

---